Bush, Barack both bump base under the bus
Published 12:00 am Sunday, December 12, 2010
OXFORD — The phrase “toss under the bus” is overused by reporters. It means to abandon one’s supporters. It is the opposite of legendary coach Paul “Bear” Bryant’s admonition to “dance with the one who brung you,” but when it fits it fits.
With events in Washington last week, successive presidents have tossed their electoral voting base under the proverbial bus when it comes to managing (or mismanaging) the people’s credit card.
During his eight years, President George W. Bush oversaw a doubling of America’s debt from $4 trillion to $8 trillion. Much of that time, the chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats, but Bush did little to stymie spending legislation. Indeed, the president’s fellow Republicans, including Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Trent Lott might have given lip service to the problem being created, but plowed right ahead.
Bush, a former Texas governor, campaigned for the White House as a fiscal conservative. His voter base was composed of people who believe that government has no greater duty than to live within their means.
But deficit spending was authorized by Bush, even initiated by Bush. An example would be the Medicaid prescription drug benefit — which is a good thing — except that there was no mechanism to pay for the new entitlement. It was initially estimated to cost $400 billion in its first 10 years, but will likely cost three times that much, at least.
In this way and myriad others, not only was the Bush base tossed under the bus, Republicans forfeited any claim to fiscal conservatism they could have injected into the party’s efforts against the election of Barack Obama.
But look what President Barack Obama has done.
Last week, he announced a “compromise plan” under which he would favor extending a package of tax cuts enacted during the Bush years if Republicans would agree to extend unemployment checks jobless people are receiving for another year.
The “Bush tax cuts” have been at center stage since enacted in 2001 with an automatic repealer after 10 years. As a candidate and until last week, Obama insisted that the income tax rates should be restored (at least) to their 2000 level for households with gross revenue of $250,000 per year or more. He insisted the breaks were “gifts” to people “who didn’t need the money.” Republicans countered that small businesses and high earners were job creators and did, in fact, need to keep the money to rev up the economy. And perhaps due to their astounding gains in midterm elections last month, they prevailed. At a press conference, not only did Obama throw his liberal voting base under the bus, he scolded his supporters for being insufficiently realistic about the necessity of compromise.
To their credit, Obama’s base, unlike Bush’s, did not take this passively. Almost instantly, progressive voices on radio and television protested in the strongest terms. Keith Olberman of MSNBC, an avid Obama fan and ardent critic of the Bush years, went so far as to suggest that core Democrats should start looking for someone to run against Obama for the party nomination in two years.
As is almost always the case, the details matter greatly. Serious journalists have examined a breakdown of what extending the tax cuts will cost. Their bottom line is that while a two-year extension would, if figured over 10 years, mean the federal treasury would forgo about $900 billion, only $133 billion would be from those nasty rich folks who don’t need the money. Obama has pointed out that the rest of the package includes such general breaks as earned income credits for the working poor, credits for children and a payroll tax holiday.
Perception, however, usually matters more than reality, so it appears Obama will be in the proverbial doghouse with his voting base. MoveOn.org aired a TV commercial the morning after the compromise plan begging the president to hold the line. One “typical citizen” on the commercial said her income would lead to the higher tax, but she knew the nation needed the money more than she did. (Omitted was the fact that America accepts donations and any person can send a check any time, owed or not.)
The real issue here, obviously is the debt itself. It’s ticking toward $14 trillion now, up from $5 trillion 12 years ago.
One more sobering grain: As reporters use tired phrases to analyze the political weirdness and members of Congress parade around either glum or gloating, the debt ticks ever higher. And had the president not “caved,” the debt would have been nicked, but barely.
•
Charlie Mitchell is a Mississippi journalist. Write to him at Box 1, University, MS 38677, or e-mail cmitchell43@yahoo.com.