With all their excitement about potentially taking back the White House, few Democrats seem to have given serious thought to what exactly they will be inheriting from President Bush.
It's increasingly clear to everyone that Bush will delay any serious withdrawal from Iraq until after he leaves office, forcing a Democratic president to withdraw and setting up the feared narrative that the troops were "stabbed in the back".
However, few people seem to have thought much about the economic situation, which from a political perspective may be even more difficult. The economy has been in an expansion since late 2001 that has done little to improve the economic situation of most Americans. Inevitably, it will end. Brad DeLong cites one forecasting model that estimates a 26.2% probability that a recession is already underway. This seems high, but a recession will come.
The most likely scenario is that the recession does not take place until next year or even that it is forestalled until the Democrat assumes office. Imagine the scenario. It's 2009 and the Democrat is simultaneously trying to get the economy going again while also having to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which expire in 2010, to clean up the looming budget mess. And that doesn't even take into account any action to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, expand health care coverage, or address the longterm shortfall in Medicare.
Could all of these obstacles be overcome? Yes, particularly if the pain is concentrated in the first part of the president's term. Ronald Reagan, for instance, overcame an early double-dip recession, declared it was "Morning in America," and won in a landslide in 1984. And of course Democrats would still prefer to inherit Bush's mess than to be shut out of the presidency for another four years. Still, there's no question that the Democrat would potentially be inheriting an ugly situation, especially compared to Bush, who assumed office in peacetime with a large projected budget surplus.
Comments