blogging hiatus for no reason

I've been away from blogging once again for little to no reason - just too many things going on for me to spend time here. I'm returning to write a few posts on recent eating adventures, but also to lay out a political marker so I remember what I thought later on (a way to keep myself honest, if you will).

What I currently don't understand is the argument made by many prominent liberals (chief among them, Paul Krugman ad naseum, but here most recently) that the government should "spend more now" and impose austerity later. The theory is that the economy needs help now and there's no pressure on our borrowing ability (e.g., the market believes we are solvent and able to borrow further). Therefore, the government should spend copiously now to encourage growth and tighten the belt later. As Krugman says, "How hard is that to understand?"

So the part of that equation that I don't really believe is the italicized part. It seems to me obvious that what the pro-austerity people are saying is that they believe us to be on the brink of a market changing event that will cause our credit worthiness to fall off a cliff, like those of other countries have done. The rating agencies can be capricious (as they have been for many AAA corporations) a single bad piece of news can scuttle things, etc. In that context, the current 3% interest rates are no guarantee that our borrowing capacity is solid in the near term. In the context of that belief, immediate belt tightening can make sense. It's better to potentially harm growth than to have a sovereign debt crisis, or at least arguably. Why aren't Krugman et al grappling with this obvious, not very profound objection?