Stephen’s Posterous

Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, writes in his weekly Wall Street Journal editorial that President Barack Obama's political health is deteriorating, threatened by his ambitious plan for a government takeover of health care.

Mr. Rove writes that Mr. Obama remains slightly more popular than most presidents have been in their opening months, although his job approval rating has drifted down to 60% in the RealClearPolitics.com average and his disapproval numbers have nearly doubled to 33%.

Mr. Rove says that what is more troubling is the growing gap between the President's approval rating and declining support for major items on his policy agenda.

Mr. Rove says Americans prefer getting their health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government, and Mr. Obama's record-setting spending binge has made Americans more sensitive to deficits and higher taxes.

Mr. Obama's argument that a government-run health-care plan can control costs better than a market-based system is a mistake. This argument is belied by Medicare's experience. A study published by the Pacific Research Institute finds that since 1970 Medicare's costs have risen 34% a year faster than the rest of health care.

Mr. Obama's trashing of American health care as a broken system that must be brought into the 21st century does not resonate with most Americans, according to data from polls that Mr. Rove provides in his editorial.

Mr. Rove says that everyone agrees that some reforms are needed. But he says that it is also vital to protect areas of excellence and innovation. Stanford University professor Scott Atlas points out that from 1998 to 2002 nearly twice as many new drugs were launched in the U.S. as in Europe.

In the end, Mr. Rove says that transforming health care into a government-run system would be difficult to do under any circumstances. Americans are still wary about big government.

Mr. Rove ends by writing:

Health-care reform was said to be "inevitable" a few months ago. Today, its prospects are less certain, even to Democrats. The issue may even turn out to be a millstone for the party.

Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost -- in money and personal freedom -- of Mr. Obama's nanny-state initiatives. To strengthen the emerging coalition of independents and Republicans, the GOP must fight Mr. Obama's agenda with reasoned arguments and attractive alternatives. Health care may actually be an issue that helps resurrect the GOP.

Source.

From Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush

Yesterday was Tax Day, and it was marked by large numbers of Americans turning out for an estimated 2,000 tea parties across the country. This movement is significant.

In 1978, California voters enacted Prop. 13 in reaction to steep property taxes. That marked the start of a tax-cutting movement that culminated in Ronald Reagan slashing high national income taxes in the 1980s. Now Americans are reacting to runaway government spending that they were not told about before last year's election, and which Americans are growing to resent.

Derided by elitists as phony, the tea-party movement is spontaneous, decentralized, frequently amateurish and sometimes shrill. If it has a father it is CNBC's Rick Santelli, who called for holding a tea party in Chicago on July 4.

Yesterday's gatherings were made up of people who may never meet again. There's no central collection point for email addresses. But the concerns driving people to tea parties are real, growing and powerful. Politicians ignore them at their peril.

One concern is the rise of state and local taxes. New York and California passed multibillion-dollar tax increases this year. Other states are considering significant tax hikes or have enacted tax increases in recent years. The many tax and fee increases enacted or under consideration is angering voters.

If that anger persists, it may give Republicans a leg up in the 38 gubernatorial elections over the next two years, as well as in key state legislative races that will determine which party redraws congressional and state legislative districts after the 2010 census. Expect voters to hear a lot about jobs being created in low-tax states in the coming years.

But the center of the debate is in Washington, not the states. The fear of future federal tax hikes is fueling the tea-party movement.

This is an important development. In 2008, voters were less worried about taxes than they had been in previous elections. Why? Because the 15 years between President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike and Barack Obama's increase in cigarette taxes in February was the longest stretch in U.S. history without a federal tax increase.

President George W. Bush's tax cuts also cut 13 million people on the lower-end of the income scale from the income tax rolls, people who don't pay taxes aren't worried about the tax burden.

So far, Mr. Obama has decided to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 and avoid forcing Democrats to take a tough vote. But the tea parties reveal how hard it will be for the president to hide the Democrats' tax-and-spend tendencies from voters.

Mr. Obama plans to boost federal spending 25% while nearly tripling the national debt over 10 years. Americans know that this kind of spending will have economic consequences, including new taxes being imposed by the new progressives.

It hasn't gotten a ton of attention, but people are fed up with the complexity of their tax code and ready to do something about it. The Tax Foundation's 2009 Annual Tax Attitudes, which was conducted Feb. 18-27, by Harris, shows us that many Americans are willing to trade popular deductions for lower rates and a simpler code.

There's also been a flurry of interest among Americans in replacing the current system with a national sales tax or a flat tax.

The open question is whether Republicans will be boosted by the nascent tea-party movement. House Republicans smartly offered a proposed spending plan this year that would freeze nondefense discretionary spending, suspend earmarks for five years, and reform entitlements. But cutting spending won't be enough. Taxes matter and will matter more in the coming years.

The 2009 Tax Foundation survey found that Americans believe that taxes should, on average, take just 15.6% of a person's wages. And 88% of Americans in the same poll believe that there should be a cap on all federal, state, and local taxes of 29% or less, there is still a constituency out there that will favor tax cutting politicians.

But to tap into that constituency Republicans will have to link lower taxes to money in voters' pockets, and economic growth and jobs. They must explain why the GOP approach will lead to greater prosperity. Such arguments are not self-executing. They require leaders to make them, time and again, as Reagan once did.

Some liberals believe that the recession has made tax-and-spend issues passé. But political movements are often a reaction against aggressive overreach by those in power.

Mr. Obama's response to the financial crisis, a government power grab and budget explosion, has put spending and taxes back on the front burner. The tea parties are an early manifestation of that. More is sure to follow.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster.

Source.

From Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush

Something powerful is stirring in the land, and it may not be good news for President Barack Obama, his agenda or the Democratic Party. Mr. Obama said Tuesday night his budget moves America "from an era of borrow and spend" to "save and invest." But people are realizing he would add $9.3 trillion to the national debt, doubling it in six years and nearly tripling it in 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). How can that be "save and invest"?

In his inaugural address, Mr. Obama told us, "The stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." He wants to turn to new issues of education, health care and green jobs, which he plugged at every opportunity in Tuesday's press conference.

Suddenly, though, it doesn't seem like a time of new politics and new concerns. Many Americans are anxious -- and in some cases angry -- about a set of old issues: deficits, taxes and the national debt. Mr. Obama's radical budget, his administration's slapdash operating manner, and events such as the AIG bonuses have revived animosity over government's size and cost.

In response, tea parties are sprouting up, and opposition is growing to more bailouts, more spending, higher taxes and larger deficits, even among Congressional Democrats. Last fiscal year, the deficit was $459 billion. For this fiscal year, it was $569 billion when Mr. Obama took office. Under his proposals, another $1.276 trillion will be added to the deficit this year, for a total of $1.845 trillion.

The CBO says deficits will fall for three years to $658 billion, still nearly 50% larger than any past deficit. After that, deficits go back up every year, reaching the trillion-dollar a year mark again in nine years. By 2019, the debt would reach 82.4% of GDP, a level not seen since 1947. With astonishing candor, even Peter Orszag, the president's budget director conceded these levels of deficits and debt are "unsustainable."

Federal spending will under Mr. Obama top $4 trillion this year. This translates into 28.5% of GDP -- a level exceeded only at the height of World War II. According to the president's plans, spending will thereafter slow for three years, but then grow faster than the economy for the next seven years and beyond.

Spending rises by $3.1 trillion from 2009-19, including $911 billion for legislation signed during his first two months in office, including the stimulus bill and the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (and not including interest on the mushrooming debt). Mr. Obama is violating every tenet of his promise "to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day."

Americans are also worried about Mr. Obama's plans for $1.9 trillion more in taxes. These tax hikes won't just affect the "rich," as he claims. His cap-and-trade carbon tax will hit everyone who consumes energy -- that is, every American. Taxes on the top 5% of filers will result in lost jobs and wages for small businesses and less charitable giving. The administration claims higher taxes are required for deficit reduction. But its spending increases are half again as large as its tax hikes.

Nothing has deterred the administration from pursuing its staggeringly expensive agenda. Mr. Obama brushed off any concerns Tuesday night. He is quite openly using the economic crisis to launch a massive, permanent expansion of government financed by ever-more borrowing and ever-higher taxes. This may mean that his goal is to cause taxes to rise to European levels, transforming America into a European-style social democracy.

The dynamic he has set in motion could spur the emergence of strong competitors to Mr. Obama in 2012 who take a strong, principled stand against record-setting deficits, debt and taxes. It may also strengthen Republican chances in next year's midterm elections.

Democrats should, for example, be troubled by a new National Public Radio poll showing Republicans tied or ahead in generic matchups for Congress. And while the midterms are 20 months off, Republican gubernatorial hopefuls in Virginia (Attorney General Bob McDonnell) and New Jersey (former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie) are ahead in two states Barack Obama carried last year that vote this fall.

Tuesday night's news conference showed a fluid, self-assured president -- but one who seems to think that repeating a false argument will make it true. The man who promised to end "finger-pointing" has developed the habit of blaming everyone who came before him. Invoking the language of fiscal responsibility, he is engineering prosperity-killing deficits and bankrupting spending. Mr. Obama has put front and center a set of issues -- spending and taxation -- that brought Republicans to power in the past and may bring them back again. It looks as if we may be heading back to the future.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Visit Mr. Rove on the web at Rove.com.

Source.

Rush Limbaugh is right where he wants to be and right where the White House wants him: in the news. But Republicans have more mixed feelings about the controversial talk radio host's recent elevation.

Mr. Limbaugh dominated headlines this week, as a drive by the White House and other top Democrats to paint him as the leader of the Republican Party left the GOP flummoxed. Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, illustrated his party's dilemma, first calling Mr. Limbaugh's style "ugly," then phoning him to apologize.

One committee member labeled Mr. Steele's handling of the matter a "Republican Horror Show" and called on him step down just weeks after taking on the job.

Behind the political theater lay a fundamental challenge for a party seeking a way out of the wilderness after last November's drubbing. Republican leaders and activists are grappling with how to joust with a popular new president, particularly after years of being accused of embracing a cutthroat style of politics.

Yet some Republicans also sense openings in the early days of the Obama presidency. They argue that Democrats may be overreaching with an ambitious big-government agenda and that voters will turn to Republicans once they absorb the impact of spending bills that greatly expand the deficit without, they contend, doing much to stimulate the economy.

"There are clear opportunities for Republicans," says party strategist Dave Winston, who suggests party leaders are starting to find their voice on targeted issues. Republicans are painting newly Democratic Washington as a hotbed of higher taxes and spending.

By week's end, Republicans broke through the Limbaugh-dominated political news with their own story line: repeated attacks on "earmarks" in a spending bill passing through Congress. They even forced a delay in a Senate vote until next week.

Still, Mr. Winston said, Mr. Obama continues to benefit from the goodwill created in 2008. "The question is when do we get to the point where the afterglow of the election dissipates," he said. "That'll be an important inflection point."

Many party activists hunger for direct confrontation. This past week, Tony Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council, excoriated Republicans for not resisting Kathleen Sebelius, the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, who supports abortion rights. "If Republicans won't take a stand now, when will they?" Mr. Perkins demanded in an online newsletter.

Some Republicans argue that Democratic attacks on Mr. Limbaugh will backfire by rallying disenchanted conservatives who lost enthusiasm for the party in 2006 and 2008. "They've miscalculated big time," said Greg Mueller, a conservative strategist and veteran of the Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes presidential campaigns.

"The best thing they can do for the Republican Party is energizing the base, by attacking Rush. He communicates more effectively to the Reagan coalition that most elected Republicans."

But others say the party risks alienating voters by attacking the president at a time of financial crisis. In Florida, Jim Greer, the party's state chairman, is urging Republicans to "move on to the issues that are important to American voters in addition to [social] issues -- education, the economy, things that affect people every day." Mr. Greer kicked off a youth-outreach program this past week emphasizing young people's financial concerns.

Republicans clearly are on the defensive. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll this week found nearly half of respondents viewed the Democrats positively and 31% negatively, while 26% viewed the GOP positively and 47% negatively.

Still, the poll also showed an opening for the emerging Republican line of attack against Mr. Obama's early policies. By 61% to 29%, those surveyed said they were more worried the government would "spend too much money trying to boost the economy" than too little.

Republican guru Ed Gillespie, who held Mr. Steele's job during the George W. Bush years, says the floundering and internal debate is to be expected for a party out of power. "The fact is there is a natural process that goes on when you don't have the House, the Senate or the White House, where a lot of voices start to emerge," he said. "Let a thousand flowers bloom."

Source.

His grandfather Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator, and his father and brother were presidents. Yet Jeb Bush doesn't believe in political dynasties, and seems perfectly willing to let his family's legacy of serving in high office in Washington pass him by.

It's "possible," he says, that he'll never run again -- for anything. That includes the presidency in 2012. "I'm totally comfortable with what I'm doing and how I'm going about it. I hope I can find a role to play that doesn't include running for office to make a contribution."

Mr. Bush, who turned 56 this week, stepped down in 2007 after eight years as governor of Florida. Now he's working in real estate, consulting, giving paid speeches, promoting education reform, and offering advice to the Republican Party. Even the U.S. Senate seat that Republican Mel Martinez will vacate next year didn't entice him. That, he says, would require a seven and a half year commitment, a year and a half of campaigning and six years in office. He sounds weary merely discussing another campaign.

But Mr. Bush becomes animated when talking about ideas and policy innovations -- he's an unorthodox Republican who latches onto reform ideas wherever he finds them. He's a fan of the school system in Sweden. Currently he's reading Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns on his Kindle. And he's convinced Republicans should make a heroic effort to govern California because it's "a center of innovation and a place that looks like the changing demographics of our country, similar to Florida."

But the first question I ask Mr. Bush is about his life and work after declining to seek a Senate seat. He's not second-guessing his decision. He's relaxed, dressed Miami-style in slacks, a tattersall shirt and no tie. When Mr. Bush left the governor's mansion in Tallahassee, he worked out of an office in his Coral Gables condo. Six months later, he moved to the Four Seasons office complex five miles away on the fringe of downtown Miami. It is not plush, but modest and functional with a modern print on the wall and a few dozen books, on policy, politics, religion, on two shelves.

Nevertheless, his current lack of interest in elective office surely is not the last word on Mr. Bush's political career. He's popular with both moderate and conservative Republicans, and more easy-going and genial than his brother George. Mr. Bush was a successful governor, 1999-2007, of the fourth most populous state. His tenure was memorable because of his intense focus on reform of education, government, the budget process, civil service, health care, procurement and race-based programs. He also cut taxes in a state with no income tax.

What comes through when Mr. Bush is asked about education is how radical his views are. He would toss out the traditional K-to-12 scheme in favor of a credit system, like colleges have.

"It's not based on seat time," he says. "It's whether you accomplished the task. Now we're like GM in its heyday of mass production. We don't have a flourishing education system that's customized. There's a whole world out there that didn't exist 10 years ago, which is online learning. We have the ability today to customize learning so we don't cast young people aside."

This is where Sweden comes in. "The idea that somehow Sweden would be the land of innovation, where private involvement in what was considered a government activity, is quite shocking to us Americans," Mr. Bush says. "But they're way ahead of us. They have a totally voucherized system. The kids come from Baghdad, Somalia, this is in the tougher part of Stockholm, and they're learning three languages by the time they finish. . . . there's no reason we can't have that except we're stuck in the old way."

So are Republicans, Mr. Bush believes. But with a few adjustments, the GOP can become a modern reform party. "I don't think there's anything that holds us back," he says. "I think we're actually well positioned to do exactly that." Mr. Bush would stand the party on its head by de-emphasizing Washington and mounting "a real effort to play offense outside of Washington in advancing a reform agenda. I think a respectful, policy-oriented opposition in Washington will be quite effective." But the states are where "being able to change things is easier to do."

This approach "worked in the early 90s," Mr. Bush says. "We had some fantastic governors who were my role models." He mentions his brother when he led Texas, John Engler of Michigan and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin. "We had an all-star team." He likes the current crop of Republican governors, including Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

"Beyond the ideas and all of that," Mr. Bush says the GOP must be a national party. That means "we need to be competitive in California," where the "burden of big-government policies" has produced a $42 billion deficit. "I don't care how big the state is, that's mind-boggling. It's not a tax problem. Don't they have the 'excuse me for living' tax out there? The growth of government spending has been enormous. And a creative, reform-minded candidate on the Republican side" could be elected governor.

He encouraged Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, to try. "She's the kind of person who's lived and managed and led through the disruptive changes that are going on in our lives," Mr. Bush says. On Feb. 9, Ms. Whitman set up an exploratory committee, normally a precursor to running.

Mr. Bush commented last fall that "a big-government Republican" is a nonexistent species. What did he mean?

"I think the one common thread throughout all these strains of conservative thinking and Republicanism is limited government. If we don't have that in common, what else do we have? And the next question you'll ask is what do I think of my brother's record. I think circumstances come into play. When you're attacked as a nation it's legitimate to spend resources to deal with huge holes in national security. And so there are times in history when it's important to use the power of government."

Republicans must also clean up their act on immigration, Mr. Bush insists. Last year, he says they "set a tone" that pushed Hispanic voters away. "The tone of the debate reached a point that was very damning to the Republican Party, and the evidence is in. The chest pounders lost."

Mr. Bush supports immigration reform as championed by his brother and John McCain, which would allow illegals already in this country to stay. "Politics has to be about ideas and values and aspirations." he says. "It shouldn't be about anger and preying on people's emotions. You can't lead a mob."

To publicize their alternatives to President Obama's policies, Mr. Bush wants Republicans to emulate the British ("recognizing that we have a different system") and set up a shadow cabinet. "We should organize our opposition based on policy," he says. "I don't think the [2008] election was a transformational one in the ideological sense. I don't think Americans went to the left. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get that sense. It's a huge opportunity to advocate reforms and advocate our beliefs and do so with some humility and recognition that the other guys won."

What did he take away from his experience as governor? Mr. Bush says he "learned you could change things if you worked at it. What I learned was how to take ideas and implement them over the long haul. The thing with politics is that it's focused on the here and now." However, "by focusing on the longer-term things I had a chance to take conservative ideas and reform-minded thoughts and put them into practice. It was invigorating. It was uplifting to me personally to see that in America a whole lot of people can work together to accomplish that."

As Mr. Bush explains it, an exhausting strategy is required. "You have to have an aspirational goal, and you have to communicate it over and over and over. You have to have the humility to recognize that people aren't watching your every word. . . . You have to be constantly adding to the reforms. You have to take the risk of measuring the success or lack of it. You have to be held accountable . . . Sometimes it's not fun."

Mr. Bush has kind words for Mr. Obama. He was the first Democrat to win Florida since 1976, and Mr. Bush has nothing but praise for his "spectacularly well-run campaign. They started with the premise that we're going to have a huge database and we're going to connect people to this campaign. When things got going in earnest in the general election, it was a finely tuned machine, to Obama's credit." The campaign spent $60 million in the state, Mr. Bush says, based on the correct assumption that "if they won Florida, they'd win the election."

He also has a suggestion. "I think it would be great politically for President Obama" to break with one of his party's interest groups, Mr. Bush says. "I hope it's the teachers' union. He can bring about a transformation of education" and speak "on behalf of the kids that traditionally are shut out of the learning process, and [allow] a thousand flowers to bloom, not just one prescribed from Washington."

Mr. Bush has a personal motive for urging Republicans to "avoid personal, partisan attacks" on Mr. Obama, a strategy they've largely followed in Washington. "I would never want Obama to go through what my brother went through. It might be fair that every president gets the same amount of vitriol. But it's not right for our country, it's not going to help us, and it's not going to help Republicans."

Source.

President Barack Obama promised to reach out to rivals and embrace all good ideas when devising economic policy. But his 11th hour demagoguery over the stimulus bill – publicly lambasting Republicans for not meekly supporting his bloated legislation – reeked of partisan politics. Now, his second nominee for Commerce secretary, a conservative Republican, has withdrawn, saying he has irreconcilable policy differences with Obama. That leaves the bipartisan policy myth in tatters.

Senator Judd Gregg’s decision to drop out over policy differences looks slightly less embarrassing for the Obama team than the forced withdrawal of his earlier Commerce nominee due to a grand jury investigation and two other top appointees – not counting Treasury boss Tim Geithner’s nearly derailed nomination – due to tax problems. But in fact, it stems from the same issues – poor vetting and judgment.

After all, Gregg said he discussed his opposition to several Obama policies, including the stimulus, with the administration early in the courtship. If Obama really did want dissenting opinions in his cabinet – a promise that had the commentariat comparing his administration to Lincoln’s “team of rivals” – he should have been able to accommodate Gregg. As it is, this fiasco makes the appointment look like a failed attempt to acquire the patina of bipartisanship without the substance.

Of course, the problem might have been Gregg’s intransigence as much as Obama’s. But such profound differences over policy should have come to light earlier.

It's still early days, but Gregg’s decision adds to the markets’ worries at the worst possible time. In light of Obama’s problems with his other nominees, the partisan fight over the stimulus and the lack of details in the bank rescue plan, his administration needs to act decisively to rebuild confidence in its ability to assemble a strong economics team and produce coherent and effective policies.

Source.

From Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush

Congressional Republicans lack President Barack Obama's bully pulpit and do not have the majorities that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid enjoy. But they are playing their hand extraordinarily well.

Over the past month, House Republicans have used the stimulus bill to redefine their party, present ideas on how to revive the economy, and force congressional Democrats and the president to take ownership of the spending programs soon to be signed into law.

The first smart move House Republicans made was to raise objections to specific parts of the House stimulus bill. Pointing out that there is money in the bill for condoms, livestock insurance, refurbishing the National Mall, and other outlandish things revealed that it is a massive spending spree, not an economic stimulus.

House Republicans had the wisdom to continue to talk to the Obama White House. This made them look gracious, even as the president edged toward a "my way or the highway" attitude.

They also wisely put ideas on the table, such as cutting the bottom two income tax rates and small-business taxes while extending unemployment insurance and other safety-net provisions. With these proposals, Republicans generated news and made it possible for their members to be for something that made sense to their voters.

It also helped that the same methodology that the White House used to claim that the Democratic stimulus bill would create four million new jobs showed that the Republican approach would create six million new jobs, at half the cost.

The payoff is that support for the stimulus bill is falling. CBS News polling reveals a 12-point drop in support of the bill over the past month. Pew Research and Rasmussen have turned in similar numbers. The more Americans learn about the bill, the less they like it.

What is becoming clear is that the House GOP is becoming energized by empowering its "Young Guns." Leader John Boehner has been good. But he wouldn't be as effective if he didn't have the help of Reps. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, and Mike Pence, the House GOP conference chairman. Reps. Paul Ryan and Dave Camp, the top Republicans on the Budget and the Ways and Means committees, are impressive and add depth to the leadership team.

Over in the Senate, Republicans have likewise followed a "better ideas" strategy. Mitch McConnell pushed to make aid to states loans, not grants, and to cut income taxes for the middle class. Other Republican senators came in with ideas to fix housing, put money in the hands of taxpayers, and cut fat from the stimulus.

They also asked the Congressional Budget Office if the Democratic Senate bill was actually stimulative. The nonpartisan CBO found it would have a "negligible" impact on jobs by 2011 and hurt economic growth and prosperity over the next decade.

Mr. Obama will get his bill. But it won't be one focused on job creation and stimulus. The bill he signs will create a raft of new programs and be the biggest peacetime spending increase in American history, which will give us larger deficits and create pressure to raise taxes. It will also hinder the president's other goals, such as expanding government health care.

But if Republicans predict economic doom, they will overplay their hand. The Democratic stimulus will slow recovery, but not stop it. Recessions don't last forever and, if history is a guide, sometime late this year or early next the economy will rebound on its own. When that happens, Democrats will argue that their untargeted, permanent spending actually revived the economy.

Americans are skeptical of the notion that increasing the size and cost of government will lead to an increase in jobs and economic growth. A recent CBS News poll, for example, shows that 62% of Americans think "reducing taxes" will "do more to get the U.S. out of the current recession" -- nearly three times the 22% who prefer "increasing government spending."

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 60% of Americans are worried that government will "spend too much" to boost the economy. Only 33% worry it will spend "too little."

The debate here is about means, not ends. Americans and both parties want a revived economy. Republicans want focused proposals that create jobs and growth, while the White House seems ready to accept what House and Senate appropriators have drawn up.

Mr. Obama, for all his talents, has already re-energized the GOP and sparked a spending debate that will last for years. The president won this legislative battle, but at a high price -- fiscally and politically.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Visit Mr. Rove on the web at Rove.com.

Source.