Bush: Strong Symbolism

The official launching of the Bush era Thursday night was strong on symbolism and short on dollars. But that was no surprise, given the hangover of budget deficits from the Reagan era. In setting his own budget priorities, George Bush generally was true to his campaign promises and his inaugural address.

In spite of differences in personal style between Bush and Ronald Reagan, this is a transition, not a revolution. Bush is fine-tuning over time, not remaking government in the flurry of a hundred days. After all, George Bush is a Reaganite, too. The country is on the right track, he said, but there must be no rest until a strong nation is made even stronger.

Bush proposed to do that by strengthening many domestic programs that were neglected by Reagan. He differed sharply with Reagan environmental policy. He talked of building for the future in a way that Reagan never did. He proposed new or stronger programs to bolster excellence in public education, for basic scientific research, for the campaigns against drugs and AIDS, for the mentally ill and by including the disabled as full partners in American life.

In discussing national security, Bush broke little new ground. He reiterated his pledge to review the dramatic changes in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union to make certain that they were prudent, but promised to take the new openness seriously.

There is nothing wrong with symbolism, so long as the Bush Administration backs up the symbols with specifics and resources. For example, $21 million will not go far in establishing a national program for youth in public service. But the idea is a worthy one that can flourish if given adequate support before too much time passes.

As for the fiscal nuts and bolts of the coming year, the scene was pretty much set in advance by the strictures of the deficit-reduction law and Bush’s campaign pledge of no new taxes. Some of his new programs would be financed out of $2.6 billion in savings achieved by holding defense spending to the rate of inflation. Other funds would come from his flexible budget freeze, which was not outlined in detail, and remain subject to negotiation with Congress.

While Democratic leaders denounced Bush’s proposed cut in the capital-gains tax, they seemed receptive to other initiatives--at least as starting points for the bargaining process ahead. These Democrats rejected Reagan’s efforts to wipe out many domestic programs time and again. It remains to be seen if Bush will have any more luck in scaling back such spending through negotiations while winning support for his new programs and remaining within the legal deficit limit. A tight squeeze without new revenues, but possible.

It may be possible in part because there was another major difference from the Reagan years. Speaking in the House chamber where he once served with many of today’s members, Bush said to applause: “I feel as if I am returning home to friends.” He promised in the months ahead to give them what friends deserve: frankness, respect and his best judgment about how to make America’s future better.

Bush did not lecture or berate. He offered to meet Congress half-way. That is a good, strong first step.