Caught a few moments of Hannity by accident on 29 June. Interviewing some good looking girl, and also Ann Coulter. The part I caught was just before and just after the pretty one disagreed with Hannity. Didn't disagree, really; just offered some actual information; but Hannity took it for disagreement. She'll probably never be on the show again.
Coulter was saying the federal debt was about 75% of GDP and headed up to 100%, and how this is a catastrophe. When Hannity repeated it, he upped the number to 101%.
I'm paraphrasing here; couldn't find a transcript.He also said the federal debt is ordinarily only about 18% of GDP, but he was interrupted in the midst of saying it, so he can deny saying it maybe.
He should deny it, for one must overlook a lot of important information in order to believe what he said is true.
Coulter could be right: The federal debt could be a catastrophe; but that is a conclusion. And my thirty-odd years as a hobbyist and student of the economy lead me to believe that the growing federal debt is a consequence. So if it is a catastrophe, then we had best deal with the cause of the growing federal debt.
And we had best not assume that the cause is spending in excess of revenues. For both the level of federal spending and the level of revenues are consequences also -- consequences of economic conditions that are themselves consequences of economic policies: policies that fight inflation and encourage economic growth.
Policies that remove money from circulation while encouraging the use of credit.
Conflicting policies that we refuse to abandon. Is that too big a thought for Hannity to grasp?