Matthew Yglesias points us to Jackie Calmes of the Wall Street Journal, who watches Greg Mankiw and Stephen Friedman get run over by the Rove-Mehlman train:
TAPPED: September 2004 Archives: THE OWNERSHIP CLOWN SHOW. Allegedly, after the three-day hate-fest we've just witnessed, the president is going to step up to the plate and offer his positive agenda for America's future tonight. That agenda is the "ownership society," a concept that was floated in January but then temporarily abandoned. Nick Confessore and other critics have labeled this an effort to shift risk off the shoulders of corporations and the government and onto the backs of workers and citizens, but I think that's a rather too-generous account.
The main "ownership" items might achieve something like that if they were seriously implemented by serious people, but there's no sign that they will be. If you get a chance, take a look at Jackie Calmes' front page Wall Street Journal report on Bush's "plan" to improve Social Security's solvency. Calmes notes that, among other things, absolutely none of the ambiguities in Bush's 1999-vintage proposal on this front have been resolved in the intervening five years. What's more, Bush has no plan to deal with the transition costs any privatization proposal would entail. Nor would his plan actually do anything to close the actuarial imbalance plaguing Social Security. Nor does he have any intention of resolving any of these problems before making his "proposal." After the jump, we get the good inside-baseball stuff:
Some aides felt Mr. Bush should skip this nest of controversy. Economic adviser Stephen Friedman and Chairman Gregory Mankiw of the Council of Economic Advisers, among others, argued that he had a good first-term record and should run on achievements, notably tax cuts, with a promise to protect them. This was even though the aides themselves believe in Social Security reform.
Overpowering the stay-the-course faction was an influential big-idea camp. It argued that Mr. Bush needed a compelling domestic agenda, in part to offset the predominant focus on the war in Iraq. In this group were political advisers Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, Treasury Secretary John Snow and budget director Josh Bolten. . . .
When the topic turned to Social Security, the debate among Bush advisers was over how the president would answer dicey questions about details. Mr. Rove, among others, argued that he could avoid specifics, as he did in 2000 and has so far in this campaign.
Translation: Bush's political team decided he needed some big ideas, so they went to the economic team and said, "hey -- how about we privatize Social Security?" The economists told Karl Rove that this plan would raise a lot of "dicey questions" about details, and that given the country's already-perilous fiscal situation they should probably focus on defending what they've already done rather than wreaking new damage. But Rove -- aided by campaign manager Ken Mehlman, and John Snow (who used to run a railroad monopoly, though not very well) -- decided that the whole "dicey questions" problem could be dealt with by failing to put forward a serious proposal.
Memo to Friedman and Mankiw: There come a time when you have to admit that you're doing no good on the inside, and have to start drawing straws to see who is going to resign on principal--if only to strengthen the hand of your successors by making the High Politicians and their ethics-free hacks notice that ignoring the duty to make good policies not only harms the country but is, eventually, politically counterproductive as well.
I thought that time-to-admit line was crossed last winter, when--after hanging you out all fall with the message that "the Bush administration is developing a plan to cut the budget deficit in half," said plan turned out to be to (a) highball the estimate of this year's deficit by $100 billion in order to make the "cutting in half" easier, (b) leaving between $150 and $200 billion of policies that Bush supports and is trying to get enacted out of the 2009 budget, and (c) refusing to present any post-2009 numbers showing the rapid explosion of the budget deficit in the out-years. To let yourselves be used this way without complaint harmed your credibility.
It is time to think again about whether you are doing any good on the inside--especially with Snow and Bolten stabbing you in the back.
Posted by DeLong at September 2, 2004 01:35 PM | TrackBackI think that your mistake may be in assuming that there is anyone who is not an ethics-free hack in that administration.
Posted by: Tim H. at September 2, 2004 01:45 PMnow wait a minute...a tax cut isn't an achievement...it is simply a means to an end we thought: more growth!!!!
Touting that as an achievement appeals to Bush's real base! The haves and the have mores.
Anyhow, we can see that power corrupts the most virtuous men, and to hold onto an illusion of power most will abase themselves. See Powell, Rice, Tenet, and so forth. They only resign if it looks like they will be left to dangle in the wind.
Posted by: Carol at September 2, 2004 01:45 PMNone of their policy proposals are meant to be taken seriously. They are just to hoax the yokels.
THese folks will say or do absolutely anything to get into power and stay there. Anything. If George wss told that shitting on the Constitution on national TV would guarantee a win, he'd ask for time on Fox tomorrow night.
The Republican party is a truth-free zone.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan at September 2, 2004 01:49 PMI thought that perhaps this was the smart play by Mankiw et al. Isn't "running on your achievements" code for not making any reckless promises to make things worse?
After all, Bush is firmly on the record as wanting to make the tax cuts 'permanent', so the key thing was to avoid further foolishness on the Social Security issue.
Posted by: Dan Ryan at September 2, 2004 02:22 PMBattle lines are drawn:
(1) Mankiw and Friedman want to focus on the first term achievement: a gigantic tax cut for the rich.
(2) Rove and Mehlman want to focus on the ownership society: also a gigantic tax cut for the rich.
I don't have the adjectives to describe how I feel about this.
Posted by: JR at September 2, 2004 02:44 PMBrad,
I know I have been hard on you, but get yourself on TV. Debunk this nonsense.
Get your simple talking points. Get a camera, put a picture of your kids on it. Practice. Pretend you are talking on the phone.
Remind people about Bush's Mission to Mars, remind them of many other promises Bush has made in States of the Union Speechs and not lived up to. Remind them how dishonest Bush's 2000 budget numbers were. Remind them that Bush is putting a *bold* new initiative because he doesn't have any untainted achievements.
Folks let's write some simple talking points for Brad. Short and Sweet like a stiletto stab. Not long an complex like deep scapel-work.
Here's my talking point.
"Where's the numbers? Everytime Bush shows us the numbers, they turn out to be wrong and dishonestly so."
Ok, little long, how about
"Again, Bush is lying about the costs, just like his tax cuts and his Medicaid plan."
Posted by: KevinNYC at September 2, 2004 03:53 PM"I think that your mistake may be in assuming that there is anyone who is not an ethics-free hack in that administration."
Most of them resigned or were fired. What's left is guaranteed credibility-free. As an aside, yes, that includes Powell.
"Again, Bush is lying about the costs, just like his tax cuts and his Medicaid plan."
Not snappy! Too many targets! Find the bullseye and hit it -- you can explain yourself later.
Start with, "It's official: Bush has declared war on our children." Frame the debate with "The GOP's War on Children" to contrast their so-called "No Child Left Behind" act. The right-wing media will be the right-wing media -- keep hammering ANYWAY. Spiraling deficits, Iraqi civilian casualties, education cuts, uninsured families, deterioriating social services, unemployed parents -- there's enough travesty to throw weight behind the allegation.
"Bush says he's pro-life, but you're only safe until you get squeezed out."
The key to oration is that facts don't speak for themselves. Statistics need to be personalized. It's not lying if you have the facts to back it up.
Posted by: Dragonchild at September 2, 2004 05:54 PMBTW, a clarification: The above was a five-second example, to counter a point.
Collecting facts to fit a message is Step Two. Step One is to find a message that's just on the cusp of believable -- no more, no less. The above is unlikely to stick, especially in today's media environment.
Posted by: Dragonchild at September 2, 2004 06:53 PMMatthew's line: "But Rove ... decided that the whole "dicey questions" problem could be dealt with by failing to put forward a serious proposal."
Shows the beauty of this economic plan. Rove knows, and so do we, that our reporter class will never ask the "dicey questions". So they can dangle any tripe proposal out there, pretend it works, and never get called on it. (or as my kids say "tolded").
The only place the question will appear on the cable networks is The Daily Show. Where Jon Stewart acting as Shakespeare's fool will show the truth. But no one will pay attention.
Posted by: Steve Holmes at September 2, 2004 07:32 PMBollinger, to my disgust, accepted Hubard back to Columbia. Will Larry Summers accept Mankiw back to Harvard ???
Posted by: lfs at September 2, 2004 09:26 PMSometimes I'm tempted to feel sorry for Mankiw. You know any kind of insight or consideration he may bring to the table will be shot down by Rove et. all and be put on the insiders list of having "questionable loyalties".
Fall in line Greg or its 2 weeks on the road giving dumbed downed speeches to business associations and rotary clubs and Karl will be keeping score to see if you're meeting your quota of 100 repetitions of the phrase "tax cuts are working" per speech.
Wasn't Hastert calling for his resignation earlier this year regarding his view on outsourcing x-rays to india? LOL poor guy. You dance with the devil, i guess theres a price to pay.
I suggest anyone involved with the administration with an interest in doing the right thing check out old yeller to see what unquestioning loyalty gets you in the end.
I like this Dragonchild guy. Let's keep him.
Bush has declared war on our children.
Posted by: KevinNYC at September 3, 2004 12:49 AM