Will Tuesday's State of the Union address restore U.S. President George W. Bush's political fortunes? Only a few weeks ago, that would have seemed an extremely unlikely question. Fresh off the Republican victory in the U.S. midterm elections, Bush seemed invincible -- and it's amazing how many stories you still read about his immense, unshakeable popularity.
But anyone who takes the trouble to look at the numbers knows that the thrill is gone. Bush's approval ratings have plunged over the last two months. A year ago he was, indeed, immensely popular; right now he's not significantly more popular than he was before Sept. 11, 2001.
Other polls suggest that the public is particularly disenchanted with Bush's economic policy. Most voters no longer believe that his tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, and many also believe that his policies favor the wealthy and large corporations, rather than people like themselves. (Class warfare!) Still, polls can shift -- as they did, suddenly, after Sept. 11.
Can Tuesday's speech do the trick? We can be sure that some pundits will acclaim the speech as bold and brilliant; they would do that if he read from "The Very Hungry Caterpillar." Whether their praise, and the theatrics of the occasion, will turn things around is anyone's guess. A lot depends on whether Bush is held accountable for the promises he made in his last State of the Union address.
For there was more to that speech than the axis of evil (a phrase, by the way, that has vanished from Bush's vocabulary, along with the name of that guy he promised to bring in dead or alive).
He assured those who worried about red ink that "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-lived." He offered comfort for those who remembered his father's "jobless recovery," which felt like a continuing recession: "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs."
Fast-forward a year. We now know that the "small" budget deficit will rise above $300 billion, and stay there. Even the Bush administration's own, ever optimistic budget officials now concede that we face deficits as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile, payrolls continue to decline; since the working-age population keeps rising, it's becoming ever harder for ordinary Americans to get jobs, or keep them.
And there's a good chance things will get a lot worse: with markets sliding, consumers wilting, businesses fearful about the effects of war and oil prices rising, the pieces are in place for a full-blown double-dip recession. And the second dip would take us much further down than the first. So can Bush convince us that his latest tax cut is just the tonic the economy needs?
There are several reasons to doubt whether he can pull it off. For one thing, economists outside the administration, even those who always find ways to praise whatever he proposes, can't see what this tax cut has to do with the economy's immediate problems.
This has led to a striking dissonance between what administration officials say on TV -- where it's still all about jobs -- and what they say when speaking to knowledgeable audiences.
In background briefings for reporters, at the Davos conference this past weekend and wherever else they encounter people who might actually know something about the numbers, officials now pooh-pooh concerns about the state of the job market. Never mind that, they say, our plan is all about increasing long-run growth. Um, but what about "economic security"?
The administration's credibility problem is made worse by the high casualty rate among top economic officials, and the uninspiring quality of their replacements. Tuesday was the first day of hearings for John Snow, the administration's choice for Treasury secretary. One official I spoke to was rueful: "I thought Paul O'Neill wasn't suited to being Treasury secretary; he'd have been better off running a railroad. Now they've picked a man who ran a railroad."
But that's not why he was chosen, according to CBS Market Watch: "He was picked because he's a lobbyist, a schmoozer, a master salesman" -- and a member of no fewer than nine country clubs.
Still, nobody razzle-dazzles 'em like Bush. Tonight we'll see if he's good enough to make us forget last year's promises.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
But anyone who takes the trouble to look at the numbers knows that the thrill is gone. Bush's approval ratings have plunged over the last two months. A year ago he was, indeed, immensely popular; right now he's not significantly more popular than he was before Sept. 11, 2001.
Other polls suggest that the public is particularly disenchanted with Bush's economic policy. Most voters no longer believe that his tax cuts are effective at creating jobs, and many also believe that his policies favor the wealthy and large corporations, rather than people like themselves. (Class warfare!) Still, polls can shift -- as they did, suddenly, after Sept. 11.
Can Tuesday's speech do the trick? We can be sure that some pundits will acclaim the speech as bold and brilliant; they would do that if he read from "The Very Hungry Caterpillar." Whether their praise, and the theatrics of the occasion, will turn things around is anyone's guess. A lot depends on whether Bush is held accountable for the promises he made in his last State of the Union address.
For there was more to that speech than the axis of evil (a phrase, by the way, that has vanished from Bush's vocabulary, along with the name of that guy he promised to bring in dead or alive).
He assured those who worried about red ink that "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-lived." He offered comfort for those who remembered his father's "jobless recovery," which felt like a continuing recession: "When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs."
Fast-forward a year. We now know that the "small" budget deficit will rise above $300 billion, and stay there. Even the Bush administration's own, ever optimistic budget officials now concede that we face deficits as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile, payrolls continue to decline; since the working-age population keeps rising, it's becoming ever harder for ordinary Americans to get jobs, or keep them.
And there's a good chance things will get a lot worse: with markets sliding, consumers wilting, businesses fearful about the effects of war and oil prices rising, the pieces are in place for a full-blown double-dip recession. And the second dip would take us much further down than the first. So can Bush convince us that his latest tax cut is just the tonic the economy needs?
There are several reasons to doubt whether he can pull it off. For one thing, economists outside the administration, even those who always find ways to praise whatever he proposes, can't see what this tax cut has to do with the economy's immediate problems.
This has led to a striking dissonance between what administration officials say on TV -- where it's still all about jobs -- and what they say when speaking to knowledgeable audiences.
In background briefings for reporters, at the Davos conference this past weekend and wherever else they encounter people who might actually know something about the numbers, officials now pooh-pooh concerns about the state of the job market. Never mind that, they say, our plan is all about increasing long-run growth. Um, but what about "economic security"?
The administration's credibility problem is made worse by the high casualty rate among top economic officials, and the uninspiring quality of their replacements. Tuesday was the first day of hearings for John Snow, the administration's choice for Treasury secretary. One official I spoke to was rueful: "I thought Paul O'Neill wasn't suited to being Treasury secretary; he'd have been better off running a railroad. Now they've picked a man who ran a railroad."
But that's not why he was chosen, according to CBS Market Watch: "He was picked because he's a lobbyist, a schmoozer, a master salesman" -- and a member of no fewer than nine country clubs.
Still, nobody razzle-dazzles 'em like Bush. Tonight we'll see if he's good enough to make us forget last year's promises.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, where this comment first appeared.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.