If national saving did not change, then as pointed out by the prominent economist
you heard from yesterday, the budget deficit would not have the effects I listed. In par-
ticular, output, employment, foreign debt, and interest rates would be unaffected in
both the short run and the long run. The tax cut would have no effect on economic well-
being.
There are several reasons the Ricardian argument may fail. First, consumers
3. a. We will assume that the life-cycle model of Chapter 16 holds and that people want
to keep consumption as smooth as possible. This implies that the effect on con-
sumption of a temporary change in income will be spread out over a person’s
entire remaining life. We will also assume for simplicity that the interest rate is
zero.
Consider a simple example. Let Tbe the amount of the one-time, temporary
tax levied on the young, and let Bbe the amount of the one-time benefit paid to
the old, where B= T. If a typical elderly person has 10 years left to live, then the
temporary benefit increases the present consumption of the elderly by B/10. If a
typical worker has 30 years left to live, then the increase in taxes decreases their
present consumption by T/30. Aggregate consumption changes by an amount
4. A rule requiring a cyclically adjusted balanced budget has the potential to overcome,
at least partially, the first two objections to a balanced-budget rule that were raised
in this chapter. First, this rule allows the government to run countercyclical fiscal
policy in order to stabilize the economy. That is, the government can run deficits dur-
ing recessions, when taxes automatically fall and expenditures automatically rise.
These automatic stabilizers affect the deficit but not the cyclically adjusted deficit.
Second, this rule allows the government to smooth tax rates across years when
income is especially low or high—it is not necessary to raise tax rates in recessions or
Chapter 16 Government Debt and Budget Deficits 173