We'd be even more fucked.

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit—at least according to Republican politicians. As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity. There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

Follow the link to the math, but the synopsis is this -- the stimulus created or saved between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. While the health care reform bill and letting tax cuts lapse for the wealthiest Americans actually lower the deficit.

Republicans opposed all those things, hence, we'd have fewer people employed, and we'd be suffering from even higher deficits.

Not that Republicans care. All the talk about "deficits" is empty rhetoric.

It's time Republican candidates are pressed on exactly how they'll balance the budget. Because given the reality of their proposals (like Boehner's), it's clear the math simply doesn't add up.