It sure isn't. Very few economists advocate spending cuts now because it is an exceptionally poor economic idea. The vast majority I have seen call for either holding current spending steady or increasing it in the short term, while enacting long term entitlement and structural debt reform.
For a good case study in what happens when you cut spending now, go look at the divergent economic paths of the US and the UK. Austerity in the short term not only creates additional economic problems, but it has proven to be self defeating by lowering GDP so much that it doesn't even end up closing deficits.
So you don't think the fact that many US Cities having pension liabilities that they don't have the money for (i.e., they are BROKE) is not a problem??? Exactly what do you think is going to happen when these cities can no longer payout these benefits?? The credit ratings of many of these cities going to down the toilet and they won't be able borrow any more money. What do your economists have to say about this???
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rauh/research/NMRLocal20101011.pdf
...the total liability for the major pension plans sponsored by the fifty U.S. state governments is approximately $5 trillion using Treasury discount rates, contrary to government accounting, which would point to total liabilities of only $3 trillion. The unfunded liability for the major pension plans sponsored by the fifty U.S. state governments is approximately $3 trillion using Treasury discount rates, contrary to government accounting, which would point to unfunded liabilities of only $1 trillion.
What is clear is that state and local governments in the United States have
massive public pension liabilities on their hands and that they are not far from the
point where those liabilities will impact their ability to operate. Given the legal
protections that many states accord to liabilities, which in a number of cases
derive from state constitutions, attempts to limit liabilities with benefit cuts for
existing workers will go only so far (Brown and Wilcox 2009; Novy-Marx and
Rauh 2010b). The question going forward is how the burden will be distributed
between urban and non-urban areas, between state and local governments,
among the more and less fiscally responsible states, and between local governments
and the federal government. If that question remains unresolved, state and
local fiscal crises may translate into losses for municipal bondholders.