Senate Democratic leaders, stung by criticism that they have failed to challenge the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties, are taking comfort from their goal-line stand against the latest round of proposed tax cuts. Yet as we approach the 2002 off-year elections, the Democrats could easily repeat the mistakes of the Clinton era by trying to make fiscal rectitude their mantra.
The other day, White House budget director Mitch Daniels told Congress thathe expected the budget to be in deficit for the next three years. That admissionought to whet Democrats' appetite for repealing Bush's $1.35-trillion tax cut.However, far too many Democrats are reverting to an old, discredited playbook.
In 1998, Bill Clinton worried that endless surpluses would lead to Republicantax cuts. So he declared that fiscal policy should "Save Social Security First."Depending on what sort of gloomy accounting you used, Social Security could beshown to be so far in the red that it could soak up almost any conceivableprojected surplus.
Supposedly, this strategy was a sublime trifecta. First, it redeemed Democratsas prudent budgetary stewards. Second, it associated Democrats with the mostpopular of government programs. And third, saving Social Security could bereliably counted upon to trump any tax cut. So instead of demanding that much ofthe surplus be spent on long-deferred, popular social outlays that actually rallythe Democratic base, the White House hoisted the green eyeshade as a partybanner.
In fact, every aspect of the scheme backfired. A huge and regressive tax cutpassed anyway. Waving Social Security, like a garlic clove at Republicanvampires, didn't work. Worst of all, Democrats are now without the fiscalresources, the ideological moorings, or the political nerve to promote socialinvestments that voters value.
The projected three-year deficit was a one-day story, which The New YorkTimes buried on page A19. Nonetheless, in 2002 centrist Democrats will pillory Republicans as The Party That Squandered the Surplus. The NewYorker recently profiled Congressman John Spratt, a mournful senior Democrat from South Carolina who sits on the House Budget Committee, as despondent over the dwindling surplus. If the Democrats use this as their theme next year, the voters will reward them with a polite yawn.
By November 2002, the public may be weary of endless semi-war and lingeringrecession; Bush II, former wartime hero, could face the same vulnerability asBush I. But if the best Democrats can offer is fiscal probity, they will reap fewgains.
The Democrats need to be a party that champions ordinary voters. SocialSecurity and Medicare are powerful, not just because they deliver tangiblebenefits to key constituencies, but as fruits of real political struggle. Today,that historic struggle is fossilized in the big social insurance programs thatbenefit mainly seniors. Centrist Democrats lack the gumption to extend the samekind of political connection to younger voters on issues such as practical helpto working families.
The very first target should be the huge tax cut--which could be repealed andredirected to popular social outlay. The endless Reagan deficits were certainlybad policy. But the conventional remedy is worse. For most voters, the issueisn't how precisely government balances its books but what we use government for.