I find this statement curious.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
A policy that could cause more economic disruption in bad times should be delayed until times are better?
It has also been expressed by some people that that the $100 million dollars the government anticipates receiving in additional tax revenue with this new tax will offset the governments deficit spending.
If history is our guide we can examine any year of government spending and see that they have never reduced spending when they received more revenue. Or shall we say they have never run a surplus no matter what the revenue.
Take 2006 for example. Government revenue that year increased by $173 million yet the government still had a deficit $95 million.
In 2007 revenue grew by $39 million yet the deficit was $222 million.
This leads to a couple important questions:
- If the policy is wrong for bad times, why does it make sense in good times? and,
- If government can't restrain spending in good times, why will they slow it in bad times?