Washington ? The editors of National Journal, a respected and independent Washington publication, had the smart idea of inviting 11 distinguished economists to fill out a scorecard on the economic performance of the Republican Congress. The grades are published in the latest issue of the weekly magazine.

The economists were asked to score Congress in seven categories, using letter grades. The composite score of four categories was a C, meaning average by historical standards. Two got a B minus and one a D. Not exactly a huge vote of confidence.

Who were these 11 judges? National Journal describes them as “prominent ‘nonaligned’ economists” – people who, by virtue of their work and long careers outside of politics, have earned reputations for delivering unvarnished analysis of economic policy.

Their individual credentials are impressive. “Ethan Harris, Maury Harris, Allen Sinai and David Wyss are well-known on Wall Street,” the editors write. “Nariman Behravesh of Global Insight is one of the most respected economic forecasters. Lyle Gramley is a former governor on the Federal Reserve Board, and Michael Mussa is former research director at the International Monetary Fund. Edward Leamer is director of the Business Forecast Project at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, and James F. Smith is a professor at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina. David Lereah is a longtime chief economist at the National Association of Realtors. Victor Zarnowitz has long worked at the Conference Board, the business group that issues closely watched numbers on consumer confidence and leading economic indicators, and he serves on the committee of economists that decides when recessions begin and end.”

Short-term fiscal policy grades averaged out at B minus. Gramley and Sinai gave it an A and A minus, largely because the tax cuts had stimulated investment and productivity. Five others put it down around C, because so little of the revenue growth was channeled into reducing budget deficits.

The only other category that rated an overall B minus was government regulation. The range of grades was small, with only one D and seven at or near B. The reason: The economists applaud restraint. As Lereah said, “Less regulation is usually better than more.”

That’s about all the good news. In long-term growth and competitiveness, the grade was C. No one gave it more than a B, largely because the tax cuts were passed without reforms and because the efforts to improve education and training of the work force seemed feeble.

International economic policy also was graded C. In the face of rising balance of payments deficits – a key measure of economic activity between countries – major trade initiatives have stalled. While radical protectionist measures have been rejected, Congress has balked at bigger steps to open international markets, the economists said.

Congress was given a C for its economic leadership and the same grade for its overall economic performance. Aside from cutting taxes, the lawmakers did little to help or harm the economy. They balked at tax reform and Social Security reform, but made some improvements in pension reliability. Overall, this Congress was no better or worse than most of its predecessors, the graders said.

But there was one area where they said it failed and failed badly. That was long-term fiscal policy. There were five F’s, three D’s and no grade higher than a B minus, for a composite grade of D. Speaking of the long-term liabilities of Medicare and Social Security, Gramley told National Journal, “Congress and the administration are not facing” reality. Behravesh called the response to those long-term deficits “quite irresponsible.”

Does all this add up to a case for or against the Republican Congress?

The economists were not asked that question, but most of their comments convey support for the Bush tax cuts and opposition to the trade restrictions favored by many Democrats.

Still, a chart that is part of the National Journal story gives pause.

It compares the economic performance of the first five and a half years of this Bush administration with identical periods under Presidents Reagan and Clinton. Personal income after inflation and taxes rose 22.7 percent under Reagan, 20.4 percent under Clinton and only 14.1 percent under Bush.

That’s certainly not a C, and it may not even be a passing grade.