Her author profile can be found below this article.
A few weeks ago, Jaime Bravo wrote an article refuting my stance on reducing the United States’ federal deficit. After reading his article and doing some more research of my own, I stand by my position of reducing the government debt. It is very clear that he is an intelligent young economist and has done ample research into the subjects on which he writes. I respect his opinion and his work; it would be foolish to try and claim otherwise. However, I cannot agree with, or condone, the examples or solutions he poses in response to my article.
First off, I would like to address some of his rebuttals to my points. Jaime seemed to generalize from my article that I believe all government spending is wrong and all debt should be eliminated. He states, “She assumes (by writing this article) that debt is a problem and that therefore, we should cut it.” However, never in my original article did I claim such a thing. Government spending is a crucial component to Gross Domestic Product and necessary to keep a country strong and expanding. Whether it is the federal government or the states individual responsibility to spend money on programs for education, transportation, and technological process is a long debated issue but, in the end, it should not be eliminated permanently, and a moderate amount is healthy. The government deficit should not be entirely eliminated either, but balanced with budget surpluses to create a more evenly equitable budget. Some government debt used to encourage GDP growth is good; 17 trillion dollars worth of debt, of which a majority is being spent on social welfare programs, is not. I have yet to read any concrete evidence of how an exorbitant amount of money spent on welfare programs profits the country in the long run.