Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
Labels: deficits
posted by John Lott at 7:34 PM
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-Interview with the Washington Post
-Debate on "Guns Reduce Crime"
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
-US Supreme Court Wire
-Futures for Financial Markets
-judgepedia
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Larry Elder's The Elder Statement
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
Firearmstruth.com -- a media-watchdog website
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Robert Stacy McCain's Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Elizabeth Blackney's blog
Eric Rasmusen
Your "Economics" Portal to the World by Larry Low
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Blog at Newsmax.com
Pieces I have written at BigGovernment.com
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
6 Comments:
Markie Marxist sez: "Yeah, if spending had been reduced in 2010 to the 2005 level the deficit would have only been $310 billion, not $1.3 trillion, but then we wouldn't have stuck the American people with such a huge bill for government, so it wouldn't have been good common communist sense. After all, we do want to increase taxation to one hundred percent. This helps! And that's why we did it."
First of all, the last time there was a surplus was under Clinton. It took Bush one year to turn the surplus into a deficit. When was the last time a Republican presided over a balanced budget?
Dwight Eisenhower, '56 & '57 with a Democratically controlled House and Senate. You seem to infer that Republicans need to control both to make this happen. Do you really believe that Republican want a balanced budget?
Dear LB:
As you know, the Republican congress had to drag Clinton towards that on multiple occasions. Note also that the Dems controlled the Senate for the first two years of the Bush administration. The point here is that the deficits were going down again when the Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency and then they went up again when the Democrats took control of congress again. Right.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Republican congress dragged Clinton towards a balanced budget. I believe that he found a way to compromise on issues with Newt with the goal of balancing the budget. Clinton submitted a balanced budget 3 years ahead of their schedule because of better economic condition than they anticipated.
The statement is accurate. The president submits a proposed budget but the House defines how the money will be spent through its powers from the Constitution. After the budget is submitted, the House follows it for the most part. It’s just the way we do things. From what I can tell, a Republican president hasn’t submitted a balanced budget since Nixon. If the Democrats who controlled the House for the most part hadn’t followed all of the Republican presidents that submitted budget imbalances over the last ~37 years, we wouldn’t have this much debt. It seem like we could stop the bleeding by not listening to the Republican presidents that don't submit a balanced budget. It seems like they like not paying taxes today so that they can borrowing against the future.
1) Congress got the budget in balance in half the time that Clinton had planned.
2) Possibly you remember the government shutdown that Clinton blamed on the Republicans trying to cut to much from the budget.
3) Possibly you remember the Clinton vetoes over spending cuts.
1) Congress didn't balance the budget. They followed the balanced budget that Clinton submitted. Tax revenues were more than anyone expected.
2) The shutdown accomplished nothing. The budget wasn't balanced until the next year.
3) It's called negociations. There were spending cuts and tax increases.
4) For the six years that Repubs controlled things during Bushes' term, no balanced budget, more welfare ( prescription drug plan,), no entitlement program cuts, junk legislation ( Patriot Act), basically the status quo.
5) Most Replubs are sell outs because if you cut stuff, you cannot channel it to your good ol' boy friends or you lose votes. Repubs are more interested in staying in power anyway they can.
6) We will see.
Post a Comment
<< Home