US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. America the Overcommitted (New York Times)

To succeed in foreign policy, says Jeremy Suri, America must set three clear priorities and pull back everywhere else.

2. The Wire: Why it still matters (Boston Globe)

The issues and concerns raised on the show have grown ever more timely as we descend into a new decade, writes Carlo Rotella.

3. Rabbit-Hole Economics (New York Times)

Tuesday's Republican debate opened the door on a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life, writes Paul Krugman.

4. Dollar coin? It's time (Los Angeles Times)

A coin would last longer than a bill, saving the government money, argues this editorial. It continues: But why stop there? Let's retire the penny and the nickel as well.

5. Prison isn't best option for nonviolent youths (Chicago Sun Times)

Research consistently shows that locking up nonviolent juvenile offenders fails to reform them, costs too much and makes us no safer. This editorial says it's time to get smarter.

6. New battle cry: We're 53 percent (St. Petersburg Times)

According to Annie Lowrey, this new campaign, a conservative answer to Occupy Wall Street, has some verve.

7. Ending hypocrisy of terrorist designation (Washington Times)

Gen. Hugh Shelton argues the U.S. government's practice of listing "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs) has become an increasingly dangerous and hollow political exercise, rather than a sober assessment of the real threats to America.

8. Health care aside, death panels alive and well (San Francisco Chronicle)

The notion of a White House bothering to request the statutory authority to execute troublesome Americans is just so ... 2009, writes David Sirota.

9. Raising up Hermain Cain (Washington Post)

Enjoy the GOP flavor of the week, while he lasts, says Eugene Robinson.

10. Happy birthday, Mr. Despot (New York Daily News)

This editorial concedes that celebrities occasionally use their star power to help good causes, such as disaster relief. But it continues: or they can help a murderous dictator celebrate his birthday -- for the right amount of cash.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Iain Duncan Smith says what most Brexiters think: economic harm is a price worth paying

The former cabinet minister demonstrated rare candour by dismissing the "risks" of leaving the EU.

Most economists differ only on whether the consequences of Brexit would be terrible or merely bad. For the Leave campaign this presents a problem. Every referendum and general election in recent times has been won by the side most trusted to protect economic growth (a status Remain currently enjoys).

Understandably, then, the Brexiters have either dismissed the forecasters as wrong or impugned their integrity. On Tuesday it was the turn of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), one of the most revered bodies in Westminster. In response to its warning that Brexit would mean a further two years of austerity (with the hit to GDP wiping out George Osborne's forecast surplus), the Leave campaign derided it as a "paid-up propaganda arm of the European commission" (the IFS has received £5.6m from Brussels since 2009). 

The suggestion that the organisation is corrupt rightly provoked outrage. "The IFS - for whom I used to work - is not a paid up propaganda arm of the EU. I hope that clears that up," tweeted Brexit-supporting economist Andrew Lilico. "Over-simplified messaging, fear-mongering & controversialism are hard-minded campaigning. Accusing folk of corruption & ill intent isn't." The Remain campaign was swift to compile an array of past quotes from EU opponents hailing the IFS. 

But this contretemps distracted from the larger argument. Rather than contesting the claim that Brexit would harm the economy, the Leave campaign increasingly seeks to change the subject: to immigration (which it has vowed to reduce) or the NHS (which it has pledged to spend more on). But at an event last night, Iain Duncan Smith demonstrated rare candour. The former work and pensions secretary, who resigned from the cabinet in protest at welfare cuts, all but conceded that further austerity was a price worth paying for Brexit. 

"Of course there's going to be risks if you leave. There's risks if you get up in the morning ...There are risks in everything you do in life," he said when questioned on the subject. "I would rather have those risks that we are likely to face, headed off by a government elected by the British people [and] governing for the British people, than having a government that is one of 27 others where the decisions you want to take - that you believe are best for the United Kingdom - cannot be taken because the others don't agree with you."

For Duncan Smith, another recession is of nothing compared to the prize of freedom from the Brussels yoke. Voters still reeling from the longest fall in living standards in recent history (and who lack a safe parliamentary seat) may disagree. But Duncan Smith has offered an insight into the mindset of a true ideologue. Remain will hope that many more emulate his honesty. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.