The Economist: Republicans are "economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical"

[Nye Bevan]

The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes.

...

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

....

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Is the Economist quick to scold the Republicans on a regular basis?

I hope the teabaggers in Congress take note, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Nye Bevan]

3. They are equal-opportunity scolders.

They will scold either party when they behave as badly as the Republicans are behaving on this issue. (FYI they endorsed Clinton in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. I still reading it. and love it.

Compared to newsweak or other us mags, it reads in adult language, with adult ideas.

Despite its title (which suggests some ultraconservative spin), they hire talented journalists, and actually research stories.

[Telly Savalas]

10. It does still have a laissez faire bias

Economically, the magazine's stance is rather right-leaning. It's just not coo-coo for Coco Puffs like the GOP's brand of conservatism. But yeah, it's of high enough quality that its bias can be forgiven.

[markpkessinger]

2. K&R!

Thanks for sharing this. Unfortunately, those "wilder-eyed members" of the Republican party will dismiss even the august Economist as a mouthpiece of "European Socialism."

[LetTimmySmoke]

5. The GOP is making so many enemies it's not funny.

[applegrove]

6. Oh I hope this is a Katrina for the GOP. I hope regular americans look

at themselves and say "fair is fair and the GOP is not fair".

[Rex]

7. How much longer are we gong to endure the GOP terrorists holding our

economy hostage!? HOW MUCH LONGER!?!?!

[Dawson Leery]

8. How much longer must we endure these neo-con economic terrorists?

[JoeyT]

9. K&R though I disagree about cynical.

They're not cynical, most of them are true believers. That's pretty much the problem.