Bush Left Economic Vision on Cutting Floor

[bigpoppanils]

Bush Left Economic Vision on Cutting Floor: Gene Sperling

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- You don't have to be a paid political pundit to have caught the overarching message from President George W. Bush's State of the Union address: In such a dangerous world, you don't really want to change captains now, do you?

Put another way, Bush seemed to be saying, ``Ask not whether you are better off than you were four years ago, but whether you will feel safer four years from now with me, or with some untested guy.''

This strategy is hardly surprising, given the continued anxiety about terrorism, and the fact that for many voters, the answer to whether they are better off today than on Jan. 20, 2001, is clearly ``no.''

And the strategy may also be bolstered by memories of the elder Bush's defeat in 1992. While the conventional wisdom was for years that President George H.W. Bush lost on the ``It's the economy, stupid,'' some strategists for his son believe that Bush senior so overemphasized the safety of the world following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Gulf War victory, that he actually devalued his own impressive foreign policy credentials.

Elder Bush's Mistake

As a sitting president, two-term vice president and former Central Intelligence Agency director, the elder Bush had one of the most impressive foreign policy resumes of anyone to run for president. Yet by convincing people that the world was safe for democracy, some White House strategists apparently feel that Bush was like a job applicant telling his potential employers why his own expertise was not particularly relevant.

No one can accuse George W. Bush of making that same mistake. Who can forget the line from Tuesday's speech challenging the U.S. to never ``turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us''?

Yet like any strategy, too much of a good thing can backfire. Elections, in the end, are still about the future, and on economic policy, Bush's focus on staying the course meant that he gave no sense of vision, boldness or even economic compassion. Consider three messages about the economic future you didn't hear.

`Ownership Society'

First, virtually all of Washington was waiting to hear Bush's much promised call for a broader investor class or ``ownership society.'' His Treasury secretary and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors -- along with Bush spokesmen and numerous outside advisers -- all but promised he would highlight this theme, and call for new Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts, where individuals could deposit $5,000 to $7,500 in after-tax income in each account, and never pay a cent on the earnings.

With some poised to critique the accounts as helping only the few Americans already saving the most, and even some key supporters poised to bash it for discouraging employer-based pension coverage, the president remarkably didn't say a single word about what was supposed to be his signature economic proposal.

Deficit Fears

Leaving his regressive savings accounts on the cutting room floor might have been wise; leaving out his very attractive ``ownership society'' theme left him without economic vision.

And how about the deficit? While short-term deficits may not be a significant concern, the dramatic deterioration of our long-term deficit outlook not only led the International Monetary Fund to worry recently about ``significant risks for the rest of the world,'' but is leading more Americans to see deficits, once more, as a major national problem.

Bush, who has been perhaps our worst fiscal president ever, could have at least sent a message that it was time to get serious. Even a little podium pounding might have sent a signal. Instead, he sleepwalked through a tepid description of his budget and a vague plan to cut the deficit in half in five years, using 50 percent fewer words than he did to discuss the use of steroids by athletes. Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Risky Strategy

Finally, one of the conventional criticisms about Bush 41 that Bush 43 should take seriously is that the elder came off as out of touch with ordinary working families. Given this, you might have thought Bush would have found time, amidst his obligatory ``the economy is strong and growing stronger'' lines and his unsurprising stretches to connect his tax policies to anything positive. Or that he offered some sense of understanding for the millions of workers who have lost jobs or health care, or have seen anemic wage growth amidst rising tuition and debt.

You would, of course, have been wrong. He uttered not a single word of empathy or recognition to address the economic anxiety that continues to grip so much of the U.S.

Betting the whole house that fears of a dangerous world will alone keep Americans from wanting to change horses -- or jockeys -- seems a risky strategy at best. A president gets few better opportunities than the State of the Union address to speak directly to the American people without filters. Failing to offer any economic empathy for those in pain today or any economic vision for the future was a major missed opportunity, one that this president is likely to regret.

Last Updated: January 23, 2004 11:38 EST

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

Bush Left Economic Vision on Cutting Floor: Gene Sperling

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- You don't have to be a paid political pundit to have caught the overarching message from President George W. Bush's State of the Union address: In such a dangerous world, you don't really want to change captains now, do you?

Put another way, Bush seemed to be saying, ``Ask not whether you are better off than you were four years ago, but whether you will feel safer four years from now with me, or with some untested guy.''

This strategy is hardly surprising, given the continued anxiety about terrorism, and the fact that for many voters, the answer to whether they are better off today than on Jan. 20, 2001, is clearly ``no.''

And the strategy may also be bolstered by memories of the elder Bush's defeat in 1992. While the conventional wisdom was for years that President George H.W. Bush lost on the ``It's the economy, stupid,'' some strategists for his son believe that Bush senior so overemphasized the safety of the world following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Gulf War victory, that he actually devalued his own impressive foreign policy credentials.

Elder Bush's Mistake

As a sitting president, two-term vice president and former Central Intelligence Agency director, the elder Bush had one of the most impressive foreign policy resumes of anyone to run for president. Yet by convincing people that the world was safe for democracy, some White House strategists apparently feel that Bush was like a job applicant telling his potential employers why his own expertise was not particularly relevant.

No one can accuse George W. Bush of making that same mistake. Who can forget the line from Tuesday's speech challenging the U.S. to never ``turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us''?

Yet like any strategy, too much of a good thing can backfire. Elections, in the end, are still about the future, and on economic policy, Bush's focus on staying the course meant that he gave no sense of vision, boldness or even economic compassion. Consider three messages about the economic future you didn't hear.

`Ownership Society'

First, virtually all of Washington was waiting to hear Bush's much promised call for a broader investor class or ``ownership society.'' His Treasury secretary and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors -- along with Bush spokesmen and numerous outside advisers -- all but promised he would highlight this theme, and call for new Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts, where individuals could deposit $5,000 to $7,500 in after-tax income in each account, and never pay a cent on the earnings.

With some poised to critique the accounts as helping only the few Americans already saving the most, and even some key supporters poised to bash it for discouraging employer-based pension coverage, the president remarkably didn't say a single word about what was supposed to be his signature economic proposal.

Deficit Fears

Leaving his regressive savings accounts on the cutting room floor might have been wise; leaving out his very attractive ``ownership society'' theme left him without economic vision.

And how about the deficit? While short-term deficits may not be a significant concern, the dramatic deterioration of our long-term deficit outlook not only led the International Monetary Fund to worry recently about ``significant risks for the rest of the world,'' but is leading more Americans to see deficits, once more, as a major national problem.

Bush, who has been perhaps our worst fiscal president ever, could have at least sent a message that it was time to get serious. Even a little podium pounding might have sent a signal. Instead, he sleepwalked through a tepid description of his budget and a vague plan to cut the deficit in half in five years, using 50 percent fewer words than he did to discuss the use of steroids by athletes. Not exactly confidence inspiring.

Risky Strategy

Finally, one of the conventional criticisms about Bush 41 that Bush 43 should take seriously is that the elder came off as out of touch with ordinary working families. Given this, you might have thought Bush would have found time, amidst his obligatory ``the economy is strong and growing stronger'' lines and his unsurprising stretches to connect his tax policies to anything positive. Or that he offered some sense of understanding for the millions of workers who have lost jobs or health care, or have seen anemic wage growth amidst rising tuition and debt.

You would, of course, have been wrong. He uttered not a single word of empathy or recognition to address the economic anxiety that continues to grip so much of the U.S.

Betting the whole house that fears of a dangerous world will alone keep Americans from wanting to change horses -- or jockeys -- seems a risky strategy at best. A president gets few better opportunities than the State of the Union address to speak directly to the American people without filters. Failing to offer any economic empathy for those in pain today or any economic vision for the future was a major missed opportunity, one that this president is likely to regret.

Last Updated: January 23, 2004 11:38 EST

God article but he ignores all the economic developments that have indeed occured and Bush somewhat mentioned such as strong corporate profits, declining unemployemt rate,trade deficit and a robust 3rd quarter.