The instant analysis after the addresses went like this: MSNBC said Boehner was political, and Fox News said Obama was political. They're both right. The debt ceiling is a political instrument, after all. The president wants a long-term deal because he thinks another debt ceiling showdown will hurt him in 2012. Republicans want to schedule another debt ceiling showdown in 2012 for the exact same reason. Don't ask who's being more political.

Instead, ask whose political interest is best for the economy. My answer: A long-term debt ceiling deal that backloads spending cuts reduces the possibility of default before 2013 and allows Washington to spend its time on something, anything, that might increase job creation.

It's hard to see how the Republicans' position upholds their own economic principles, much less demonstrates an ability to work within a divided government.

--Republicans say they want to promote job growth. But by insisting on upfront spending cuts, they'll reduce overall demand, force massive state and local layoffs, and reduce help to the unemployed.





--Republicans say they want to reduce the deficit. But they've rejected a $4 trillion deficit reduction package over a small portion of tax increases, even though effective tax rates are at their lowest since before Reagan's tax cut, and even though tax increases were a part of budget reform under both Reagan and the first President Bush.





--Republicans say they want to appease the rating agencies. But S&P has said it prefers Sen. Reid's all-at-once approach precisely because it doesn't try to ensnare the president in another debt ceiling debate in an election year.

--Republicans say they want to eliminate uncertainty in the economy. But after pushing negotiations to the brink of default, many are insisting on holding this fight between one and three more times before the 2012 election, which multiplies the chance for a financial crisis.