The deficit is remarkably affordable at the moment:
The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt
Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.
Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about
1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.
If you point all this out, the response you typically get is that today’s interest rates are artificially and atypically low — and that when they skyrocket, that debt burden will become much more painful. Well, yes, but rates don’t skyrocket unless there is a collapse of market confidence. Rates may rise, and that will force hard choices in future spending or trigger the need for new sources of revenue. But only crisis triggers dramatic rate swings, and the only thing that will create that crisis is brinksmanship over the debt ceiling or levels of debt that are substantially higher than they are now.
Read more:
http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/15/the-u-s-is-not-drowning-in-debt/Krugman's position, which you call being 'a deficit dove', is that, with the economy teetering on the brink of another recession, now is not the time to slash government spending. That will run a large risk of a starting a new recession, which puts more people out of jobs (which requires more government spending, as well as the misery it causes to the people), and causes even more uncertainty which makes it less likely people will start new business ventures that could get the jobs back. He doesn't advocate permanently running deficits. But now is the worst time possible to say "we must balance the budget".
So why do you think Krugman is part of the problem?