SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, NOT TOE-TO-TOE
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX
Hooray for Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) for holding his ground in his response to
the State of the Union address. While congratulating President bush on
remarks, and pledging support on the international front, Gephardt took a
strong line on the economy. “I refuse to accept that while we stand shoulder
to shoulder on the war, we should stand toe to toe on the economy,” he said.
His comments made it clear that he is tired of the way those who don’t go
along with the Republican economic program have been demonized. “We need to
find a way to respect each other,” Gephardt said. Presumably, accusing your
opponents of obstructionism, as Vice-President Cheney has called Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle, isn’t the way to win friends and influence
people.
One of the ways the White House might work with the Senate on economic
stimulus is to take action on some of the issues they do agree on. President
Bush says he’d support the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. So
would the Democratic Senate. Why not take the simple step of extending
unemployment benefits, offering reassurance to the millions who lost their
jobs either because of the recession or September 11? Should the survival of
people at the bottom be a pawn in a game between the President and the
Senate? That flies in the face of the rhetoric the President offered in his
State of the Union address.
President Bush is still riding the wave of our nation’s patriotic
response to the war on terrorism. That wave won’t wipe out the dissent many
have about his domestic economic focus, nor should it. The Republican
economic position is that deregulation works. Put money in the hands of
corporations, and let them trickle it down into jobs for people at the
bottom. The unmentioned Enron debacle makes it clear that the only thing
that trickles down from some corporations is calamity. Had the alternative
minimum tax been repealed and Enron got the nearly $400 million rebate it
would have been entitled to, would the outcome in this corporate chicanery
have been different? Hardly.
Instead, Enron makes the case for increased regulation, for additional
government scrutiny, not less. It ought also make a “wait-and-see” case
about corporate tax cuts. The most effective economic stimulus plan would be
to put money in the hands of people at the bottom. Let them spend it, and
let their spending trickle its way up to corporate profits instead of the
other way around.
There are other aspects of the President’s economic program to quarrel
with. He’d make cuts in the tax rate, and in the estate tax permanent; even
though these tax cuts will leave us with a deficit that he calls “short
term”. He says that Americans are willing to pay for the war and its
consequences, and wants to boost spending on the military, on bioterrorism
research, and on homeland security. What will we pay with, if tax cuts are
increased or made permanent? He says Congress will have to contain its
spending. What he means is that Congress will have to cut social programs.
Of course, that part of the Bush message wasn’t spelled out in the State of
the Union address, lest some key constituency take offense. But it is
irresponsible to suggest that we can increase military spending, cut taxes,
and still be fiscally responsible.
Mr. Bush hopes that the Democratic opposition, intimidated by his high
approval ratings, won’t take him on about the economy. Mr. Gephardt put him
on notice that some
Democrats are prepared to challenge him on the way the economy should be
stimulated. Unfortunately, while Mr. Gephardt was willing to challenge the
President, he was not prepared to match his strident tone. On the basis of
appearances alone, Mr. Bush won that round.
He’ll win a lot more rounds if Democrats can’t figure out a way to
support him internationally while aggressively pushing their own domestic
agenda. Instead of speaking in one voice, though, Democrats have been all
over the place, with Senator Kennedy suggesting that tax cuts be delayed, and
others suggesting they be completely eliminated. Absent a Democratic “line”,
the President appears to be in control, with a gaggle of disgruntled
Democrats nipping at his heels.
Democrats have dropped the ball if they let the President wrap himself in
patriotism in order to serve corporate America a slew of tax cuts on a silver
platter. Bipartisanship should not mean acquiescence. The President’s
confident State of the Union address ought to push Democrats to an equally
strong confidence that there is another way to stimulate the economy.