Bush's Budget (600th post!)

President Bush offered us his budget for 2007 yesterday, and the NY Times gives us this analysis today. Mostly the article looks at the various ways in which Bush has tried, and mostly failed, to live up to his long-ago pledge to govern as a "compassionate conservative." What he does-and does not-propose to cut is laid out in depressing detail in the article and a useful sidebar. But this paragraph in particular caught my attention:

Mr. Bush has never fit easily into any category when it comes to his philosophy of government. He has been called a big-government conservative, a supply-sider and, by conservatives who despair of his unwillingness to get even tougher on domestic spending, a spendthrift.

Even now, the dissonance has not been fully resolved. The Bush administration is rolling out the biggest expansion of Medicare in 40 years — the prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 — but at the same time calling for billions in reductions in projected payments to hospitals and other Medicare providers over the next five years.

Despite this article's relatively fair assessment, don't be fooled. Bush does have a governing philosophy that's been evident since he took office; politics comes first at the expense of all else...except tax cuts:

Still, the new budget underscores the consistent and paramount importance of tax cuts in the Bush philosophy. His first term cuts affected more money than any other initiative undertaken in his presidency, including the costs thus far of the war in Iraq. All told, including tax incentives for health care programs and the extension of other tax breaks that are likely to be taken up by Congress, the White House budget calls for nearly $300 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Most of that lost revenue would be the result of extending Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which reduced the income tax rates, offered generous new breaks to families and businesses, and slashed taxes on investment income.

To anyone who's basically been alive since 2001, it's clear that any of Bush's decisions since he became President have been executed almost entirely with an eye towards their political consequences. Where his administration has suffered negative political consequences has been where they failed to anticipate the ultimate political consequences of deliberate action or incompetance as a result of focusing mostly on short-term political advantages. If there are any "principles" this administration has demonstrated, it's been in getting taxes cut repeatedly and getting us into the war in Iraq (but not out-and don't talk to me about "spreading freedom." Bush won't let us stay in Iraq any longer than it's necessary to make it look like he's not running away from the mess his administration made.)

Unfortunately for Bush, Congress has final say over what gets cut, and some GOP members of Congress are far less comfortable with the proposed cuts:

And even within the ranks of Republicans, there was some immediate opposition. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, said she was "disappointed and even surprised" at the proposed restrictions in Medicare and Medicaid, which she said would "dramatically affect people's access to care" in Maine.

What is it with the obsession on tax cuts anyway? If one were inclined to conspiracy theories, one might come to believe that we have our own Manchurian Candidate in the White House whose role as President is largely to work for the wealthy. That's absurd of course, but it's awfully hard to say why Bush is focused on tax cuts above all else-even his legacy of "freeing" Iraq. One might argue that he's in the thrall of Norquist's "drown government in the bathtub" approach, but if shrinking the size of the government is the principle at play then Bush is doing an awfully lousy job of actually shrinking the size of the government; what cuts are proposed in this budget-while harmful to real people-are nibbling at the margins compared to the size of the deficit, and it would seem the political unpopularity of cutting spending is getting in th eway of actually cutting spending in any significant way. And while the GOP in general is obsessed with the idea of tax cuts (thanks to the aforementioned Norquist) further tax cuts, or even preserving the ones already in place, is not something that seems to find wide support among American voters. So in this respect we finally find a Bush "principle": cut taxes at all costs. If there's any justice, this and the atrociously executed Iraq war will be Bush's only "legacy", and both will be judged harshly by history.