President Obama spent much of the last week warning about the dire consequences of sequestration, but yesterday’s stock market gains have made many question the rhetoric that painted the sequester as a doomsday threat to the U.S. economy.
In fact, as Larry Kudlow stated in a recent article on townhall.com, “What, are we to believe that lower spending and smaller government damage the economy? Doesn’t that run counter to virtually every reasonably objective study in recent years — including ones from a number of U.S. academics and the OECD in Europe — that describe how countries with lower government spending grow more, and how countries with higher government spending grow less?”
Many are painting yesterday's stock market surge as showing that the sequester is pro-growth because it takes a step to lower spending and decrease the size of government.
- In our opinion: Research suggests that...
- Letter: No labels in 2016?
- John Florez: Businesses should help pay for...
- Letter: Our public lands
- Arthur Cyr: US presidential politics reflects...
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- In our opinion: Legislators need to better...
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 56
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 49
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 35
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- John Hoffmire: Electric cars and the... 20
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from... 19