To The Presidential Candidates: Promises Are Easy, Results Are Almost Impossible.

Promises are easy, results are almost impossible
by CARL LEUBSDORF

Mitt Romney promises to “repeal” President Barack Obama’s health-care plan “on Day 2” of his presidency, “take military action” if necessary to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and challenge Chinese currency manipulation in the World Trade Organization.

Rep. Ron Paul would scrap five Cabinet-level agencies, and Gov. Rick Perry would axe three, while enacting a flat tax. Perry would also cut congressional salaries in half and limit future Supreme Court justices to 18-year terms.

And Herman Cain promises to throw out the entire tax system and replace it with his 9-9-9 plan, a 9 percent tax on corporations, personal income and retail sales.

Don’t hold your breath.

While a change in the presidency brings significant policy changes, they’re rarely as dramatic as candidates promise. A good rule of thumb: The more dramatic the policy proposal, the less likely it will be enacted.

That’s especially true in foreign policy. Candidates often vow to reverse course, only to adopt their predecessor’s policies once in office. And the increasing congressional gridlock limits a president’s ability to change domestic policy.

Candidate George H.W. Bush was more skeptical toward liberalization in the Soviet Union than President Ronald Reagan. In office, he not only adopted Reagan’s approach but extended it, forging a close relationship with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that helped ensure a peaceful transition when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Candidate Bill Clinton urged a tougher stance against China because of its human rights abuses. As president, he found that the need to strengthen economic ties required U.S. acceptance of Chinese policies it could not change.

Candidate George W. Bush opposed U.S. “nation building” abroad, only to undertake it in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks and in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

And though Obama’s candidacy stemmed from opposition to the Iraqi war, he adopted the Bush withdrawal timetable and increased U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan. Congress blocked his oft-repeated vow to stop holding terrorists at the Guantanamo naval base.

In general, new presidents discover why their predecessors often pursue a cautious approach. That’s likely to be true in 2013, if Romney or another Republican replaces Obama.

Of course, the bigger current differences are on domestic policy. Listening to Republican candidates, you’d think the next GOP administration will scrap every major Obama measure, especially its sweeping health plan and the Dodd-Frank law tightening regulation of the securities industry. Most promise a simpler tax law that lowers taxes on all, including wealthier Americans.

Some of that may happen, but recent presidents learned it’s a lot harder than their sweeping promises sound. Obama had to limit his economic stimulus and drop his climate control plan.

Congress hasn’t passed a major tax simplification measure for 25 years, and that took several years, despite support from key members of both parties. Republicans’ solid anti-tax stance complicates matters, especially when the exploding budget deficit will almost certainly require that any tax reform produce increased revenues.

Some Republican candidates make it sound easy to reduce the deficit. For example, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson would cut federal spending from its current 25 percent of gross domestic product to 17 percent. That’s more than 30 percent.

Since about two-thirds of federal spending goes for things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and interest, that would mean eliminating most of the one-third spent on defense and discretionary domestic programs.

Romney would lower spending to 20 percent of GDP, but, since he favors increased defense spending and assumes unrealistically high growth levels, that could mean elimination of most domestic programs or significant cuts in entitlements. And the latter will be hard to achieve, regardless of who is president.

Election of a Republican may make it easier to cut domestic spending and simplify the tax code. It will also likely spur titanic battles over scrapping Obama’s health care and securities regulation laws.

U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will continue, and the pullout from Iraq won’t be reversed. And a GOP president won’t be able to reject a balanced package of revenue increases and spending cuts as easily as GOP candidates recently spurned the idea of including $1 in tax hikes for every $10 in spending cuts.