On W's shoulders

During the reign of George W, I had moments of concern about the possibility of ending up in a gulag for dissing the king.  I was premature, but not unreasonable, in my concerns.

Trump’s first — and only — major legislative achievement was to follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush’s first term by enacting massive tax cuts for the richest Americans. That gift to the wealthy proved to be a fiscal disaster for the nation and a political disaster for Trump and his party, ushering in a series of electoral losses for the GOP beginning with the 2018 midterms.

  Public Notice

We have to hope for the same in 2026, but too much damage can already have happened by then.

[Trump] and his billionaire cronies are making increasingly strong signals that he’ll begin his second term by attacking Social Security (and potentially Medicare), this time mirroring a political disaster that Bush brought upon the GOP during his second term.

It is difficult to imagine a more politically foolhardy target than Social Security and Medicare. Yet, for decades, GOP politicians have been as tempted to attack these extraordinarily popular and successful elements of the social safety net as moths are to fly into flames.

[...]

George W. Bush, like Trump, focused his first term economic program on fiscally unsound tax cuts for the rich. But after winning reelection, Bush began his second term with a declaration that he had obtained “political capital.” He chose to spend it with another attack upon Social Security.

In 2005, Bush announced his support for a “privatization” scheme inspired by the “voluntary” Social Security proposal favored by Goldwater and the young Reagan. He then embarked on a full-fledged campaign in support of his effort to gut Social Security, giving speech after speech in which he declared that the nation should be prepared to make “tough” decisions.

Bush likely expected that a substantial number of “fiscally moderate” Democrats would support his program, or at least parts of it. But Democrats had learned their lesson from past GOP assaults on Social Security and overwhelmingly resisted Bush’s proposal.

Bush’s plan flamed out even more spectacularly than had Reagan’s 1981 initiative. The debacle paved the way for W’s political unraveling, beginning with huge Democratic victories in the 2006 midterms and the victory of Barack Obama two years later.

[...]

In March of this year, Trump let slip on CNBC that he just might be convinced to go after the social safety net, stating, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting.”

[...]

[I]t has always been the case that Congress will have to vote in favor of any proposal to gut entitlement programs. That is because Social Security and Medicare comprise “mandatory” spending, which is compelled by statute. And secondly, as a matter of financial fact, the kind of drastic austerity measures that Trump’s cronies are proposing will necessarily involve massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or both.

That is because approximately 60 percent of the federal budget is composed of mandatory spending, while 10 percent is devoted to debt service. Of the remaining 30 percent, half is defense spending, leaving only 15 percent that comprises the entirety of non-defense, discretionary spending.

[...]

As they have been in the past, the GOP majority in Congress is likely to be enthusiastically supportive of an attack on Social Security — at least until the inevitable backlash hits them.

[...]

Sooner rather than later, Trump seems likely to emulate George W. Bush — a former president he mocks with glee — by proposing cuts to Social Security and possibly Medicare too. His proposal will be met by much enthusiasm from GOP legislators and wealthy donors. But then the backlash will arrive, and the massive snowball Trump and his cronies sent down the hill will run them over.

[...]

If Democrats play their cards right, the defeat of yet another GOP assault on key elements of the safety net for older Americans could be the beginning of a broader collapse of the Trump effort to “remake government” to serve his authoritarian ambitions.

"If" is doing a lot of work there.