Swing by Bush’s campaign website and you’ll find an economic plan that Bush would presumably implement if given a second term. But even a cursory look shows that the plan is just a rehashed list of agenda items Bush hasn’t pushed through Congress yet (tort reform, an energy plan) and vague platitudes that sound nice but don’t mean anything (Bush will “open new markets” and “boost confidence”).
In other words, Bush has no economic plan. Or, if he does, he’s keeping it secret.
This, unfortunately, isn’t a new problem; Bush has always thought tax giveaways to the wealthy would be the only plan he’d ever need. Indeed, Bush predicated most of his domestic policy agenda on the idea that his tax cut schemes would create millions jobs, generate robust growth, increase trade, and keep a balanced budget. It did the opposite — on all four counts.
The kind of Americans who are able to get into Bush’s campaign events may not mind, but apparently, many in the business community — even Bush’s fellow conservatives — are starting to worry.
High oil prices, a stagnant labor market — and the lack of a more forceful response from the Bush campaign — have sparked worry among White House allies that the administration’s economic team has been too content cheerleading in defense of past policies instead of setting more detailed plans for a second term.
The worst employment record since the Depression, the largest trade deficit in American history, and the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world…and now they’re getting worried?
Interestingly enough, one of the critics who is pushing the hardest for Bush to come up with some kind of specific economic agenda is a man who would ordinarily be considered a reliable Bush ally.
“You either define yourself on these big issues or the Democrats will define you,” said Richard K. Armey, the former House Republican leader who co-chairs the new conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks. “John Kerry will do just fine with what he thinks your secret plan is if you don’t tell us what it is.”
Of course, Armey’s not the only one who’s wondering if we’ll ever see an actual substantive agenda from the Bush gang.
“I guess the most accurate thing I could say is there’s sort of a deafening silence,” said Donald Luskin, a conservative investment adviser in California. Referring to the current economic team, Luskin said, “The period these people have been in power is a period when very little economic initiative has been coming out of the White House.”
[…]
Allen Sinai, president and chief economist of Decision Economics Inc., added “…[W]hat I’ve not seen from this administration is a clear articulation of policy for the future.”
[…]
“When you’re on the campaign trail with all these politicos who know nothing about the economy and are saying, ‘We’ve got to do something,’ there’s got to be pressure to come up with something at least rhetorically beyond ‘Four More Years,’ ” said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and commentator. “But as far as I can see, there’s nothing.”
That’s because there is nothing. As John DiIulio, the head of Bush’s own White House faith-based office once said of his administration colleagues:
“There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything–and I mean everything–being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”
Truer words were never spoken.