Federal deficits are necessary to a growing US economy.

The science of economics is designed to answer the question "how do humans satisfy their needs. " Every human has a utility schedule with personal desires, and humans trade with each other in attempts to live "better" lives. This is nothing more than basic economics; economic growth occurs when people are continuously satisfied. Government deficits to increase everyone"s happiness (and thus "grow the economy") falls flat when one considers how the government crowds investment and/or distorts the market in another way to pay for it"s gift. The first way in which governments can have deficits is by borrowing the needed funds. What this does, however, is reduce the supply of loan-able funds to the private sector and essentially add an unnecessary middleman; this is without even considering that the government will use taxes, inflation, or more loans to pay for ones it occurs now. Seeing as how Pro has decided not to use borrowing as a method for increasing the deficit, this is barely important, but important enough to add as existing. The second way, by which Pro obviously prefers, is to increase the money supply starting at the national level with money borrowed from the central bank at an almost 0% interest rate. This inflationary way seems great; the "debt" is to an institution that cannot exist without the State, GDP increases because of the counting of government spending before new money prices affect what the real GDP looks like, and the visible tax rate does not raise a hair. Or so it would seem. One way in which the State retains its aura of being voluntary (and simultaneously helping friends of the budget committee)is by paying more for a good or service than the private market would. This makes economic sense in that the needs of the State supposedly outweigh the needs of the masses, and it makes political sense in that the business will be far more likely to want the regime that makes him rich to stay in power. However, this distorts the market in whatever the government is buying; hence, the seeds are sowed. Once the new-money is spent, the first receivers have more, and they increase demand, creating rising prices. As the money is spent, though, sellers become more wise as to how much people will pay, until we get to the working poor and the retired, two groups of people who will not see a rise in income related with the rise in costs. Hence, the panacea of government deficit spending fueled by inflation only hurts the most vulnerable. In addition, this distortion from market actors haggling over prices up and down the chains of production results in resources going to means that do not necessarily satisfy consumer wants; things will look great as employees are paid with inflated money, but eventually the boom ends, and a revaluation of what exists will occur economy wide as consumers, surprise, don"t actually want the array of goods the distorted market produced. Thus, because ultimately deficit spending is inflationary, which leads to a distorted market and a bust as consumers choose not to buy what the distorted market offers, deficit spending by governments is not in the best interests of the average citizen.