Outlook: Bush the Budget Buster

Conservatives and limited government types are furious about the Bush administration's fiscal year 2005 budget proposals that were unveiled last week. The budget expands government spending that has already ballooned by 27 percent in three years. But columnist James P. Pinkerton, who was a domestic policy adviser under the first President Bush, says in an Outlook section article this Sunday that the expansion of government under a Republican administration isn't a complete surprise. When war overseas inspires a president to seek national greatness, he seeks national greatness at home as well as abroad. And when big government is doling out money to the middle class and not just the poor, it can be part of a potent election year GOP package of warfare and welfare.

Pinkerton was online Friday, Feb. 6 at 3 p.m. ET, to discuss his article, "Bush the Budget Buster."

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Pinkerton,

Wow, it sounds like your associating Welfare with the Middle Class and Poor People, which both are real. You sound a little demeaning. Remember those are nothing but titles given by and created in Kings English.

Remember in Society, Civilization... Welfare comes in some form... you've heard of Corporate Welfare right?

James P. Pinkerton: Good points raised here. "Welfare," of course, wasn't always a pejorative, as in when it reads in the Preamble to the Constitution, "promote the general welfare." So there's an opportunity here for someone to come up with a word or phrase that simply communicates "commonweal," or "general well-being."

"Welfare" needn't be demeaning, although there is a burden to do a good job of administering it, which of course, hasn't always been done--and as the writer also points out, "corporate welfare" flourishes.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Who ever thought there would be a Big Government Wing of the GOP? Isn't it interesting that the largest debtors in government spending were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan? What is the potential fallout for Republicans on this issue?

James P. Pinkerton: Exactly. Who woulda thunk it? Less than a quarter-century ago, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency o a platform of abolishing the Depts. of Education and Energy. And he carried 44 states in 1980, and 49 states four years later. But then, late in his term, Reagan, having failed to abolish those depts., turned around and created the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, leaving his get-the-government-off-your-backs presidency with a net of plus one for cabinet departments.

Since then, of course, even Reagan's questionable degree of enthusiasm for government-cutting has become mostly unfashionable inside the GOP, as I argue in my "Outlook" piece.

What's the potential fallout? Interesting question. I think that the desire for a small government is a constant among some, and so there will always be a libertarian current in the country. That is, after all, where Reagan came from--in opposition to the corporate-statist Republicanism of Nixon and Ford. So while there won't be much that's visible re: this libertarian impulse in '04--there isn't time to get one together, and besides, the GOP is too shock-and-awed by War Fervor anyway--but I predict that someone will carry the small-government banner inside the GOP primaries in '08.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: In an earlier article on the current Congress, the Washington Post has reported complaints from Congressional Democrats that they have not been included in many policy negotiating sessions amongst Congressional leaders. Since Congress is controlled by Republican leaders, I understand they have the ability to set their own agenda. My question: do Congressional Republicans have the cohesiveness to negotiate and pass the budget between themselves and the White House, or will they need Democratic votes? If they need Democratic votes, when should they bring the Democrats into the negotiations?

James P. Pinkerton: I suspect that the GOP will need Democratic votes. And that will cause changes in the '05 budget. But of course, those changes will be to make the government bigger, not smaller. Democrats maybe wish to reduce the deficit, but they don't worry, as Milton Friedman does, about the overall burden of the state on the economy. Of course, the neocons don't worry much either about that.

Bottom line: the budget will swell beyond Bush has proposed.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: In the past Congress has significantly altered the President's budget. Does it look like a done deal this time, will Congress try to be tighter with taxpayers' dollars, or will there be the usual horse-trading?

James P. Pinkerton: Please see previous e. The answer, I think, is the usual horse-trading, leading to more spending. From an institutional perspective, Congress has little incentive to control spending. Rather, an individual Member of Congress has an interest in getting as much pork for his district. And even failing that, he or she has dozens/hundreds of colleagues to worry about, in terms of keeping comity, etc. Which is why it is rare that one Member systematically targets another Member's pet program or project.

The institutional "heavy" in the spending process is the executive branch, especially, the Office of Management and Budget. OMB "gets credit" for cutting spending just as surely as Members or Cabinet heads "get credit" for increasing spending.

Finally, the President has a meta-interest in a strong economy. And if he fails at that, little else matters. Which is why, for example, any believer in limited government should have been upset about the President suggesting an increase in National Endowment for the Arts spending. If the executive branch wishes to increase such marginal spending, the legislative branch will never seek to restrain such marginal spending.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: If you were advising President Bush, what would you suggest he do to become not merely a "Greatness President," to use your savvy coinage, but a great President?

James P. Pinkerton: I would tell Bush that the war in Iraq was a mistake--that Cheney, the neocons, the oil companies, whoever, have led him down a disastrous course. (In my capacity as columnist, I've been saying this for two years, ever since Bush's "axis of evil" speech, which I consider to be the most calamitous speech given by a president in my lifetime.

Of course, Bush might not wish to admit that he made a mistake, but nonetheless, it would be in Bush's interest--not to mention the country's--if he rejected their advice (which is coming) to invade Iran, Syria, or maybe Saudi Arabia. Instead, what Bush must do is reconnect to the world. I thought that the news the other day from Margaret Tutwiler, the new chief of public diplomacy at the State Dept. was quite revealing. She said, in words to this effect, that America's public image was a disaster. And in a world where terrorism can be as easy a matter as popping ricin into an envelope, or car-bombing an American facility in any of 200 capitals around the world, it behooves us, as a country, to start thinking motives, as well as means. That's what public diplomacy is all about. But of course, all the slick commercials and fancy p.r. kits are overwhelmed by TV images of Americans walking the mean streets of Baghdad.

OK, enough foreign-policy ranting.

I would also say to Bush, if he hadn't thrown me out of the Oval Office yet, that the argument of my "Outlook" piece--that warfare begets welfare (or, in deference to an early e'ers good point, maybe I should call it "well-being.") But by any name, it is expensive. And it has been proven, I think, that big governments tend to smother the productive private economy.

Bottom line: if Bush follows his present course, we will be destined for bloody disappointment in the Middle East, and lots of economic problems on the home front.

Bush needs to devote his energy to issues such as offshoring jobs. I don't think that the answer is protectionism, but some answer--maybe better education and worker training--obviously needs to be found.

_______________________

San Pedro, Calif.: Mr. Pinkerton,

You say: "Nine decades later, Americans feel the same war-tempered impulse; honoring heroes and their families is front and center on the agenda -- and in the budget."

Isn't the current administration just trading on the names of the dead - while somehow managing not to actually acknowledge any? What kind of country will the lucky ones return to - once we bankrupt it with this uncontrolled spending?

James P. Pinkerton: Right. I hate to say this, but Bush, having gone to some trouble, so far as I can tell, to NOT serve in the harms' way military back when it was his "turn," now seems inordinately eager to hang out with the military when it's simply a matter of cheerleading young men and women as they go off to war.

And yet at the same time--scandalously, in my view--the administration is doing its best to squelch media coverage of the war dead. I can't think of a worse message to send to the military: the C in C is happy to be with you on the upside, but wants you hidden on the downside. Right now, the uniformed military doesn't seem to mind, but I suspect that it will start to gnaw on them. Especially on weeks such as this, where the media have provided infinitely more attention to Janet Jackson's nipple than to all the news from Iraq put together.

War has consequences, and some of them can be, within reason, predicted. That was my point about Lloyd George's famous phrase, "a nation fit for heroes." Based on that precedent, and many others, it was obvious that the Iraq war would increase the overall spending level. And now, another precedent will be felt again: the men and women will come home from Iraq with much hidden damage, both psychic and physical. And so the latter part of this decade will be like the 70s were after Vietnam. In the future, as in the past, busted-up vets will struggle to reintegrate themselves into society, and it won't be easy for them. Many of them will fail. It's a tragedy. But just as war is a tragedy, among other things, so is post-war. One question will be whether or not the signature movie to follow Iraq is a film in the vein of "The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946) or "The Deer Hunter" (1979).

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: For those who favor less government, is there any reason to vote Republican this year?

James P. Pinkerton: If less government is the only goal, then I don't think that there is much reason to vote Republican, at least at the top of the ticket. Recent history--the Clinton years--suggests that divided government is better. These are the sorts of questions, of course, that preoccupy "public choice" economists, of the sort that tend to hang at, say, George Mason U. There needs to be lots of different kinds of analysis as to how it was that Bill Clinton was the smallest-government president, I think, in 40 years, whereas Bush is the biggest-spending president since LBJ.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: Do you predict middle class hand-outs will have a starring role in the '04 GOP convention? Will the Big Tent Republicans become the Big Daddy Republicans?

James P. Pinkerton: Yes. I think Rove & Co. will offer a parade of Satisfied Customers, extolling the virtues of No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug benefit, the Farm Bill, etc. In contrast to the e-er, these Testifiers won't call them "handouts," of course, They will call them "investments." My preferred term for such spending would be probably fall somewhere in between "handout" and "investment."

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: "The expansion of government under a Republican administration isn't a complete surprise" --of course it isn't. Reagan-Bush also expanded government. Aren't you surprised Bush cuts $800 million from the Office of Domestic Preparedness (state and locality antiterrorism funds)? Or that he cuts veterans funding by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years? Or cuts the Community Oriented Policing program by 94 percent? Or cuts federal assistance to state and local law enforcement by $1 billion?

James P. Pinkerton: I think that what's going on here is that the Bush people had to produce a budget on February 3, and they wanted the budget number and the deficit number to look as "small" as possible. So they put forth a lot of cuts that they know will never take place. This was Bob Bixby's point in my piece--the fellow from the Concord Coalition. To borrow a term from Wall Street, the Bush people had to "hit their number," at the moment that everyone was paying attention, and after that, it was sort of someone else's problem. Which is to say, the Bush people probably assume that many, if not most, of the cuts outlined by the e-er will be restored on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, if a year from now, it turns out the deficit is $464 billion, instead of the currently projected $364 billion, well, the Bush people--assuming that they are re-elected--will simply blame those "big spenders" in Congress.

That would be shameless, of course, but then, most politicians are shameless. They have to be. Shamelessness is a trait selected for in politicians.

_______________________

Oklahoma City, Okla.: Hi Jim. We worked together at Bush/Quayle 88. I think what we are witnessing is the product of a results oriented administration. It is the first MBA administration. What does that mean? It means that challenges, threats, opportunities, priorities are identified and resources are allocated to meet them. Many doctrinaire fiscal conservatives would like to those resources allocated within a balanced budget, but here in reality, government deficits are sometimes necessary. Every government solution requires some market-oriented tools and some government control tools. This administration appears less concerned with the tools than with the result. It's the old line: if the ends don't justify the means, what does? The administration has achieved really remarkable results with respect to serious national challenges. If America pushes the deficit up to the top of the priority heap, then I am confident it will be addressed by this administration.

James P. Pinkerton: Hi, dear comrade from a happier time--whoever you might be.

I tend to agree with you, that the deficit is a relatively small thing. Which is why I have taken such pains to cite Friedman's "it's the size of government, stupid" argument.

Moreover, I think I understand the difference between inputs and outputs in government activity. Inputs can be virtually infinite and the output can still be disappointing, even counter-productive.

And so I think that the jury is still out on "No Child Left Behind," for example. For all the criticism it has taken, the general notion that testing forces improvement--or, to put it another way, you can only for sure improve what you can measure--is valid to me.

However, if the question is "results" on the things that are biggest to the Bush people, I think that those same Bush people flunk, badly.

It now seems apparent that on 9-11, we were attacked by some roguish combination of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. And so what did we do? We attacked Iraq. And now, all the blood and money aside, we are left with zero credibility when we deal with the real issues, which, to me, seem to be the fact that Pakistan has been the one-country axis of evil all along. I don't have a good answer to the question of what to do about Pakistan, but it's obvious that the Bush people don't either.

And that's a poor result.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: follow up to your suggestion that divided government is most likely to lead to budget sanity. In 1983 and 1992, the budget was way out of balance and as I recall the President was Republican and the House was Democratic (the Senate was Republican in 1983 and Democratic in 1992). Does your analogy really hold or am I missing something.

James P. Pinkerton: Maybe you're right. As I said, the question of which mix of power in DC leads to the most limited government is an open one in my mind. But as a proponent of limited government, I think back happily, now, to the late 90s.

_______________________

Laramie, Wy.: Mr. Pinkerton:

Even though the Bush administration has broken the fiscal promises the Republicans made in their "Contract with America," they still condemn the Democrats as big spenders... and most of the Republican faithful seem to buy that. How can the Democrats overcome that stigma and successfully run against Bush's record?

James P. Pinkerton: I think that the Democrats--led, one supposes by John Kerry--are in a tough spot. Kerry has impeccable war credentials--not just fighting in VN, for which I admire him, but also for publicly opposing it thereafter, so as to save others from death. Both of those deeds, all of which took place before the man turned 30, are intensely admirable. I think that Bush's biggest fans would be hardpressed to name anything meritorious that Bush did before he was 30.

But of course, this election isn't about the 70s, it's about the '00s.

And in the here and now, I predict that Bush pulls out of Iraq, or, more precisely, pulls back to a few bases away from the population, such that few if any Americans get killed over there in the second half of '04.

Then, he rides the economy upward, invoking such opprotunistic cultural conservatism issues as gay marriage--which, of course, will particularly hurt Kerry, since Ground Zero of the controversy is his own home state of Massachusetts.

Kerry's problem is that his views on Iraq and the Iraq war are, to put it mildly, confused. He voted for the '02 resolution, with Bush, and then mostly attacked the war when it started, and then even voted against the $87 billion. That makes no sense.

Also, I don't think that the Democrats have a credible economic plan. Or, to the extent that they do, it's worse than Bush's. I don't think that raising taxes will help the economy, nor do I think that increasing trade barrier will help, as many Democrats (and, admittedly, many Republicans) advocate. And of course, Kerry will almost surely seek to spend more money than Bush. Hence, the deficit and the size of the state will probably not shrink.

That's not a particularly attractive bunch of issues to take to an incumbent president running for re-election.

I

_______________________

Ballston, Va.: How far must the pendulum swing before it heads back toward the more libertarian side of things? And will it be too late for them to save us from ourselves?

James P. Pinkerton: As for pendulum swings, I tend to be an optimist--because, as the e-ers sez, it is a pendulum. I would love to see a candidate get up and say, for example, that all the people in jail for drugs and other victimless crimes should be let go. I can't honestly say that that would be good politics in '04, or even '08, but I do think it's the right position to take, and I do think that people would follow that live-and-let-live standard, eventually.

Another issue where the libertarians have the right idea is stem cell research. Eventually--not in '04, but definitely by '08--the American people are going to figure out that social conservatives are blocking the development of cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc.

And at that point, the forces of freedom--albeit, perhaps, with some element of government subsidy for the life-saving/enhancing research--will have the beginnings of a strong message.

_______________________