A New York Times/CBS News poll suggests that President Barack Obama “is erasing” Mitt Romney's “edge” regarding the economy. If the poll is accurate, it's indicative of an electorate's fatal ignorance.
And voters would serve themselves and the nation well by understanding the “magnitude of the mess we're in.”
That quoted phrase comes from a Monday headline on a Wall Street Journal commentary by five quite astute economists, including Carnegie Mellon University's Allan Meltzer. Their recitation of the facts shows that the U.S. economy is on the edge of disaster because of this administration's policies and those of the Federal Reserve.
“We risk passing an economic, fiscal and financial point of no return,” writes Professor Meltzer and four colleagues associated with Stanford University's Hoover Institution, including former U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz.
“(G)overnment officials are issuing debt to finance pet projects and payoffs to interest groups, not some vital, let alone existential, national purpose. ... If we stay on the current path,” it will culminate in an “unwelcome explosion and crisis.”
The commonsense solutions “are blindingly obvious,” the scholars conclude, repeating the need for the lowest possible taxes, sound monetary policy, spending discipline and entitlement reform, among other things.
Tragically, our obdurate “leaders” and a large swath of the electorate are blinded by an economic ideology that history documents as a failure.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.