The Economist questions Ryan's fiscal sincerity
British magazine wonders if Rep. Paul Ryan is compromising his principles for politics.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, is generally regaled in the American media for his serious approach to economics, including calls for reforms to Social Security and Medicare in the name of balanced budgets in the future.
But The Economist, a prominent voice in the international media, is questioning if Ryan deserves his reputation. The magazine rips Ryan for failing to support the so-called Simpson-Bowles Congressional plan to reduce long-term deficits by cutting spending and raising taxes. It also questions if Ryan is now driven more by partisanship than intellectual purity. The magazine writes:
The less charitable interpretation is that as his prominence in the party has risen, he has morphed from a principled fiscal hawk to an old-school "starve the beast" Republican for whom lower taxes always trump deficit reduction. Deficit hawks earn their feathers by championing balanced budgets even when it crosses its own party's priorities; by that standard, Mr Ryan has work to do.
Are tax increases needed to balance the federal budget?
Tell us in the comments.
Jeremy
10:35 am on Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Lowering taxes and simplifying the tax code will increase revenue more than any tax increase ever will. All economists know this as does Paul Ryan.
Dustin Block
12:07 pm on Tuesday, January 11, 2011
That's more of a partisan viewpoint than an economist's viewpoint.
Mike Z
10:47 am on Thursday, January 13, 2011
The whole Economist posting was an article by an unidentified partisan blogger, reflecting his partisan viewpoint. Any response based on a contrary belief will be a "partisan" viewpoint... "economists" are not above partisan viewpoints. And you aren't gonna get many "economists" commenting here.
Dustin Block
11:46 am on Thursday, January 13, 2011
It was written as an unsigned editorial by the editors of The Economist.
Mike Z
10:49 pm on Friday, January 14, 2011
Well I should probably let this go, as I'm not sure I'm improving on silence, but I respectfully disagree: It WAS written as an opinionated piece from a blogger (G.I, in Washington), as opposed to an editor/editorial. The Economist says this about their BLOG section where the piece appeared:
"About Free exchange
In this blog, our CORRESPONDENTS [emphasis added] consider the fluctuations in the world economy and the policies intended to produce more booms than busts. "
The Economist's postings are unsigned, NOT because they are the product of an editorial board, but by "tradition", a practice James Dellingpole has described as "ex-cathedra, this-piece-wasn’t-written-by-a-named-journalist-ergo-it-must-be-more-reliable-than-a-bylined-article portentousness".
I think Jeremy's partisan viewpoint may well be as valid as that of "G.I. from Washington", and G.I.'s viewpoint seems, arguably, equally partisan.
Back to your original question: Tax hikes are not NEEDED to balance the budget. Unless spending CAN'T be cut. But it does not HAVE to be a combination of both either (which seems to be the default major media assumption).