GEORGE W. BUSH drafted his $ 1.6 trillion tax cut, with help from Larry Lindsey and a band of conservative economists, in the summer of 1999 and unveiled it later that year. During 2000, the proposal was zinged in the Republican presidential primaries by senator John McCain, then trashed in the general election by Al Gore. Bush never wavered, stubbornly sticking with every element of his plan, including a 17 percent reduction in the top rate on individual income. Now we see the result. His tenacity has been rewarded: The Bush tax cut is popular.
This trend in Bush’s direction doesn’t mean we have another Ronald Reagan in the White House. But it does suggest three things about Bush as a national leader. The first is that the conservative side of his compassionate conservatism is more appealing than the media or even some of his aides let on. Second, he does have a Reagan-like determination to stick with an unpopular idea for months until it begins to generate public approval. And third, he has benefited from a presidential effect. Bush is viewed far more favorably by the public as president (62 percent approval in the Fox Dynamics Poll) than he was as a candidate, and his agenda, including the tax cut, has picked up support as well.
Okay, the Bush tax cut isn’t wildly popular. Pollster John Zogby points out its backing has risen only from “a high plurality to a low majority.” Last September, a Gallup poll found the public preferred Gore’s tax cut — whatever it was — to Bush’s by 45 percent to 37 percent.
Zogby gave Bush a slight edge on taxes then, but by mid-January, approval of the Bush proposal had jumped to 53 percent, with 34 percent opposed. The Fox poll after 20 days of the Bush presidency came up with roughly the same finding: The tax cut was favored by 54 percent to 29 percent. If those numbers hold, the Bush tax cut or something similar is bound to pass Congress.
The popularity of the tax cut confirms that, as a pure political matter, Bush was wise to follow his ideological instincts. From the beginning, his complaint was that “the federal government is overcharging people,” Karen Hughes, Bush’s White House counselor, says. According to Lindsey, Bush “believes it’s the people’s money. That’s pretty basic.”
To Bush, a federal tax bite at its highest point in a half-century is simply unfair. And from the 1999 discussions, Bush came up with a principle of taxation that he now routinely mentions in speeches: No one should pay more than one-third of their income in federal taxes. Thus, his cut lowers the top rate from 39.6 percent to 33 percent. The one-third principle puts Bush close to what the public thinks about taxation — closer than Democrats, anyway. Their notion of “targeted tax cuts” has fallen into disfavor. A poll for congressional Democratic leaders in January discovered the public views these cuts as ones they won’t get.
Bush’s persistence in sticking with his tax cut is, well, surprising, though Bush aides insist no one should have been shocked that the proposal he sent to Congress on February 8 was the same exact one he announced 14 months ago. “He never considered giving it up or even altering it,” says Lindsey. Twice, however, he was under strong pressure to do so. The first episode came after McCain humiliated Bush in the New Hampshire primary. McCain claimed Bush would devote too much of the surplus to tax cuts and not enough to debt relief. But when Bush vanquished McCain in South Carolina and later on Super Tuesday, the pressure subsided. Then Gore created a new pressure point by relentlessly assailing Bush for giving most of his tax cut to the “top one percent.” Bush never flinched.
What did change, however, was the way Bush promotes the tax cut. Initially he paid little attention to its potential economic effects, except to call it an “insurance policy against an economic downturn.” Now, he stresses the economic impact. Many Americans “are beginning to actually feel what it means to be in an economic downturn,” Bush said in transmitting his tax bill to Congress last week. “A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy. And we just can’t drive on and hope for the best. We must act without delay.” This argument, says Zogby, has helped build support, changing the broad public attitude about the tax cut from “Why?” to “Why not?”
Another adjustment in the tax message has also helped — tax families. When Gore was pounding Bush on taxes last summer, Hughes came up with an answer. Bush would appear with low- and middle-income families, explain how much of a cut they’d get, and rebut Gore’s charge that his plan was chiefly “a tax cut for the rich.” Hughes suggested the idea to Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist, who liked it. So first in an appearance in Georgia and then everywhere he campaigned, Bush put families on stage with him.
Bush liked the ploy so much he recruited four new families to join him in the Diplomatic Room of the White House when he formally announced his tax proposal on February 5. Each represented a tax bracket. Bush said he, with his $ 400,000 a year presidential salary, represents the top bracket. Two days later, Bush held a reunion of 21 tax families from the campaign as part of his week-long drive to promote his tax cut.
All this might have seemed hokey if Bush had still been a candidate. Actually, it was a bit hokey even in the White House. But there was a difference. Before, meeting with tax families was a gimmick to win an election. Now, tax families are soldiers in a presidential drive to reduce taxes and spur the economy. Same families, same George W. Bush, but a higher purpose and a glow of significance. That’s how the presidential effect works. And for Bush, it’s working quite well indeed.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
