IT’S ADVICE a Republican consultant might deviously give to a Senate Democrat: Open the New Year with a harshly partisan attack on a Republican president with approval ratings in the mid-80s. Suggest that his tax cuts–mostly not yet in effect–are responsible for the return of budget deficits. And say this despite the fact that 12 Democratic senators, including six who are up for reelection in 2002, voted for those tax cuts. Be shameless about the fact that you earlier claimed credit for last year’s tax rebates, the only front-loaded piece of Bush’s tax plan. Finally, in the midst of a recession, warn against further tax cuts and hint that you might even be open to repealing the tax cuts–as if wartime budget deficits were more important than the long-term health of the national economy. That scenario, of course, is not hypothetical. It’s what Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle did January 4, in a speech at the Center for National Policy. “September 11 and the war aren’t the only reasons the surplus is nearly gone,” he declared. “They’re not even the biggest reasons. The biggest reason is the tax cut.” The tone of the remarks (and Daschle’s new coiffure) ignited immediate speculation that the talk was meant to be a stature-enhancer, the kind of speech a prominent senator might give as he seriously considered a presidential bid. Last week, after the speech was widely panned–with moderate Democrats offering some of the harshest reactions–Daschle supporters muted their criticism of the tax cut and unconvincingly played down the presidential speculation. Some Republicans, however, believe Daschle has shown himself vulnerable. These Republicans want to raise the political stakes by revisiting the tax cut–not to discuss repealing it, as liberals have suggested, but to propose making it permanent. What Daschle’s speech accomplished wasn’t what he intended. It demonstrated the immense challenge the majority leader faces in running the Senate and running for president at the same time. Daschle, now the de facto leader of the Democratic party, must retain or enlarge his majority in the Senate. To do that will require reelecting several moderates, some of whom work comfortably with the Bush administration. But to seriously undertake a presidential run, he must remain in the good graces of liberal constituencies–labor, minorities, enviros–crucial to winning the Democratic nomination. Critics say those groups were his intended audience on January 4. Moderate Democrats weren’t happy. California’s Dianne Feinstein, who voted for the tax cut but is open to some tinkering with it, strongly rebuked Daschle in an appearance on “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.” “The impact of the tax cut has not yet been felt. I think that’s a very important point to make. So I don’t think it worsens the recession at all.” Zell Miller of Georgia was characteristically candid in his assessment last week. “How do you have as one of your highest priorities to reelect the moderate Democrats from South Dakota, Montana, and Missouri on one hand, then on the other blame them for voting for a tax cut that he maintains has created this recession? Hello?” Miller sponsored a bill last fall with Texas Republican Phil Gramm that would make the tax cut permanent, and would cut capital gains tax rates from 20 percent to 15 percent. Both ideas were discussed when the tax cuts were initially proposed and then again during debate over the economic stimulus package. Daschle’s speech may have given them new life. “The strategy of a good opposition party is to make life difficult for the majority, and in this case divide Democrats,” says Scott Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign and knows the hazards of seeking a presidential nomination while running the Senate. “And taxes obviously work. That’s what everybody learned after his speech.” “Daschle’s position is that the tax cut is the source of all evil on this planet,” says Gramm. “So, should we cut out this cancer and repeal the tax cut? He says no. That’s a nonsensical kind of position.” Miller, naturally, would like a vote on his bill. “How can anyone make any long-range plans for a business or for a family with a here-today, maybe-gone-tomorrow tax cut–a tax policy that has a perishable date on it, like a quart of milk? The fastest way to show taxpayers that we’re serious about tax relief is to make the tax cut permanent.” Politically, forcing a second vote on tax cuts has its advantages for Senate Republicans. The six Democrats who voted for the tax cut and are up for reelection in 2002 would have essentially two choices. Either vote again for the tax cut, this time making it permanent; or explain to voters why it made sense to vote for a temporary tax cut before we knew the country was in a recession, and why it’s wise to reject a permanent tax cut in the middle of one. “It would clearly become a major issue in 2002,” says Gramm. “I think people would like to know in Missouri, for example, whether Senator Carnahan intended it to be a permanent tax cut or just a short-term deal. To say, ‘I voted for the tax cut but I wanted it to be temporary,’ is the worst political position to be in.” Republicans say they will continue to push issues like taxes, energy, and health care that will highlight the differences between Daschle and his more moderate colleagues. If Daschle’s presidential ambitions drive him to the left, it will be an interesting year in Congress’s upper chamber. Says one GOP aide: “The Senate will be a circus. If you’re a Democratic Senate candidate, especially a moderate, you’ve got to be terrified.” Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
