We are so used to a politics of blurred class interests in America that clarityis actually confusing. Throughout our history, the major parties have beeneconomically heterogeneous, and the basic tenets of the American creed havedenied any legitimacy to class as a basis of political action--except, that is,for measures in aid of the great, sprawling middle class that is ideallysupposed to embrace nearly everyone. Democrats lean to labor but regularlynominate multimillionaires for office, and Republicans lean to business butappeal to the moral traditionalism of many working families. In recent years,despite the unions' continued effectiveness in mobilizing their members to voteDemocratic, a majority of white working-class men have often voted Republican--asthey did in the last presidential election.
This long history of muted class politics and working-class conservatism makesall the more striking the in-your-face program that President Bush is pressingCongress to adopt. The first priorities of the new administration have not beenslightly biased in favor of the more affluent: They have been tilted to anoverwhelming degree in favor of the very rich. Defenders of the administration'sincome-tax proposals often say that the rich get the biggest cut because they paythe most in taxes. But while the top 1 percent would get 43 percent of thebenefits of Bush's income-tax reductions, they pay only about half thatproportion of federal taxes. The skewed distribution of benefits stems fromBush's deliberate choices about which tax to cut and how to cut it. Designingcuts targeted to low- and middle-income people--indeed, to more of the people whovoted for him--would be easy, but he hasn't bothered.
The repeal of the estate tax is even more exclusively directed to the richsince it would benefit the heirs to none but the top 2 percent of estates--theonly estates that now pay the tax. Defenders of repeal say it would help preservefamily farms and small businesses, as if the Republicans were looking out forthe little guy. But family-owned enterprises represent the majority of theassets in only 3 percent of estates that pay the tax, or six out of every 10,000estates altogether. The political priority of estate-tax repeal is itselftestimony to the lopsided class interests now shaping national policy. Heirs andheiresses didn't used to be so popular.
Regressive fiscal measures are sometimes justifiable because of their effectson productivity and long-term growth, but the repeal of the estate tax isn'tgoing to provide any general benefits of that kind. Indeed, some evidencesuggests, not surprisingly, that large inheritances diminish the incentive towork--just the sort of thing conservatives are supposed to worry about. Recentdecades have already seen a marked increase in wealth inequality, but thatincrease has been largely a by-product of the stock market (when it was rising).Repeal of the estate tax would be a breakthrough of sorts in the deliberate useof public policy not to spread wealth but to concentrate it.
The Republican regulatory agenda is equally one-sided. Congress repealed theClinton-approved standards to reduce repetitive-stress work injuries so fast,and with so little discussion, that the public had no idea what was happening.The bankruptcy legislation sought by creditors is a done deal. On March 11,The Washington Post reported that "even as they savored these triumphs, business representatives looked ahead to passing a broader agenda that would pare back environmental and land use regulations, limit corporate liability for faulty products, rewrite rules protecting the privacy of patients' medical records, cut red tape blocking new oil refineries and pipelines, and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling." Perhaps Ralph Nader should try explaining once again why Gore and Bush were no different.
The Republican agenda makes a mockery of the idea that new presidents need anelectoral mandate to make major changes in policy. A few months ago, manyanalysts thought that Bush's loss of the popular vote would force him tomoderate his proposals. But with control of both the presidency and Congress,Republicans have the first opportunity in a long time to do what they want innational policy. The tax windfall for the rich and regulatory breaks for businessexpress the highest priorities and deepest impulses of a party no longer checkedor balanced. To be sure, because of the close margin in the Senate, Bush mayhave to compromise a bit, sharply cutting back the estate tax instead of totallyrepealing it and reducing the top income-tax bracket from 39.6 percent to 35percent instead of 33 percent. But even with such adjustments, the wealthy willbe the big winners.
None of this causes any noticeable regret in our amiable M.B.A. president.Compassion does not distract him when his mind turns, as it occasionally must, to the core business of government. He works short hours, delegates authority over major decisions, and seems untroubled by any hard choices. In style as wellas substance, he is a man of his class.
It would be nice to suppose that Bush's policies will meet repudiation in afuture election. But once taxes are cut, it is nearly impossible to restore themduring peacetime. Despite tremors on the stock market and uneasiness about theeconomy, Americans still are generally happy, prosperous, and politicallyinattentive. The next presidential election is years away, and memories areshort. There may never be a better time to sack the Treasury. You don't miss achance like this when you have it.
