Can the budget be balanced without raising taxes or shedding jobs?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Our budget problems are so large that solving them entirely through spending cuts would devastate the social safety net and slash investments essential for long-run growth and economic opportunity.


So revenue increases must be part of the package.


Increasing rates on top earners is an obvious way to raise revenue from those who can afford it most.


Cutting tax expenditures would probably have fewer undesirable incentive effects than raising marginal tax rates.


The nearly $500 billion of automatic fiscal contraction scheduled for the start of 2013 would cause a rapid rise in unemployment.


A crude rule of thumb is that every $100 billion of deficit reduction will cost close to a million jobs in the near term.


If that isn’t a reason to move gradually, what is?


But if you need another, just look at Europe.





http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/business/cutting-the-deficit-compassionately-economic-view.html

 

[Disillusioned]

You want to balance your budget without spending less or increasing revenue... That's pretty much a straight no whichever way you spin it. It's one or the other. Though we've found a third option of "do nothing"