Presidential Politics Infuses Gas-Tax Debate

All policy is politics. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the expected politicization of any and all policy debates in Washington as a natural consequence of the Bill Clinton-Bob Dole campaigns for president. What is stunning is how quickly that reality set in. For those who believe politics is bad for policy, well, get used to it--because in Washington the politicization of policy has only just begun.

Exhibit 1: the national gas tax. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), whose failed presidential campaign was a picture of missteps and blunders, is credited with lighting the fire under the gas tax. Texans may not know much about the corn politics of Iowa, but they know the politics of gas. Dole, who may not know the blue-collar politics of New Hampshire, does know the politics of the Senate, where stealing a colleague’s issues is an art. He picked Gramm’s pockets on the gas tax so fast that Gramm still thinks it’s his issue.

With Americans seeing gas prices jump as much as 30 cents a gallon in the past month, the 4.3-cents-a-gallon tax increase proposed by Clinton and passed by Congress in 1993 has become an irresistible target. For Dole, whose campaign can, at best, be called dead in the water, the gas tax is a gift from heaven. Never mind that Dole went along with the tax in 1993, and never mind that he has voted for gas-tax increases several times in his 35-year congressional career, and never mind that cutting taxes while trying to get a balanced budget is terrible policy--this is politics, baby, and don’t you forget it!

For Clinton, the gas-tax debate has the makings of a real political debacle. After all, it was his tax, and Republicans were armed to the hilt with his 1993 quotes defending the tax as good policy in the battle to cut federal deficits. How in the world could this president, whose biggest vulnerability is the inability to hold the line on issues, possibly flip-flop on this one? Two words: minimum wage.

Well, before anyone ever focused on the gas tax, congressional Democrats handed Clinton what seemed to be a minor issue: a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage. But when the GOP refused to allow a vote--even after 20 moderate House Republicans broke ranks and supported the increase--the “minor” issue became a political grand slam for Clinton. Polls showed more than 80% of voters supporting an increase in the minimum wage. Moreover, the GOP, by refusing to allow a vote, seemed to confirm a central problem voters have with this Republican Congress--a total lack of sympathy and understanding of the working poor, many of whom work several minimum-wage jobs just to get by.

The more the GOP stonewalled, the more Clinton raised the heat. And so when confronted with a flip-flop on his own gas tax, Clinton received from Republicans a way to “reluctantly” support a gas-tax repeal. “Give me an up-or-down vote on the minimum-wage increase [which will surely pass], and I’ll sign a gas-tax repeal. This pains me, but helping the working poor is just too important.” How could the GOP refuse? Remember, all policy is politics.

Faced with what seemed like a reasonable deal from Clinton, the Republicans now faced their own problem. Refusing the deal, and potentially killing two popular policies in an election year, was not acceptable to Dole. But fearing Clinton would take credit for both--a skill he has elevated to an art form--the Republicans decided to lay a new trap. They called for an amendment to the minimum-wage bill that would give companies more power to select who will represent workers--a measure strongly opposed by labor unions and endorsed by big business.

The Republicans figured Clinton would not oppose his friends in organized labor, so Clinton appeared, once again, to be put in a corner. Clinton was born at night but not last night, and he immediately called for an up-or-down vote on the three issues separately. At first, at a news conference, Dole seemed to agree, but apparently changed his position when GOP strategists sensed that keeping the union fight alive would hurt Clinton--as it has so many Democrats in the past. Dole now suggests he meant to say there should be three votes in the form of amendments to a single bill. When Clinton says three votes, he wants three separate bills that he can sign or veto.

Meanwhile, the House passed out of committee both a gas-tax repeal and a minimum-wage increase, and even Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) conceded a minimum-wage hike would become law within the next 60 days. Back in the Senate, a new vote on the gas-tax repeal is scheduled for next Tuesday and the maneuvering continues.

If all this sounds horribly complicated, it is--but not to worry. When the smoke clears, and the jockeying is over, there will be a gas-tax repeal and a minimum-wage increase, and there will be labor provisions that the AFL-CIO can live with. Sound impossible? Not for a minute. Depending on your political persuasion, you may think the minimum-wage increase is bad policy, or you may think cutting the gas tax is irresponsible policy, but, in the end, both will prevail. Remember, all policy is politics.*