Economist Paul Krugman summarized the strategy in February 2010: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."[19]
[edit] "Feed The Beast"

There exists a related idea known as "Feed the Beast", which means increasing taxes for the purported purpose of balancing the budget only to make the government spend those inflows. Economists Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder have written in the Wall Street Journal editorial page that every new dollar of new taxes leads to more than one dollar of new spending according to their research. Their conclusions have been disputed by economist and writer Bruce Bartlett in The Fiscal Times, who stated that tax increases in the early 90s helped contribute to more austere budgets in the late 90s.[20][21]