Did you read the article?

Tony,

I have a few things to say in response to your recent posts.  First is that "Keynesian" has become the new "socialist", in that it's thrown around in a semi-descriptive half-truth sort of way; I would lay 5-1 that the majority of people using it couldn't even define it.

A basic principle of Keynesian economics is that the invisible hand doesn't always work exactly right (that a bunch of self-interested actors, left to their own devices, won't necessarily lead us to an optimal position).  Sometimes, it's necessary for the government to step in and guide the economy, whether it's spending in one place, taxing in another, or cutting taxes someplace else.  My reading of her conclusion wasn't that we need to adopt a Reagan-esque (the myth, not the man- he actually spent a buttload of money) tax-cutting and spending-slashing policy- it was basically a "deficit be damned we need to do everything we can to breathe life into the economy now; cut taxes and spend".

I don't disagree that that might be a good short-term strategy, but it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.

The second thing I want to say is, even if Keynesians believed that it is important to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and assuming that Ms. Romer changed her beliefs, why is that like a smoking gun?  Just like the Muslims with no knowledge of what might go into the "Ground Zero Mosque (Eff you Jesus, America, and football)"  (which I think is the new official name for the thing) shouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the Muslims who want to build the thing, I don't think that her words should carry any more weight when she falls on the other side of an issue than they have for the past couple years.

Finally, to get back to the question that you asked a week ago, whether it could possibly be good for the economy to let some tax cuts expire, the short answer is yes.  The argument is:
(1) tax cuts will lead to less tax revenue (a position that's generally difficult, but not impossible, to argue with)
(2) all else being equal, less revenue will mean less of a surplus or a larger deficit (impossible to argue with- depending on a person's intellectual honesty, he might succumb to the temptation to throw "you liberals could just spend less" in there, but that would be ignoring the "all else being equal" part.  If you allow finger-pointing, then it gets very difficult to make subtle points)
(3) a larger deficit (or less of a surplus) makes it harder for the country to borrow money, it also means that there is less faith in the dollar, which will make it weaker relative to other currencies.  (tough to argue w/ this)
(4) if the dollar seems to be weakening, people w/ capital and the ability to invest elsewhere will, which will slow down the economy.

Basically, if you believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you have to be at least partly behind the idea that a tax cut could be bad for the economy.  If you don't believe that a deficit is bad for the economy, then you're probably not one of the people complaining about out of control spending.