WASHINGTON -- As the short-term impacts of the Nov. 2 elections dissipate, the federal deficit is emerging as a hot political topic with fiscal hawks and Democrats hoping it will become a top issue in the coming years. Clay Risen argued in this week's New Republic that the deficit could be a saving grace Democrats could ride back to power if they handle the issue well, a thought echoed in conversations with congressional Democratic aides.
But the prospects of this are not great, if history and recent actions of Democrats, GOP leaders and fiscal hawks serve as a guide.
In addition, the issue is crowded by the war on terror, a host of social issues, taxes and Social Security reform, as well as other less esoteric economic concerns in the fight for the political spotlight. The good news for fiscal hawks from both parties is that voters appear to like the idea of a low deficit.
In a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday that echoed past findings, nearly two-thirds of all respondents -- including 51 percent of Republicans -- said they believed it more important to reduce deficits than to cut taxes.
Cutting taxes further is a central position of the Bush administration that would likely add remarkably to the deficit if not paid for by cutting spending in other areas, an unlikely proposition not embraced by the Bush White House or lawmakers from either party in significant levels during the past four years.
Recent reports that the White House will not include any costs for reforming Social Security, a second-term priority of Bush, in their 2006 budget request underscores the unrealistic budget accounting at work in Washington these days and the argument Democrats can make against Republican fiscal policy.
Although the Bush administration argues that it has yet to settle on a final plan, it is a widely accepted fact that any attempt to move toward partial privatization of the program through a move to private accounts for younger workers, a stated goal of Bush, will have transition costs of up to $2 trillion.
Reports out of Capitol Hill that various accounting strategies are being examined to see if the costs of the move could be kept to a minimum, at least on paper, further demonstrate the fiscal politics at play on the issue.
"Decisions made in the budget process determine this nation's fiscal course for the coming legislative year and frequently well into the future," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a letter to Bush Monday. "As a result, your budget should include and fully account for Social Security and other major proposals that you have indicated are top legislative priorities."
Although Democratic leaders clearly think they can gain political capital with the deficit issue, the prospects do not appear tremendous for a tidal wave of support for Democrats on the issue of federal fiscal discipline.
While true it has been a top Democratic issue in the past, this was at the hands of the greatest political gift the Democratic Party had in the latter half of the 20th century: President Bill Clinton.
And as good a political animal as Clinton is, with his great penchant for connecting with voters, he made the deficit an issue during a great period of economic growth and prosperity for the country.
This is important because it is well-known fact of polling that pretty much everyone says they want strong social programs and environmental laws in the absence of conflict.
However, those beliefs fall to the wayside when other higher profile issues come into play, such as the costs or if they have concerns about their job security. This fact is best demonstrated in the big wins Republicans had in the November elections.
Bush won despite the fact that polls -- the Times research being the most recent -- show the majority of voters disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq, the U.S. economy and foreign affairs. In addition, a majority of those polled continue to say the country is going in the wrong direction.
What is at play here? Terrorism.
Page 2 of 2
The Times poll and other findings suggest that the election outcome, at least in terms of the race for the presidency, reflected that more voters trusted Bush to protect them from future attacks and that he was more likable than Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Other recent polls show voters rank terrorism at the top of their list of concerns, above the general heading of the economy.
Ultimately, Democrats tried to talk fiscal politics to voters this year to some extent but failed to connect with voters on the topic.
Simply arguing that the $413 billion deficit in 2004, $574 billion when excess Social Security funds are excluded, is a bill their children will have to pay is clearly not enough.
They will have to come up with a new message on the issue as well as a great messenger to connect with voters to have success, an immense challenge for the party.
There have already been clumsy attempts to do so by placing the deficit in a moral sphere, but they are overshadowed by the partisan attacks made on President Bush.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., made such an attempt last week by comparing Bush to a drunken family head spending money recklessly without letting the family know and with disregard of its impact on the children. "Having a drunken head of a household spending the family's money without telling them what they are doing lacks morality," said Rangel.
The Republican administration and establishment also talks a good game on the issue, even though it appears to be headed by those who buy into the "deficits don't matter" groupthink controlling the policy process.Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that the recently approved 2005 federal appropriations bill sets the country on the path toward balancing the federal budget. "You'll hear pork and spending and all the details, which, you know, make for good fodder and good show, and there are things in there that I would say shouldn't be in there in terms of certain spending," said Frist. "But what is beautiful about it is it shows the fiscal discipline."
While overall discretionary spending is kept down to around a 1-percent increase, it is only about one-seventh of the total $2.3 trillion federal budget.
The vast majority of that -- defense and homeland security, entitlement and farm-subsidy spending -- are on the rise with no signs of being cut in the future.
Republicans are also not solely responsible for the increases in recent years as many Democrats supported the spending that led to the increase deficit.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, in this year's tightened budget, spending made at individual lawmakers' requests includes 11,772 pork projects worth $15.78 billion.
The best hopes for Democrats in making gains on the issue fall not within their caucus or even with voters, but with fiscally conscious moderates and conservative members in the majority party on Capitol Hill. Incoming conservative Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina join GOP moderates like Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and conservatives like Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
However, the records of even senators that have made it their calling card to be viewed as go-it-alone mavericks, such as McCain, are not all they are made out to be.
It would take some pretty miraculous wheeling and dealing on the part of Senate Democrats to create the sort of coalition needed to ensure the stopping of the sort of fiscal shenanigans under discussion in GOP camps these days.
Making political gains out of that process remains an even bigger task for the Democrats.
