Fool Me Twice

By: Robert Kuttner

"Fool me once, shame on you", says a wise political maxim. "Fool me twice, shame on me." In his State of the Union address, President Bush will perpetrate a consumer fraud that makes his feint to the center in the 2000 campaign seem like truth-in-advertising.

You'll recall that the kinder, gentler Bush of the campaign postured moderate and sought, with success, to steal the Democrats' clothes. He, too, cared about children, women, poor people, minorities, abused HMO patients, trees, and so on. It worked just enough to neutralize Gore's advantages on all these issues. Bush, as President, then went blithely on to appoint a hard-right administration.

Now Bush is basking in stratospheric approval ratings courtesy of September 11 and the Afghan war. But he remains vulnerable on domestic issues. So in the January 29 State of the Union address, we will get Spurious George: The Sequel. This big-lie strategy is the work of political guru Karl Rove. Look for a lot of Americans to be fooled twice.

The big theme is to be Economic Security. ("Economic Stimulus" didn't quite play. Even the most gullible commentators didn't buy the idea that retroactive corporate tax cuts would cure the recession.) So the repackaging will attempt to wrap the Bush economic program in the halo effect of the war. What exactly does Bush mean by Economic Security? Here, according to White House press office advance leaks, are the highlights:

Reduce the Income Gaps between the Haves and the Have-Nots. No, this is not a typo. But everything about the Bush program does the opposite. His tax and budget program enriches the Haves and cuts money to help the poor and the working middle class. Child care, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, college aid, and other services for the working poor are all dwindling. Corporations are shifting health costs to employees, thanks to Bush's lax regulatory climate. The Republicans resist unions and minimum-wage laws. Bush's failure to address the recession leads to higher joblessness and stagnant wages. Does the man think the voters are total fools?

Reduce Reliance on Foreign Oil by Enacting a New Energy Policy. This is code for drilling in Alaska and more tax breaks for the oil companies. The one decent thing Bush has done here is to put federal backing behind development of fuel cells. But in general, the administration's approach leads to more reliance on oil. With U.S. reserves declining, this by definition means more foreign oil. Bush opposes even modest conservation measures.

Promote Job Security through Trade by Renewing the President's Trade-Negotiating Authority. Come again? The job growth of the 1990's was the result of technological breakthroughs that raised productivity and of Bill Clinton's improved fiscal climate, which lowered interest rates. Trade had little to do with it. On the contrary, our chronic trade deficit actually costs the economy at least two million net jobs.

Increase "Health Security" by Expanding Health Insurance Coverage and Lowering the Cost of Prescription Drugs. The sheer chutzpah of the man is breathtaking. People are losing health coverage. HMO's are cutting coverage even for the nominally insured. Bush has resisted every serious measure to expand insurance, and his budget underfunds stopgaps like the federal children's health program and Medicaid. Public-health outlays took a back seat to corporate tax cuts. Bush's program for voluntary drug-discount cards is a joke. Republicans, in bed with the pharmaceutical industry, have blocked Democrats' plan for serious cost controls, expanded drug benefits, and HMO regulation.

Reauthorize Welfare Reform. The 1996 welfare reform was saved by full employment. Some states, thanks to reduced welfare rolls, used part of the new federal block grant to offer improved child care and opportunities for former welfare recipients to attend community college. But these success stories are evaporating, and Bush's budget is too stingy to make up the difference. Meanwhile, new people are coming onto the rolls, while those who have hit the new five-year limit are on the street. So "welfare reform" needs not just reauthorization but overhaul.

Will the voters applaud the themes and get rolled on the details? If you buy this preposterous story of how to attain economic security, shame on you.