Running the asylum

If I haven't commented so far on the partisan shooting match in Congress over the raising of the federal debt limit, it hasn't been out of lack of interest. The economic issues are difficult, and economics isn't a field in which I pretend much competence. (Too bad a few of the idiots -- I'm using the term in something close to its technical definition -- who spill their vituperations all over the internet don't exercise similar restraint.)

I do have political preferences -- the growth in the federal debt should not, in the long term, exceed growth in gross domestic product; spending cuts should not damage programs that maintain and improve the nation's infrastructure and/or will lead to future growth in employment; the rich should pay taxes and suffer loss of benefits in a manner proportionate to the demands placed on the poor.

How we get there is the technically difficult problem about which I have uncertainty.

I rely primarily on analysis by The Economist for my limited economic insights. Although the magazine's bias is toward the laissez faire economic principles traditionally advocated by the Republican party, its data seem objective and its analysis transparent. If the magazine has a secret -- as opposed to open and acknowledged -- political agenda, it isn't apparent to me.

The past few issues have lambasted the Republicans on their handling of the debt limit increase. "Lexington," the magazine's commentator on American affairs, notes (7-2-11) that the new Republican members of the House have elevated "a preference" for not raising taxes "into a fetish."

Even Reagan, a supply-sider persuaded by Arthur Laffer's pretty curves that his tax cuts would pay for themselves, raised taxes when they did not. To non-partisans, the idea of taming the deficit by spending cuts alone flies against both common sense and arithmetic.

The magazine pointed out last year that federal taxes, adjusted for inflation, are now at the lowest level since before the Korean war.

Lexington concludes, reminding us of the Republican outrage when the Democrats used their majorities, and their hold on the presidency, to "ram" health care reform through Congress and into law.

Now the Republicans are using the spectre of a debt default to impose their own radical vision of how to reform America, before having won control of the Senate, the White House or even, many will say, the argument. That strikes some Americans as nothing less than blackmail.

This week (7-9-11), The Economist editorializes in a leader ("Shame on them") that America's present debt load -- at 65 percent of GDP -- is "perfectly affordable," and that the closer you look, "the more unprincipled the Republicans look." The leader concludes:

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.

This is strong language from a publication that normally aligns with Republicans on economic issues.

Republican behavior in Congress calls to mind the warning from another newspaper that the Republicans are in danger of transforming themselves from a normal political party into an extremist cult.