We’re told that we can’t afford to help the unemployed — that we must get budget deficits down immediately or the “bond vigilantes” will send U.S. borrowing costs sky-high. Some of us have tried to point out that those bond vigilantes are, as far as anyone can tell, figments of the deficit hawks’ imagination — far from fleeing U.S. debt, investors have been buying it eagerly, driving interest rates to historic lows. But the fearmongers are unmoved: fighting deficits, they insist, must take priority over everything else — everything else, that is, except tax cuts for the rich, which must be extended, no matter how much red ink they create.

The point is that a large part of Congress — large enough to block any action on jobs — cares a lot about taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, but very little about the plight of Americans who can’t find work.

Liberal Princeton University economist, Paul Krugman posted a recent column about what to do about deficits now that "starve the beast" has apparently reached a dead end. More after the jump
His conclusion: we've reached the point that feeding the beast requires slaughtering sacred cows. He further concludes the political unwillingness to do that is not going to be overcome by mounting deficits and potential financial catastrophe. Whats next? Why you ask does this affect employers? Aside from the economic issues we have seen a decrease in funding regulatory agencies ever since Reagan. The current administration is increasing funding for DoL, the NLRB abd the other agencies regulating employee relations, but thats not the only thing. Filling the void increasingly are state initiatives, including the criminalization of certain employer practices. Evidence the enforcement action against an NYC retailer by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Paul Krugman says its because there was inadequate government spending on things that create jobs.