Bush's untested path: tax cuts on eve of war

President Bush's plan to lead his nation into armed combat while cutting taxes represents a high-stakes gambit that has big implications not only for his presidency and international order but also for the economy.

It's something that, quite simply, has never been tried in US history.

The risks are large. The undetermined costs of war in Iraq - coupled with new defense-related spending on Afghanistan, an antimissile shield, and homeland security - would add greatly to federal spending.

Add $2 trillion in across-the-board tax cuts, and it all raises a stark question: Can even the world's mightiest economy afford this? Some experts worry that, even if the short-run costs are manageable, surging budget deficits will eventually harm economic growth. If a war in Iraq goes badly, oil supplies could be disrupted and anti-American sentiment harden.

But the White House defends its moves by reversing the question and asking, can we afford not to? That is certainly Bush's argument on disarming Iraq - driven by security more than economics. A successful ouster of Saddam Hussein could open the door to a more stable Middle East, reducing the volatility of oil prices and boosting global business confidence. Tax cuts, meanwhile, could provide crucial short-term stimulus amid an environment of stagnant job growth.

"The risky thing is not to get the economy back on a stronger growth path," US Treasury Secretary John Snow said yesterday in comments to reporters at a Monitor breakfast in Washington (see story).

He said tax cuts are affordable and that after rising for a period, the budget deficit will start "a steady path downward."

Asked about costs of possible war with Iraq, Mr. Snow called it "a one-time sort of thing," and declined estimate the cost of combat and a potential US occupation of Iraq. "There are so many variables," he said. "I don't want to speculate."

Pursuing large tax cuts and a war at once has no precedent in America, in part because the nation had no broad-based tax code before the 20th century. President Reagan showed comparable boldness, arguably, during his first term in the White House. In the early 1980s, he took what critics called a "riverboat gamble" on the economy, selling both a huge tax cut and a massive boost in defense spending.

President Bush's agenda of planned and proposed tax cuts totals more than $2 trillion over a decade.

Mr. Reagan figured "supply-side" economics - fueling economic growth by putting more money in taxpayer pockets - would prevent budget deficits from ballooning. So does president Bush.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, doubts that extra growth from the Bush tax cuts will bring the budget back into balance. That would require a 4.3 percent growth rate in gross domestic product in the next five years, rather than the 3.3 percent projected by the administration, he estimates.

Page: 1 | 2