Can We Call It The Tea Party Downgrade Yet?

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Without mentioning them by name S&P made it clear the Tea Party was responsible for the downgrade in the US credit rating.

A Standard & Poor�s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default � a position put forth by some Republicans.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that �people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,� Mukherji said.

�That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,� he added. �This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.�

Of course Michele Bachmann continues to do what she does best - ignore reality.

�I think we just heard from Standard & Poor�s. When they dropped � when they dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don�t have an ability to repay our debt. That�s what the final word was from them.

�I was proved right in my position: We should not have raised the debt ceiling. And instead, we should have cut government spending, which was not done. And then we needed to get � get our spending priorities in order.�

And we have this, Republican lawmakers are even out of touch with economists and business leaders in their own party.

The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington�s new austerity.

.......

macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year � for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever � was the wrong one for addressing the nation�s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years.

Instead, these critics say, Washington should be focusing on stimulating the economy in the near term to induce people to spend money and create jobs, while simultaneously settling on a long-term plan for paying down federal debts.

There is broad disagreement among economists about the proper balance between spending cuts and tax increases in reducing a government�s debts. Some studies by both liberal and conservative economists suggest that emphasizing spending cuts is better for long-term growth. But there are few if any precedents for paying down such a large debt solely through spending cuts.

Among those calling for a mix of cuts and revenues are onetime standard-bearers of Republican economic philosophy like Martin Feldstein, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., Treasury secretary to President George W. Bush, underscoring the deepening divide between party establishment figures and the Tea Party-inspired Republicans in Congress and running for the White House.

Of course this is falling on deaf ears - all of the Republican candidates said no new taxes ever last night.