How far will Bush's domestic mandate go? As a White House economic conference gets underway, the administration forges ahead on the president's agenda - and on selling it to the public. By Liz Marlantes | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – President Bush has launched a PR push for his ambitious second-term agenda, with a two-day economic summit aimed as much at refocusing public attention on hot-button domestic issues from Social Security to the tax code - and engendering support for his proposals - as at hashing out new policy details. The conference, which began Wednesday, features members of the academic and business communities, including many contributors to Bush's reelection campaign. Along with addressing the overall state of the economy, it is highlighting the president's top domestic priorities, including adding private accounts to Social Security for younger workers, simplifying the tax code and making the president's tax cuts permanent, and limiting damage awards for medical malpractice and other forms of lawsuits. In the wake of his reelection victory, Bush has made clear that he believes he has a mandate, and that he will use his political capital to push for bold reforms. But it remains to be seen how strong Bush's domestic mandate actually is. And since many of his proposals have already met with resistance from Democrats and a number of interest groups, the level of public support the president is able to rally will be critical. Mission: Social Security Throughout the campaign, Americans routinely cited terrorism, Iraq, and jobs as their top priorities; exit polls showed those voting for Bush were far more likely to do so because of moral values than because they liked his stance on Social Security. Even now, when asked in a recent Gallup poll about the most important problem facing the country today, only 2 percent of respondents cited Social Security, and 2 percent cited taxes - compared with 23 percent citing the war in Iraq. On the other hand, analysts say, Americans' views on traditional "third rail" issues like Social Security have been shifting in recent years. Attempts to fix the system may be becoming less of a political risk than the appearance of doing nothing - creating a window of opportunity for Bush, depending on how he markets his proposals. "It's going to be a big selling job," says Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute. "[But] I think the public will be receptive - they're in a mood to listen to what Bush has to say." Social Security in particular may present both the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity. Polls have shown a gradual shift in the public's expectations regarding the system over the past two decades, with a growing number of Americans expressing a lack of confidence that they will receive all the benefits they are due. More Americans now see their 401(k) or pension, rather than Social Security, as their main source of retirement income. And most polls show a majority of Americans are receptive to the idea of changing the system to allow for private accounts. There's also a generational factor, with younger Americans the least confident that Social Security will be available to them, and the most receptive to the idea of managing their own accounts. At the same time, analysts agree that the group most likely to resist proposed changes to the system is not the current batch of retirees - whose benefits are almost certain not to be affected - but those at the front end of the baby boom generation, who are on the cusp of retirement. Some GOP strategists suggest Bush should offer new language to describe his proposals, shifting from "privatization" - which often has certain class connotations - to an emphasis on "personal accounts." The trouble with taxes and tort But while Social Security reform alone would make for an ambitious domestic agenda, it may not even prove the most difficult item on the president's wish list. Certainly, analysts say, Bush may find a wellspring of public support for the general notion of reforming the tax code. "The public hates the tax code," says GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "They're afraid of the IRS, they're frustrated with their own tax forms, and they want a change." But it's less clear that the public believes change will actually happen on that front - or expects to see real, personal benefits from any proposed changes. Indeed, in the past, even after changes to the tax code have been made, Americans have shown skepticism: After Ronald Reagan enacted major tax reform in 1986, polls showed many Americans didn't think they'd gotten a tax cut, even when they had. Still, in his opening remarks at the conference, Vice President Dick Cheney said making Bush's tax cuts permanent would be a top priority. Tort reform could also prove a thorny issue, if only because, unlike Social Security and taxes, which affect every American, it impacts a narrower constituency. But those groups for whom it's a top priority - such as doctors - are highly motivated to press for change. And while public opinion on the whole is less clear on this issue, Americans appear to be at least somewhat receptive to change: Ballot measures on tort reform this past November met with mixed results overall, but passed in four of the six states considering them.
Along with addressing the overall state of the economy, it is highlighting the president's top domestic priorities, including adding private accounts to Social Security for younger workers, simplifying the tax code and making the president's tax cuts permanent, and limiting damage awards for medical malpractice and other forms of lawsuits. Still, in his opening remarks at the conference, Vice President Dick Cheney said making Bush's tax cuts permanent would be a top priority. GWB commitment to growing the federal deficit is awe inspiring.
question: how can he limit damages for medical malpractice suits??? those are state cases. the federal government can't do that, unless they federalize med mal...which would be a huge disaster. am i missing something?? by the way...went to a CLE course on Prop 12 last week given by a doctor that blew the doors off the idea that this thing will bring down premium expenses for doctors...thought about starting a thread sharing some of that info..anyone other than TJ interested? i'm all for simplifying the tax code. yes, please.
Wow this is teh most absurd thing I ever read. Can you really imagine a President who makes campaign promises, gets re-elected and then of all teh stupid things to do he goes out and tries to achieve those promises. What is this world coming to?
I would be interested in that information. And I am more for scrapping the current tax code rather than "simplifying" it.
YES, start the thread--my Doctor has mentioned the same thing, that the limits only reward fat-cat insurance companies, NOT Doctors.
What do you want to bet after the tax code "simplication" the rich people will be paying less taxes? We could probably start a thread on the complexities of the tax code as well.
they pay less BECAUSE of the complexity..because they're the only ones who can afford the services to get around it.
But but but ... Dr Red Duke (or at least his recorded voice) called my house before the last prop vote and told me to vote for the prop since high insurance premiums were driving doctors out of medicine. If the premiums did not get lower, doctors by the droves must have been forced out of their practices. A sad thing really. Maybe those out of work doctors are now working as sackers at Krogers.
Precisely. The complexities exist because of people's inventive ways to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. A flat tax makes so much sense. We actually have a flat tax now in the AMT. AMT is kinda like a hidden second rail of the tax code, that forces tax payers to tract their taxes on the the separate tracks (once they have fallen into the AMT "trap".)
Alternative Minimum Tax. The goal of AMT is to prevent tax payers from growing their deductions to cover their AGI. I think the AMT tax % is 26% for the first 175K, and 28% thereafter. IIRC there is also a corporate AMT (but I suspect that there are some easy end-rounds to the corporate AMT since many corporation little or no taxes.)
Not entirely true. The complexities exist because of the difficulty of defining income. And the desire to add social objectives or reflect other values through a tax system (charity/ interest deductions/ etc). These won't go away with a flat tax.
The complexities exist because of the difficulty of defining income. That income that can be reclassified as something besides income would be a tax dodge. I do agree that there is some social and economic engineering in the tax code. Got a kid; we give you a $3100 reduction in taxable income. Buy a house; deduct the mortgage interest. Start a business; everyday expenses become deductible and business assets can be captialize and depreciated. The funny thing is that SEC and the IRS have their separate ideas about business accounting. Makes sense to use the SEC definitions (since companies are motivated to show profit) and flat tax it. BTW, I suspect the biggest opponent of the flat tax is the Congress themselves who love to solve problems in the tax code.
not that this will matter to Bush & Co..... New Washington Post-ABC News poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_122004.html Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? 48% approve, 50% disapprove. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling( Approve-Disapprove-No opnion). a. The economy 46-51-3 b. The situation in Iraq 42-57-1 c. The US campaign against terrorism 53-43-3 d. Social Security 38-52-9 e. Health care 37-56-7
Interesting, Kerry et al were successful in convincing the public that the War on Terror (tm) and the Iraq War were two separate things. Irony is at play here.
another poll shows that Bush has zero political capital with regards to another piece of his domestic agenda... http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=946 A new Zogby International survey shows that Americans oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling by a solid 55% - 38% margin. Their opposition is even stronger, 59% - 25%, to a proposed "backdoor maneuver" that would use the annual Congressional budget process to let the oil industry into the Refuge. Moreover, an overwhelming 80% say that conservation, improved fuel efficiency and the development of renewable energy alternatives are the best ways to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Only 17% say that more drilling on America's public lands is the solution.
