Read My Hips

(3 of 3)

After reaching a budget agreement with congressional leaders, Bush delivered a tepid prime-time address on Oct. 2 asking Americans to call their lawmakers % in support of the deal. Instead, the overwhelming majority of calls and letters opposed it, with many complaining that its regressive approach -- with increased taxes on liquor, tobacco and gasoline, not to mention higher Medicare premiums -- would hurt the poor more than the rich.

Thus when Bush last week conceded that he might be willing to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, many Republicans were flabbergasted that he had done it so casually, in the course of a 40-minute press conference. If he had issued a ringing proclamation that higher taxes on the rich were needed, says a senior Republican, "he could have explained that he felt it was necessary to make the package fair, and we would have got political credit for it. Instead, now we look like we're being dragged into raising the top rates and the Democrats are beating us to death as the party of the rich."

The President's effectiveness in domestic policy has been further hampered by the ham-handedness of White House chief of staff John Sununu. The former New Hampshire Governor, complains an official, "got ahead of the boss" when he sought to kill the deal combining a capital-gains tax cut with a higher income tax rate -- a mistake that did not go unnoticed by Bush. By failing to disguise his contempt for Congress, Sununu has managed to alienate even the Republicans whose support Bush desperately needs. Two weeks ago, Sununu dismissed Mississippi Senator Trent Lott's complaints about the original budget pact as "insignificant." In response Lott ordered up buttons with the words I'M INSIGNIFICANT, TOO. Sununu's remark was especially damaging because Lott has provided crucial votes to uphold three of the President's least popular vetoes. Says Lott: "They're going to need me again, real bad and real soon."

The White House budget strategy, such as it is, assumes that none of the factions that rejected the bipartisan budget accord will manage to put together a plan they like better and get it through the House and the Senate. After they fail, a senior White House official predicts, "everybody's got to be forced back to the middle" -- that is, back to an outline not very different from the defeated proposal. That could happen. But many members of both parties say they would not be pushed back to the regressive approach that was so resoundingly turned down two weeks ago. They would rather pass a budget that is both more equitable and practical -- if the President would only assume his responsibilities and lead them to it.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Charts

From a telephone poll of 500 adult Americans taken for TIME/CNN on Oct.10 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling error is plus or minus 4.5%. "Not sures" omitted.

CAPTION: Do you approve or diapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as President?

Is Bush doing a good job or a poor job:

Is the U.S. in a recession now?