Even before Sen. Tom Daschle delivered his speech assailing the Bush economic policy, Republicans and their allies launched a counterattack accusing the Senate majority leader of "obstructionism" and "economic bunkum."
The next day, President Bush joined the assault himself, suggesting that Democrats favored a tax increase and vowing that it would pass only "over my dead body."
The back-to-back speeches seemed aimed far more at setting a political tone for 2002 than at resolving the increasingly bitter squabble between the White House and congressional Democrats over economic policy.
That hardly is surprising, given that neither side now has the votes to enact its proposals.
Bush, as a president with high popularity, begins the battle with a political advantage. But the long-term winner may depend on how quickly the economy recovers from its recession.
In a sense, the current impasse reflects the final breakdown of the uneasy balance that marked Bill Clinton's second term, exacerbated by the impact of the recession.
As long as the Democrats held the White House and Republicans controlled Congress, each could restrain the other's basic instincts. Democrats prevented Republicans from going too far on tax cuts, while Republicans kept the Democrats from spending too much.
As government revenues soared from a booming economy, 30 years of federal deficits came to an end.
But the dynamic was changed dramatically by Bush's election and the fact that, for the first time in 48 years, Republicans also won both houses of Congress.
The result was passage of the tax cut that Bush made his top priority. Its enactment was helped by the widespread belief that the surplus was big enough to permit the cuts and still cover entitlement reform, more defense spending, and urgent domestic needs.
That scenario assumed a continuing boom, but the economy began to weaken even before Sept. 11. The terrorist attacks further damaged the economy, increasing the need for more spending and producing dramatic reductions in the long-term surplus.
Questions began to be asked about the affordability of the tax cuts. Those questions would have been raised even if Democrats hadn't regained control of the Senate. But the Democrats' ascendancy increased their ability to challenge the administration's position.
Eventually, Bush could face the problem that arose for Ronald Reagan 20 years ago when the combined impact of a recession, a massive tax cut and a defense spending hike undercut his economic policies.
In that circumstance, Democrats were able to force Reagan to accept some rollback of his tax cuts. But the president proved to be the long-term political winner when the economy recovered in time to soar into the 1984 presidential election.
In the current situation, the strong stand taken by Bush and his GOP allies against rolling back the tax cut ensures that it won't happen anytime soon. Indeed, Daschle and other top Democrats aren't even advocating that, and it is hard to foresee any serious effort until several years from now, before much of the 10-year phased reduction kicks in.
One prominent Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, did say all options ought to be on the table, a comment that could look good politically if deficits persist for several years.
In the long run, the viability of the Bush position depends on how well the economy does. If things improve and the recession gives way to a renewed boom, Bush will win the political argument.
But if the recovery is slow or even short-lived, he might find himself facing the dilemma his father faced a dozen years ago, when the first President Bush was forced to abandon his 1988 pledge of "no new taxes."
Interestingly, the former president conceded some years afterward that perhaps his biggest mistake hadn't been in abandoning that promise but in making it in the first place.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.