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.
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are...
- Classical liberalism offers sole durable...
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- Who was the most narcissistic president?
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- In our opinion: Are we too pessimistic about...
- My view: 'Single issue' voters should...
- Michael Gerson: Tall order for GOP in ’16
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 48
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 42
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are... 34
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local... 31
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 28
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 27
- Classical liberalism offers sole... 27