Most politicians have been reluctant to unveil the scale of cuts and higher taxes needed because they fear that voters will punish them in the coming election. But polls show that people know the public finances must be put in order. And taking a bold budgetary line has not disqualified politicians for higher office elsewhere. In Canada and Sweden, which faced fiscal meltdown in the 1990s and turned massive deficits into surpluses, the finance ministers who presided over the squeeze were later chosen to head their governments.Britain's fiscal emergency: Deflating the state | The Economist
Again the Economist with its selective memory. Somehow they forget that a major nation that faced fiscal problems in the 1990s where a government turned it around. How was the party that turned it around, making deficits in to surpluses rewarded? The Democratic party was kicked out of office and the largest period of debt expansion in its history was launched by Bush, who the Economist loved.
And the point is this, what is to stop hard earned improvements in fiscal status, earned on the backs of ordinary tax payers, from being handed off to well positioned companies in government contracts? And is the economic system now so corrupted that this is unavoidable?