Bush’s political machine has been able to get him through some historic fiascos, but even Rove & Co. might have trouble with this one.
President Bush is considering asking Congress to freeze domestic spending next year or cut it slightly, even as he prods lawmakers to allow younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts.
[…]
On the spending side, Bush is moving toward holding programs Congress must approve annually — except domestic security and defense — to the same $388 billion they received this year, say congressional aides and lobbyists speaking on condition of anonymity. The part of the budget he would restrict also excludes automatically made payments like Medicare and interest on the federal debt.
The president has yet to make final decisions on the $2.5 trillion budget he will send Congress in February, administration officials say. Even so, he and his aides have made it clear that domestic programs will be squeezed.
I have a hard time believing that even Republicans in Congress, who love federal spending, would go for a freeze right now. Last February, Bush proposed a 0.5 percent increase for domestic programs; Congress ultimately doubled it. Nevertheless, if Bush even proposed a freeze, the Dem talking points write themselves. Here’s the ad I envision:
“President Bush believes the United States can afford $2 trillion to phase-out Social Security. He believes we can afford more than a quarter-trillion dollars for a war launched under false pretenses. He believes we can afford half-a-trillion dollars for a Medicare scheme that rewards pharmaceutical companies. And he believes we can afford $3 trillion for tax cuts for rich people.
“But President Bush doesn’t believe we can afford to spend another dime on education, veterans’ benefits, grants for community development, child care, or enforcing environmental regulations.
“President Bush has his priorities. Are they yours?”
To be sure, there’s a lot more to this than just politics. Cuts in federal spending, particularly in areas of infrastructure, can have a negative impact on economic growth. Moreover, every area of government funding that faces a “freeze” is actually facing a “cut” — inflation and increased demand means agencies would have to cut government services for those who need them.
But the politics alone make Bush’s trial balloon about a spending freeze utterly ridiculous. In his first term, the only people Bush asked to sacrifice were men and women in uniform, who’ve already sacrificed more than their share. In his second term, Bush’s agenda calls for more sacrifice, but only from those who rely on government spending.
In Bush’s America, Big Business won’t be asked to sacrifice, because it’ll still get its subsidies; Wall Street won’t be asked to sacrifice, because it’ll get money that was going to Social Security; and the rich certainly won’t be asked to sacrifice, because they’ll get to enjoy lavish tax breaks they don’t need, no matter how much our debt spirals out of control.
But if you’re not in one of those categories, Bush appears ready to embrace Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum’s view of personal sacrifice:
“Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing.”
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the “family values” party of the 21st century.