Tipping the Republicans' Hand?

By David S. Broder

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7630-2003Jun17.html

Wednesday, June 18, 2003; Page A25


Without intending to, Grover G. Norquist has done the Democrats a huge
favor. The president of Americans for Tax Reform and influential presiding
officer at a famous weekly strategy session of conservative organizations
honored The Post last week with an op-ed article modestly headlined
"Step-by-Step Tax Reform" [June 9].

In it, Norquist, who is most noted for pressing candidates at all levels to
sign a pledge that they will never raise taxes, hailed the Bush
administration for pushing through a fresh tax cut in each of the three
years it has been in office.

It will continue to do so, he said, because this president -- unlike Ronald
Reagan and the elder George Bush -- can operate with confidence that
Republican control of Washington will provide him eight years to pursue his
economic agenda.

"This," Norquist explained, "is because the 2002 redistricting gave
Republicans a lock on the House of Representatives until 2012 and the
Founding Fathers gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control. In the
50-50 election that was 2000, Bush carried 30 states and Al Gore 20. Over
time, a reasonably competent Republican Party will tend to [elect] 60
Republicans in the Senate. This guarantee of united Republican government
has allowed the Bush administration to work and think long-term."

Norquist is, of course, assuming Bush will win reelection next year, and
nothing in politics is as certain as he may think. But this is a plausible
scenario, and his description of what Republicans will do with the
opportunity is one that commands attention.

He foresees Bush signing into law measures to abolish both the estate tax
(or "death tax," as he calls it) and the capital gains tax. He also expects
to see a statute that will make all savings accounts tax free. This is
hardly speculative. Bush already has seen Congress pass a phaseout of estate
taxes and a reduction in capital gains levies. The tax-free savings idea was
floated by the Treasury last winter but temporarily set aside. With an
increase in corporate deductions for capital investments and an end to the
alternative minimum tax -- designed to catch those who would otherwise
shelter all their income -- Norquist says the Bush era will eventually
produce the conservatives' dream of a flat-rate income tax. When janitors
and CEOs have to give the same share of their paychecks to Uncle Sam,
Norquist foresees voters uniting in a continuing demand for ever-lower
rates -- and no longer will Democrats be able to advocate tax hikes that
target only the top brackets.

The consequence of this -- not spelled out in his essay but clearly in his
mind -- is a massive rollback in federal revenue and what he regards as a
desirable shrinkage of federal services and benefits. In short, the goal is
a system of government wiped clean, on both the revenue and spending side,
of almost a century's accumulation of social programs designed to provide a
safety net beneath the private economy.

When I asked Norquist what had prompted this exercise in candor, he said
that when The Post's editorial page invited him to explain the Bush tax
strategy, he saw it as an opportunity to show his fellow conservatives that
"we don't have to try to operate under the radar screen. We can be very open
about our agenda."

And the White House reaction? "They didn't ask me to do it, but they
certainly didn't complain about what I did. I have exchanged several e-mails
with Karl Rove since then, and it's never come up," he said.

I told Norquist that his op-ed had been the subject of many comments -- both
favorable and critical -- from people in an online chat I'd done for
washingtonpost.com, and that several Democratic operatives had discussed it
in phone interviews. Did you think you were tipping off the opposition? I
asked.

"No," he said, "I think the smart guys on the left have known for a long
time they are in trouble -- and that we are going to dig out their whole
structure of programs and power."

For once Norquist may have underestimated himself. The amount of talk his
essay has engendered makes it clear it was as much an alarm bell to the
Democrats as a rallying cry for the Republicans.

A wide variety of Democratic groups are gearing up for what they describe as
"long-term strategies" for their party's comeback. Norquist clearly has told
them that the Republicans already are well-advanced on such a plan.

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium