The word went out among Washington politicos yesterday: Barack Obama is about to become very, very tough on federal spending.
I was talking to a Democratic strategist yesterday (our talks are always on a no-name-used basis). He is a supporter of health care reform — he prefers the Baucus bill at the moment — but told me that, immediately after winning the health care battle, Obama needs to take a radically different course.
“As soon as health care reform is over, he needs to pivot hard to becoming a deficit and spending hawk and a jobs creator,” the strategist told me. “He should say, ‘We did the stimulus because the world would have collapsed if we didn’t. We did health care because it’s something that needed to be done for working families and will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years. And now, we’re going to become absolute tyrants on spending, and that means I’m going to be vetoing things.'”
I asked whether Obama, after presiding over the stimulus, the bailouts, the big Democratic budget, the House cap-and-trade vote, health care reform, and finally, a tripling of the already-high federal deficit, could plausibly position himself as a spending hawk. “Their principle failure is that they have allowed themselves to be defined as government interventioners and huge spenders,” the strategist told me. “If he becomes the great expander of government and the great increaser of spending, he’s going to get destroyed in 2012.”
But Obama already is the great expander of government and the great increaser of spending, I said. There’s a factual basis for his image. How can he change that? “He’s got the bully pulpit,” the Democrat said. “When he opens his mouth, everybody writes it. He needs to open his mouth on this and frame it and define it until it’s holy writ.”
Put aside whether that is actually possible. Looking around today, it appears there have been several conversations like mine in recent days. In a new column, the New York Times’ David Brooks, who is a pretty reliable source of White House spin, writes, “Obama remains the most talented political figure of the age. After health care passes, he will pivot and pick some fights with his own party over spending. He’ll solidify his standing with independents, and if the economy recovers, he could go into his re-election with as much momentum as Ronald Reagan enjoyed in 1984.”
At the Politico, there’s a story headlined, “After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits.” In that story, an unnamed Democratic official says, “Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless. The White House knows this and that’s why we’ll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now.”
All this talk is obviously the result of a near-panic in the White House over the mass migration of independent voters away from the Democratic party. Somehow — who knows how? —- those independents have gotten the idea that the president and Democratic leaders in Congress support policies that lead to extensive government intervention in the economy and very high deficits. The White House sees the potential for big Democratic losses in 2010, which would make the second half of the president’s term much more difficult. So now — well, not actually now, but after passing the massive national health care bill — they have resolved to attempt to convince those independents that they’re not seeing what they’re seeing. There’s no way to say whether the White House will succeed at this task, but that is the campaign that’s coming.
