History is replete with examples of moments in time when we talk about deficit reduction and try to advance on it around the world, that is, where it leads to job losses, not job creation.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Economically, long-term joblessness means fewer dollars for consumption. For deficit control, it means fewer taxpayers contributing to government revenues and tens of billions more spent on unemployment insurance.
The fact of the matter is, this is a very dynamic economy we have, and in this dynamic economy, you have a lot of job gains, but you also have job loss.
Chronic deficits drastically reduce government's ability to make those infrastructure investments that business needs to grow and create jobs.
There are always, of course, job losses of a cyclical nature in a recession.
Deficits are like putting dynamite in the hands of children. They can get out of control very quickly.
Don't forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars.
Even when America's economy has been by all measures healthy and the unemployment rate low, some businesses suffer or fail and lay off workers. But nearly always, a simultaneous and even greater burst of new jobs has been created to offset the jobs lost - millions of new jobs every year.
If you lose control of your debt and deficit, you get massive cuts in things such as health and education. You get appalling insecurity, jobs lost, firms going overseas.
For those unfortunate enough to experience it, long-term unemployment - now, as in the 1930s - is a tragedy. And, for society as a whole, there is the danger that the productive capacity of a significant portion of the labour force will be impaired.
As anyone who lived through the 1990s knows, nothing shrinks our deficits faster than a growing economy.