This Forum has often
lauded the London
based publication, The Economist. It is
a great source of economic and political news.
It foregoes the “fluff” that have doomed American publications. Its writing is clear, concise and objective.
An outsider’s view
is often better than an insider’s view.
In America
we are too close to our politicians. Our
visceral reaction to someone like Paul Ryan, for example, is that he is so
repulsive we cannot really determine if there are any good core ideas there. With Joe Biden there may be substance, but
his inability to articulate thoughts and his ability to mangle his sentences
leaves all of us puzzled at best.
The Economist is a
center/right publication. It
supports lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom. It is tailor made for the Republicans. And it is
right on in terms of the American Presidential election. First of all it is not a Barack Obama fan
club.
No administration in
many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats,
notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing
business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama. . . . Mr Obama spends regrettably little time
buttering up people who disagree with him; of the 104 rounds of golf the
president has played in office, only one was with a Republican congressman.
Above all, Mr Obama
has shown no readiness to tackle the main domestic issue confronting the next
president: America
cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one. Mr
Obama came into office promising to end “our chronic avoidance of tough
decisions” on reforming its finances—and then retreated fast, as he did on
climate change and on immigration. Disgracefully, he ignored the suggestions of
the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that he himself set up. More
tellingly, he has failed to lay out a credible plan for what he will do in the
next four years. Virtually his entire campaign has been spent attacking Mr
Romney, usually for his wealth and success in business.
And the editors would like to support Mitt Romney.
Or
take reducing the deficit and reforming American government. Here there is more
to like about Mr Romney. He generally believes in the smaller state we would
rather see; he would slash red tape and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, has dared
to broach much-needed entitlement reform.
But the editors see Mitt Romney for what he really
is.
Take
foreign policy. In the debates Mr Romney stuck closely to the president on
almost every issue. But elsewhere he has repeatedly taken a more bellicose
line. In some cases, such as Syria
and Russia
(see article), this newspaper would welcome a more robust
position. But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran ,
too uncritically supportive of Israel
and cruelly wrong in his belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”.
The bellicosity could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has
vowed to list China
as a currency manipulator—a pointless provocation to its new leadership that
could easily degenerate into a trade war. . . .
Yet
far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge
tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically
increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to
the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes
(a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to
programmes that help America ’s
poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). . . . Mr
Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely
through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts
spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting
the macroeconomics right matters far more.
And so they come to the conclusion that, hopefully,
at least 50.0001% of Americans have come to.
And
for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America ’s economy back from the
brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper
would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Leaving all of us with the same position we had at
the beginning of this election battle. We
would like to support some Republicans, they just make it so damn difficult to
do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment