February 2, 2006
Is That All There Is?
By E.
J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- Think of it as the ``Is That All There Is?'' moment
in politics.
It comes
to pass when an incumbent president signals that the energy is
rapidly draining from his political project. The opposition, if
it possesses any sense and creativity, has an opening to move
the country in a different direction.
President
Bush's State of the Union message on Tuesday was an ``Is That
All There Is?'' speech. The Democrats should be sued by one of
their own trial lawyers if they fail to seize their opportunity.
The speech had its rhetorical moments, but there were so many
holes where policy should have been, and many of the policies
that were there didn't much sound like Bush.
The most
striking default was on health care, an issue the president's
team has signaled will be a big deal for the administration this
year. Bush delivered not a lion, but a mouse. He endorsed ``wider
use of electronic records and other health information technology,''
promised to ``strengthen health savings accounts,'' pledged to
make insurance more portable, and issued yet another of his standard
attacks on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Hurray for
electronic records and portability. But this list does little
to help either the uninsured or those who fear losing their coverage.
And health savings accounts aren't really health plans. They're
tax-avoidance investment vehicles -- Wall Street can't wait --
that will mostly help the healthy and the wealthy while raising
costs for the sick. That's not wise.
Here is Opportunity
No. 1 for a smart opposition. It's time for aggressive approaches
to expanding the number of Americans with insurance. The government
should commit itself to making sure that all children under 18
are covered, and workers between the ages of 55 and 65 should
be able to buy into Medicare, with subsidies if they need them,
because many approaching retirement have a hard time buying private
policies.
And it's
time to open what might be thought of as both a dialogue and a
negotiation with the business community on what the split between
public and private spending on health care should be. Businesses
that provide broad health coverage are indirectly subsidizing
businesses that don't. Businesses that fail to provide coverage,
especially for low-paid workers, often count on public programs,
i.e., the taxpayers, to pay their employees' health bills.
The system
is bad for capitalism, for social justice and for taxpayers. Employers
who now pay nothing for health care should kick in to help pay
the bills. Businesses being strangled by health costs deserve
some relief. And, yes, the government will need to fill in the
gaps.
When Bush
got around to calling for a bipartisan commission ``to examine
the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid,'' Democrats chuckled. This from a president who
tried to ram through the partial privatization of Social Security
last year on the basis of the political ``capital'' he said he
had earned. That capital is gone. The commission is his bailout.
Then there
was Bush's line about how his administration had ``reduced the
growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending.'' That's cutting
the budgetary salami mighty thin. A fiscally irresponsible president
who sent the deficit through the roof uses a gobbledygook phrase
that excludes most of the budget -- and then brags merely about
reducing spending growth in that little piece of territory.
Feel better now?
On some
issues, Bush simply went over to the other side. Having once battled
for tax giveaways to promote more oil drilling, Bush has decided
that ``America is addicted to oil.'' Next, he'll take out a Sierra
Club membership. And that program ``to train 70,000 high school
teachers to lead advanced placement courses in math and science''
sounded like a Bill Clinton idea left at the bottom of some White
House drawer.
Oh, yes,
and whatever happened to rebuilding New Orleans? A few desultory
sentences told us nothing, and everything.
Bush thinks
he has a political winner in warrantless wiretapping. Maybe there
is one more election for the Republicans in bashing ``defeatism,''
``isolationism'' and ``retreat.'' But those words didn't exactly
signal the ``civil tone'' and ``spirit of good will'' Bush had
promised a couple of pages earlier.
The president's
foreign policy rhetoric, like so much else on Tuesday, was predictable
and familiar. Bush once dreamed of leading a political realignment.
What his speech signaled is an opening for a realignment of ideas.
His side is running out of them.
©
2006, Washington Post Writers Group
