|  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: The Emperor's Old Clothes (February 20, 2002) The media blob's verdict on coverage of the Winter Olympics—nice job, NBC!—shows how accustomed we have become to awful Olympics coverage. Even the slightest improvement seems special. By William Powers. Social Studies: 'Hello, Mr. Krugman? If the System Is Corrupt, Aren't You?' (February 20, 2002) An imaginary (we hope) dialogue in which a New York Times columnist stands up for his paper's principles. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: The Role Of Ideology in Judicial Selection: Test Case (February 20, 2002) The battle over the nomination of Charles Pickering to an appellate court isn't about Pickering. It's about power. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Social Studies: A Higher Gas Tax Is the Answer. Who'll Ask The Question? (February 12, 2002) Post-9/11, the strategic and fiscal benefits of a gas-tax increase make it crazy not to consider one. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: How More Rights Have Made Us Less Free (February 12, 2002) Due process has run amok, smothering the abilities of authorities to follow their instincts and get things done. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Political Pulse: Enron as Metaphor (February 12, 2002) Democrats are already running campaign ads using Enron as a symbol of greed. By William Schneider. Media: The Crying Games (February 12, 2002) The Olympics are back. So is the Really, Really Sad Story—the essence of many athletes' quest for Olympic gold and, as analyzed by the jocks' journalist-shrinks, a clue to the meaning of existence itself. By William Powers. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
GOP: We'll Get Back to ThatWar and recession give Republicans cover for not making the surplus and Social Security higher priorities. by William Schneider .... The economy is in recession. The federal budget is again running deficits. The Social Security lockbox is empty. The economic stimulus bill lies dead in the Senate. And President Bush seems stronger than ever. That's because September 11 changed the budget debate, just as it changed everything else in American politics. Immediately before the terrorist attacks, Democrats had Bush cornered. They were just about to force him to acknowledge that, in order to fund his tax cuts, he would have to break open the Social Security lockbox, which he had promised to protect. That debate seems distant now. But a Los Angeles Times poll released early this month shows that protecting Social Security still beats out protecting the tax cut, just as it did before September 11. By a resounding 81 percent to 13 percent, the public says that the President's tax cuts should not go into effect if it means that revenue has to be taken out of the Social Security trust fund. Democrats, however, no longer have Bush cornered, because three new budget priorities have emerged. One is the war on terrorism. Another is the recession, which got much worse after September 11. And now there's the deficit, which has returned after four years. According to last month's Gallup Poll, national defense was the public's top priority, with 62 percent of Americans calling it "extremely important." The economy and Social Security were ranked lower, at 44 percent and 43 percent respectively. Reducing the deficit and cutting taxes were rated "extremely important" by just 30 percent in each case. In other words, the war and the recession now compete with Social Security as top budgetary priorities. That's good news for Republicans, who claim the war and the recession as their issues. Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said on February 4: "The President's budget is clear and unequivocal. It has three critical priorities. One, securing our domestic homeland. Two, securing our military abroad. And third, securing our economy." But doesn't the deficit put Republicans on the spot? Not really. The charge hurled by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., last month—that Bush's tax cuts are worsening the deficit—involves issues of relatively low importance to voters right now. The war and the recession are given more importance, and they make it politically possible to use Social Security revenues to finance deficit spending. In essence, the war and the recession have taken deficit-reduction off the table. The Bush Administration argues that it can't simultaneously defend the country and balance the budget. As White House budget Director Mitch Daniels said, "We do want to get back to the surplus as soon as the war and the recession permit it." His key phrase was "get back to." How smart is it for Democrats to complain about the deficit during a war and a recession? Not very. Yet some Democrats are complaining about the tax cut, of course, and polls show that the tax cut does not have a deep reservoir of public support. But what Democrats are saying is that the tax cut will make the deficit worse, and the deficit is a relatively low priority right now. Democrats can argue that the tax cut makes it difficult to fund the war, but the Administration insists that's not so. The White House is asking for huge increases in spending for defense and homeland security. Democrats can argue the tax cut hurts the economy. But the Administration asks, "You want to raise taxes during a recession?" Daschle recently argued that Bush's tax cut "puts Social Security last," repeating the argument that Democrats were making before September 11. But Republicans now have a way out. As Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee, put it: "Protecting the integrity of Social Security and Medicare is an important priority that we agree upon and will get back to in the long term with fiscal discipline. But our priorities must remain funding homeland security, winning the war on terrorism, and stimulating the economy." We'll "get back to" the surplus and Social Security, Republicans say. It's something they couldn't say before September 11. The collapse of the economic stimulus bill seems to have had no political repercussions. That's because there is no overwhelming demand in the country for government action. Normally in a recession, both parties feel pressure to pass an economic assistance bill—but not this time. One reason is Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who last month told a congressional committee, "Any stimulus program will clearly put us into deficit and go in the wrong direction." And the American people don't especially want a stimulus package. Asked whether immediate government action is necessary to improve the economy, the public was split in a recent Gallup Poll (47 percent said yes; 49 percent no). Greenspan was optimistic about pulling out of the recession. "I think the economy will recover in any event," he told Congress. The American people share that view. By nearly 3-to-1, Americans describe themselves as "optimistic" about the economy. People are hurting, but the public is not clamoring for Congress to act. Could it be that the era of Big Government really is over?
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. |
| ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
