@JPB,
Here's the most interesting portion of the interview to which you linked:
Quote:SK: But the argument against letting the sequester take effect is a Keynesian one, because it would take government spending out of the economy while it’s still weak. Isn’t that what the market’s worried about, not just long-term deficit reduction?
SC: I think the market’s concerned about both. If you allow the sequester to kick in, the market’s not going to respond well. They’re looking for leadership, not just numbers. Are we going to do it arbitrary, across-the-board, spending cuts and reduction? if we are, that’s not leadership. That’s not what we’re looking to the United States for. We need to reduce spending by this amount in the right way in an overall balanced approach.
First of all, I'm shocked that someone from the media actually understood that massive cuts in government spending would have a Keynesian depressive effect on the economy, and doubly impressed that she actually tried to pin down a politician on that point. Suzy Khimm, whoever you are: good job!
Secondly, Chambliss's response shows just how completely out of touch Chambliss -- and presumably many of his GOP colleagues -- are on this issue. For Chambliss, the problem is obviously the effect that the spending cuts will have on market confidence, and that budget deficits are of equal concern to the markets. That, however, is simply ludicrous. It's immaterial whether the markets are optimistic or pessimistic. Massive spending cuts will drive the country into recession regardless of how the markets feel because of the reasons that Keynes identified nearly a century ago, whereas budget deficits are, right now, of little importance, because the government can borrow money for practically nothing.