I wonder who The Economist magazine is going to endorse for president this time. Four years ago they endorsed Barack Obama. Puzzlingly, The Economist thought Obama would be good for The Economy. If makes one wonder if there are any economists on staff at The Economist. Now, four years later, I wouldn’t be surprised if they endorse Obama again, because from what I gather, that publication has become decidedly left-leaning. (Though you never know – they went for Bush in 2000.) Compared with other left-of-center publications they can occasionally say a sensible thing or two when it comes to economics, but overall they usually seem to be colder toward U.S. candidates that lean free-market and warmer toward those who lean otherwise.
Case in point was yesterday. In the aftermath of the first Obama-Romney debate, everyone seems to think Romney eviscerated Obama – which may be so but I think Romney could have presented even better arguments. In any event, The Economist’s “Lexington” columnist put in his or her (their columnists go unnamed) two cents on the issue. It prompted me to write this:
It’s noteworthy that the writer of The Economist article points to Romney’s “repeated false claims about Mr. Obama cutting hundreds of billions from Medicare programmes for the elderly”. The writer seems to think that because the $716 billion is to be cut from providers rather than beneficiaries, that it’s not a cut. Try getting treatment from someone if they’re not being paid. Even Obama didn’t dispute the $716 billion transfer from Medicare to Obamacare.
Meanwhile Obama repeated the patently false claim that Romney plans to raise taxes on the middle class, basing that on some “study” where the authors think Romney should raise such taxes in order to fund his promises. That’s a far cry from Romney proposing to raise those taxes, which is what the Obama people want everyone to believe. It’s the biggest, most outrageous falsehood of this campaign and gets repeated over and over, which should make anyone think twice about the integrity of the Obama people. Not to bring up that falsehood in The Economist article is journalistic malpractice.