Washington is surreal. The cherry blossoms are out in their full glory. So are the deceptions and spin-meistering of the city’s top politicians.
Unlike the Clinton administration, where cabinet members and the White House staff had the habit of saying whatever was on their minds at the moment, the Bush administration is keeping its message discliplined. And the message, delivered again and again by administration officials at this week’s US meeting of the World Economic Forum, is simple (and simplistic): Cut taxes.
Cut taxes, said the White House budget director. Cut taxes, said the president’s chief economic advisor. Cut taxes, said the White House chief of staff.
They all relied on fiscal projections that make predictions about what will happen to the American economy for the next decade. You can’t find a single reputable economist or other observer of the economy who believes projections beyond a couple of years are worth even a glance. Life is not predictable. But hey, when you want to make political points, you can see forever.
The weird part about the administration’s tax-cutting mania is that the American people can see through it. People understand that the Bush administration’s tax plan is a dangerous return to the borrow-and-spend days of the last two Republican administrations, which along with a compliant Congress put the nation more than $5 trillion in debt.
The Bush proposal is aimed principally at the richest among us. Fine. That’s one of the administration’s most important constituencies, and the rich business people who paid for his campaign are demanding a return on their investment.
But they constantly frame the debate as if it’s about low- and middle-income Americans, who would gain little if anything from this plan while the vast majority of the benefits went to the top income bracket.
One of the most offensive comments here came from Lawrence Lindsey, the president’s top economic advisor. Lindsey talked about the plight of the single mother trying to support two children on $25,000 a year. Any more income, he seemed to be saying, would be taxed at a 50 percent rate.
What was he talking about? No one at that income level pays 50 percent in taxes. Moreover, the hypothetical woman’s major levy today isn’t the income tax. It’s the payroll tax, which the Bush people haven’t mentioned in their headlong rush to improve the bottom lines of the wealthiest. I’ve called the White House for an explanation of Lindsey’s statement, but haven’t heard back yet. If they can make sense of it in a way that has any relevance to the current debate, I’ll let you know.
Lindsey also tried to sell the ridiculous notion that the estate tax — which he and his compatriots have so cleverly, but inaccurately, renamed the “death tax” — is impeding the formation of capital. Excuse me, but during the past decade no one has noticed any shortage of capital. Even now, amid the implosion in stock prices and the slowdown of the economy, there’s investment capital around.
California’s energy mess has also been one of the major topics of discussion here. The administration and its allies are decidedly unsympathetic. They blame us. To some degree they’re right, but their smirking comments are not going to win many friends in the Golden State.
“The view in California,” Lindsey said, “seems to be that electricity came from a plug in the wall.”
What can the federal government do about the shortfall that’s likely to lead to chronic blackouts this spring and summer? Nada, he said, after repeating the absolute myth that the Internet uses 7 percent of the nation’s electric supply. That number was originally conjured out of thin air. Now it’s become conventional wisdom among people who are too lazy to check facts — or too anxious to put use the figure to place blame where it doesn’t entirely belong.
Lindsey accurately noted that the U.S. hasn’t had an energy policy for the past eight years. He forgot to mention that the U.S. didn’t have an energy policy for the prior 12 years, either. Sure, Clinton punted on an issue that’s now coming back to haunt us — but no more so than Reagan or the senior Bush during their years. Just as people don’t patch the leaky roof when the sun is shining, we get crazy about energy policies when it’s late in the game. The soaring energy prices today, should they last, will spur a new glut in a few years. Then we’ll forget about having an energy policy, until the next price spike.