06/11/2002 Archived Entry: "Bush's Big Casino"
Krugman rips into the Bush sacking of the economy. Bush has embarked upon economic protectionism and big gov't spending that exceeds any other administration in recent memory. The Note spells Bush's Big Casino out again:
Big Casino, for those of you new to the Note, is our shorthand phrase for the twin battles over the government's spending priorities, and the mantle of fiscal discipline that Candidate Bush ensured would become the defining dynamic of our politics, through his over-promising on what he would spend money on if elected.
Tax cuts, education, defense, Social Security savings account transition costs, a prescription drug benefit — the president before September 11 told us the nation could have it all and still run a surplus AND pay down the debt.
Russert played this clip for Daniels, from the president's Friday trip to Iowa, in which he repeats what has become a staple of 43 rhetoric and the Note: "BUSH: I remember campaigning in Chicago, and one of the reporters said, would you ever deficit spend? I said only — only in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession, or in times of national emergency. Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta."
Then Russert said: "We have checked everywhere and we've even called the White House as to when the president said that when he was campaigning in Chicago, and it didn't happen. The closest he came was he was asked, 'Would you give up part of your tax cut in order to ensure a balanced budget,' and he said no. But no one ever talked about a war, a recession and an emergency, the trifecta."
For awhile, the president said that he made his point "repeatedly" during the campaign. Lately, he has been citing the Chicago experience. Since no one from the White House can document any of this, and no reporter who covered the campaign can remember a single example of the president laying down this caveat, isn't it time that someone from the administration admits that it didn't happen?
This isn't a question of "gotcha" journalism. It has to do with the president's credibility on Big Casino, which is, along with the war on terrorism, the defining terms of our politics.
The only reason why Bush's numbers have remained above 70 percent, is due to home prices having went up a national average of 20-25% over the last year. So, while equities have drained, capital has remained, in the voters minds on their pocketbooks. That won't continue indefinetly. Oliphant hears the whistle around the bend.
The president was poorly served in his veto threat, first of all, from the purely political perspective that he wasted a bullet too early in the process. He was also poorly served because his pose of concern about ''spending'' is so easily exposed by the hemorrhage occurring overall.
It is because of goofs like these that many Democrats quietly hope the needlessly combative budget director for the administration, Mitch Daniels, stays on the job. Far more than politics is involved, however. With excellent timing, the centrist Concord Coalition last week produced a snapshot of the short- and long-range situations and gave the administration and Congress a D grade for their handling of the country's finances. The only reason they didn't flunk was that the two aides haven't as yet gotten around to making a mess of the spending bills for next year.
Orvetti writes on the ideal candidate to clean up this fiscal irresponsiblity, Howard Who For President?
Replies: 3 comments
If the Dems regain the House and keep the Senate, Bush is likely to win (as Clinton did in 1996). Otherwise, he would be in some trouble going into 2004. And if the stock market remains under 11,000 around this time in 2004, and the unemployment does not fall below 4.5%, you are looking at another Vermont headache for Bush (the other one being Jim Jeffords). Yes, President Dean is a possibility. But, more likely President Edwards. However, if the economy recovers strongly and unemployment is around 4% you are looking at his re-election. Stuart Rothenberg and others have discounted the economy. But, economy is the main reason why we have a large proportion of undecideds in the generic congressional polls.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/11/2002 04:04 PM PST
An interesting development if the Dems take it back, depends on if Bush moves to the center. I would bet that a Democratic House and Senate would pass a prescription drug coverage bill with other health care benefits, in place of cancelling the 2005-2007 tax-cuts. That will then define the issue of 2004, Republicans for maintaining top tax cut for the richest 2%, Democrats in favor of the elderly and health coverage for the middle class.
Posted by myDD @ 06/11/2002 05:36 PM PST
If the Dems score the trifecta..majority of governorships, keep the senate and win back the house, it would be decision time for Bush. However, I think it would also depend on what happens in the Texas Senate race. If Kirk pulls it off, Bush really has to watch his back. However, the rednecks and crooks in the GOP and their Democratic allies such as Zell Miller would try to prevent Bush from moving to the Center.
Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/11/2002 06:23 PM PST
