TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/021191/02119912.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6.8 KB | 138 lines

                                                                                THE GULF WAR, Page 54

THE STATE OF THE UNION

So Who's Minding The Store?


Bush gets big applause with his inspiring war rhetoric. But
domestically, is he embracing deja voodoo economics all over
again?

By MARGARET CARLSON -- Reported by Dan Goodgame and Hays Gorey/
Washington


    No speaker is more compelling than one who believes what he
is saying. As the camera pulled in tight on the President's
face during last Tuesday's State of the Union address, the
millions of people tuning in saw a President who was finally
projecting the vision that all the high-priced media handlers
had been unable to supply for him. With images drawn from World
War II, when as a young Navy pilot he flew 58 combat missions,
Bush spoke convincingly of a cause that is just, moral and
right; of the dangers of appeasement; of the need for sacrifice
so that "the strong are neither tempted nor able to intimidate
the weak." While he altered Churchill's "finest hour" to the
rather less ringing "defining hour," the President did make a
stab at the British Prime Minister's flinty eloquence as he
prepared the country for a war that could prove long and
bloody. "Let future generations understand the burden and
blessings of freedom," he declared. "Let them say, `We stood
where duty required us to stand.'" His words of praise for U.S.
troops in the gulf brought the audience to its feet and touched
off a stirring ovation.

    But when Bush moved from the state of the world to the state
of the country, he left his vision at the border. The domestic
side of the speech, with its reform plans, blueprints,
comprehensive strategies and dynamic program life cycles,
sounded as if it had been cobbled together by a committee of
tightfisted accountants. There was no hint of significant
spending cuts or new taxes to finance the plans, and not even
a mention of the deficit, which has risen from $150 billion to
a projected $300 billion since Bush took office. Yes, there is
a recession -- but it is regional and temporary, and we will
grow our way out of it. As for the banks, the President said,

something to cheer about in the $500 billion collapse of the
savings and loan industry.

    Anticipating criticism for shirking problems at home, the
President did not stint on the time he spent talking about
them: nearly half of his 47 minutes was given over to domestic
affairs. But he offered a list of vague ideas, some that have
been kicking around Republican circles for more than a decade.
His proposal to turn over unspecified and underfunded federal
programs to the states is a cross between Nixon's revenue
sharing and Reagan's New Federalism, and solves the problems
of neither approach. Proposed middle-class party favors like
tax-free family savings accounts and penalty-free withdrawals
from IRAs for first-time home buyers have already been soundly
rejected by Congress. Even the proposals that sounded new were
not: Republicans have long been willing to give up
political-action committees, which favor incumbents (and in
Congress, that means Democrats), preferring individual
contributions from wealthy givers, which favor the G.O.P. And
the idea of term limitations is a Republican dream, a way to
give a League of Women Voters gloss to possibly reversing the
Democratic control of Congress, which enjoys a 96% re-election
rate.

    The proposal to cut the capital-gains tax rate is deja
voodoo economics all over again. What is novel this time is
that the plan is dead on arrival. Bush needs to placate
conservatives, who are annoyed that he so easily gave up on
their pet project during last fall's budget battle. But by
tossing the issue to a blue-ribbon commission, the President
has ensured its slow but certain demise. Resisting the
temptation to court conservatives on emotional and divisive
social issues, he made no mention of abortion, flag burning or
affirmative action. Nor did he raise the controversial question
of military spending, except to call for shoring up a
"refocused" Star Wars program in light of the successes scored
by the Patriot antimissile system in the gulf. Overall military
spending, however, is likely to decrease, according to the 1992
budget being submitted this week by the Pentagon, which calls
for a $3.9 billion cut in projected 1992 defense outlays of
$298.9 billion.

    Although the populace is more willing to ask what it can do
for the country than at any time in three decades, Bush only
talked about sacrifice on the battlefield, not on the home
front. Whether out of fear of linkage between the war and oil,
or a wariness of doing anything reminiscent of the
sweater-wearing, thermostat-lowering Carter Administration,
Bush devoted just 30 seconds to the crucial question of energy
policy.

    That left him no time to address the recommendation of some
Energy Department and White House budget officials for a gas
tax big enough to encourage fuel conservation and fund the
costly search for alternative sources (every penny a gallon
raises an extra billion dollars). Bush ducked the issue even
though he is well aware that the public knows U.S. troops would
not be fighting in the Persian Gulf if the region were the
world's leading producer of tapioca rather than the repository
of 70% of the world's oil reserves. In a nationwide survey
taken last month by bipartisan pollsters, oil was most often
cited as the main reason for the U.S. presence in the Middle
East. The U.S. is more reliant on foreign oil today than at any
time since the 1973 oil shock; imports have doubled since then,
and last year accounted for more than half the trade deficit.
Though last fall's budget deliberations did produce a token 5
cents-per-gal. increase in federal gasoline taxes, the
possibility of further levies may have been scuttled when
Republican pollster Robert Teeter found that Reagan Democrats
were the idea's fiercest opponents.

    For now, Bush has good reason to indulge his intrinsic
indifference to such things as block grants and toxic-waste
disposal. Being Commander in Chief is more glorious and
important than being commander of enterprise zones. But without
presidential leadership, inertia is likely to set in on the
home front. Television screens flicker throughout the Federal
Triangle as bureaucrats play CNN generals rather than go about
the unglamorous work of governing. Reducing America's appetite
for foreign oil, finding an affordable way to restore civility
to cities that resemble war zones, giving the 20% of America's
children who live in poverty a way out, funding medical care
for the 37 million Americans who have no health insurance,
preserving the water, the air and the land for the next
generation -- all demand attention, and all may prove every bit
as difficult as liberating Kuwait.