Is he making the grade? (A Symposium Of Views).

As to George W. Bush, two opposing views come to mind. The first: His presidency has seen its honeymoon come and go and is about to face a steady, debiliating decline in popularity. Of particular concern: the lack of a coherent global economic to weaken economically, even as the United States struggles to rebound. The second view: The drop in public support for the Bush administration to around the 50-percent mark should bot be surprising. The United States policywise is evenly divided. Plus the U.S. economy will almost certainly have rebounden by the time of the President's re-election. Thus things for Dubya will turn out quite fine, thank you very much. He'll win reelection, but once again by a thin margin.

How fo you rate Bush presidency so far? (Feel free to use a letter grade A, B+, C-, etc.) In your view, what one area needs serious improvement? What is the administration's greatest success to date? Its greatest failure?

As to a final grade seven months into what I believe will be an eight-year presidency. I give President Bush a very solid B+.

BOB DOLE

Former Senate Majority Leader and former Republican candidate for President of the United States in 1996.

After one of the closest and most contentious elections in recent history, President George W. Bush is doing just fine. As I said in a column for the Wall Street Journal, you can judge a president by the company he keeps. While polls are largely determined by circumstances, personnel are determined by choices--the choices of the president himself.

The first example is the White House staff. It is a senior staff that is politically sophisticated and includes strong women, old presidential friends, and proven administrators. The second example is the cabinet and agencies. Again, you can grade this president by the company he keeps. In these choices, President Bush has demonstrated considerable self-confidence. Some warned that he would be overshadowed by the stature of [Vice President] Dick Cheney, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell, and [Secretary of Defense] Don Rumsfeld. Fortunately for the nation, the President ignored these warnings and chose highly qualified and thoughtful people.

Seven months into his presidency, I believe George W. Bush's greatest success was being able to orchestrate and sign a tax cut that is giving real money--the people's money--back to hard working American families. It is a major accomplishment that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and will go a long way toward providing an economic stimulus.

With regard to anything the President may have done over, I believe he himself mentioned the fact that he may have handled the environmental issue a bit better. Not so much from a policy point of view, but rather how those polices are sold to a sometime suspicious media and then filtered to the American people. Often times, the best training is on the job, and this president is learning quickly.

As to a final grade seven months into what I believe will be an eight-year presidency, I give President Bush a very solid B+.

Grade: A, but next semester will be tougher.

MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics, Stanford University; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; and former Chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisors.

President George W. Bush gets a first semester "A." He has assembled an outstanding economic team: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Chief Economic Adviser Larry Lindsey, Treasury International Undersecretary John Taylor, CEA Chairman Glenn Hubbard, Budget Director Mitch Daniels and, importantly, Vice President Dick Cheney. He has signed his tax cut into law in record time. This was not only impressive politics, but also good policy. If the tax cut had not passed, the bulk of the funds would have been spent by Congress--much of it wastefully. The gradually phased-in rate cuts will help the economy's longer-term growth. The short-run rebates are occurring "just in time" for a stalled economy.

Having played a minor role in the development of the tax plan with some of the people mentioned above and others, I can say that the most impressive thing about the entire process was the vision and steadfastness of George W. Bush. He thought it was the right thing to do; he thought he could take it to the electorate and win on it; and, despite the derision from the inside Washington and New York media types, he stood by his guns and scored a big win for his administration and the economy.

The President's straight talk and his agenda of trade liberalization, education and entitlement reform, more sensible regulation, improving decaying energy infrastructure, and good relations with the Federal Reserve are the right economic approach for the administration.

Obviously, with the very close party alignment in the Congress, subsequent legislation will likely prove more difficult. The President's latter term grades will depend on his ability to mobilize the country to press the legislative branch to do what is right for the country in these areas.

Grade: D, and I don't want this student in class again!

JANET YELLEN 

Trefethen Professor of Business and Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley; former Chair, Council of Economic Advisors; and former Governor, Federal Reserve Board.

I would assign the Bush presidency a grade of D for its performance so far. I thought of assigning an F, but at my university and some others, students who receive an F have a chance to repeat the course. I don't want this student in class again.

The Bush presidency has failed the test on fiscal policy. His Tax Relief Act of 2001 deserves a good grade for including enough immediate stimulus to help combat the current slowdown. But it flunks overall because it undoes a decade of courageous policy initiatives, including those of Bush's own father, to reverse the disastrous Reagan budget deficit legacy. Economists had long preached the virtues for growth of a shift in the policy mix: Smaller budget deficits, coupled with easier monetary policy, would raise national saving, lower real interest rates, spur investment, and improve productivity growth. When the policy shift was finally tried, it worked like a charm, enhancing U.S. global leadership in the process.

The President's performance on the Social Security question is also unacceptable. His Social Security Commission has rightly declared that the country needs to save and invest more to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. But the now-dissipated on-budget surpluses were doing just that: adding to national saving in preparation for the incipient demographic crunch. Absent the massive tax cut, those surpluses could have been used to bolster America's most popular and effective governmental program--either added to the Social Security trust fund, as Bill Clinton proposed, or used to fund individual accounts, as President Bush prefers. Both courses are now impossible. The tax cut also precludes significant new initiatives for defense, Medicare, education, research and development, or the environment.

The Bush presidency also fails the test question on environmental policy. The risks from global warming are serious and America should bear its fair share of the burden. The Kyoto Protocol has its flaws, but also its virtues, particularly in the inclusion of flexibility mechanisms to keep global costs under control. Bush should have worked to mend it, not end it--advancing proposals to involve developing countries and include safeguards to cap economic costs at a reasonable level.

The Bush administration's approach to the handling of emerging market debt and currency crises remains a work in progress. But Treasury's near-dismissal of the risks of a new round of turmoil and its minimization of the chances for global contagion through financial markets and trade makes me very apprehensive. The President and his advisers must have missed the lecture on this one. If the system is again tested, one can only pray that the administration's response will earn it a passing grade.

I subscribe to the second view. Grade: B-. Bush is serious about a smaller federal government. He's making progress towards that goal, helped by the economic slowdown. To reign in spending, he must confront Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) with an unpalatable choice: filch from the Social Security trust fund or curb their appetite. He's betting that his priorities--education and missile defense--will be taken care of.

Since it's critical to his agenda, the tax cut (though "fatally flawed") is his greatest triumph. Without it, he'd be nowhere. His biggest failure: his initial carelessness on the environment, which was a self-inflicted wound. He will be unable to restore credibility, and remains vulnerable to further attacks, on this front. On the other hand, recent Democratic sniping over his conduct of international economic and foreign policy misses its mark. Unless and until Bush blows a genuine crisis, kvetching about lack of coherence in global affairs has about as much resonance as a Sunday New York Times editorial.

By 2004, the economy will be back on track, lackluster Democratic contenders will have demolished each other in a nasty primary, and Genial George will be the man.

Grade: B-, with a lot of missed opportunities (but I'm a high grader).

ROBERT D. NOVAK

Nationally syndicated Columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, CNN Political Commentator, and Co-host of CNN's "Crossfire."

Any appraisal of George W. Bush's presidency must recognize this stark political fact of life: No new president has entered the White House facing so formidable an array of foes who are determined that he fail. The polarization of American politics over the past generation climaxed in the bitter Florida vote count. The Democratic Party and the capital's liberal establishment are determined that Bush should fail--and look bad doing it.

President Bush was ill prepared for this implacable hostility. He entered the White House intending to charm Washington as he had Austin. He instead encountered an opposition attempting to deny him any victory and emboldened by the Democratic takeover in the Senate. Given such hostility, the man elected to the presidency with less governmental experience than any Twentieth Century president has done pretty well.

While his biggest domestic achievement is his across the-board tax cut, Bush stubbornly stuck to outlines of a campaign proposal drafted in 1999 under very different economic conditions. He abandoned nearly all the reform proposals in his education bill. He has doggedly pushed ahead with his faith-based initiative against fierce opposition from secularists. His first tentative step toward Social Security privatization faces rough going.

In foreign policy, Bush has pulled back from international agreements (global warming, germ warfare) that are not in the U.S. national interest. He has been forced to agree to open-ended peacekeeping in the Balkans, but imposed restraint on future commitments. He has fought courageously to dump the obsolete Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the interests of missile defense.

Bush's greatest failing is his apparent lack of interest in the massive loss of wealth in the American equities market, resulting in his opposition to a therapeutic reduction in the capital gains tax. That could lead to economic contraction that would make him a one-term president.

His second greatest failing is his inability so far to use the presidency's bully pulpit to sell his program to the country and override the din of opposition in Washington. That's not Bush's natural talent, but at least he's trying.

My grade: B-minus (but I may be a high grader).

Upside: the quick Bush tax cut. Downside: his weak, confusing position on global warming.

HORST SIEBERT

President, Kiel Institute of World Economics and Member, German Council of Economic Advisors.

From an external perspective, the tax reduction is a major success. It is a precondition for returning to a high growth path in the next years. Compared to how slowly Japan and Germany perform institutional change--German tax reform was discussed for years--it is noteworthy how speedily the U.S. tax reduction was passed. I expect growth in the Unites States to pick up next year with 3 percent.

In terms of global economic policy, the weak point is the United States' position on global warming, a position difficult to understand. As natural scientists point out overwhelmingly, there is a risk of global warming. It would be a natural role for the United States, as the country producing one-third of the world's GDP, to lead the discussion for a solution. If the Kyoto process is judged to be unsatisfactory, a different proposal should be put on the table. Isn't it part of a conservative presidency to conserve the human living space? And does the United States not have an admirable history of preserving its natural environment, for instance, in the national parks? In any case, the United States cannot take the "nyet" position on this issue.

He's done pretty well but seems unprepared to define a future agenda.

ARTHUR LAFFER

Founder and Chairman, Laffer Associates.

Seven months into his presidency, Bush has been more than O.K. His tax bill was on balance a plus and he hasn't caved in on any of the key issues. I was especially pleased by Bush's phasing out of the inheritance tax. And Bush's performance comes amid difficult circumstances. Given that Bush's victory was marginal at best he clearly does not have a mandate. His support was then undercut when the Republicans lost the Senate as a result of Jefford's defection. And finally the economy, responding to events long ago and tar away, is not in good shape. Ultimately the budget will look to be in far worse shape than anyone now imagines. These are big negatives for Bush. And yet he still has done pretty well.

Where Bush concerns me is in his posturing or lack thereof for future battles with Democrats. If Bush doesn't set the agenda and define the issues, then the Democratic leadership will. And he who sets the agenda has the home court advantage.

Bush needs to take an aggressive posture while knowing full well that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting any of his new agenda passed by the current Congress. Bush's posture has to be the antithesis of bipartisanship. No more Mr. Nice guy. While it is not his nature, he needs to be confrontational to win the big one in [the congressional elections of] November 2002. His fights with the Democratic leadership have to be politically defining (i.e., the sides are clear cut) and always he must remember [Clinton 1992 campaign strategist James] Carville's classic line: "It's the economy, stupid." He also needs to pick his fights carefully. Issues like abortion, pornography, and the Panama Canal may be very important, but they fade into nothingness when the economy is in bad shape.

If Bush pushed the following agenda at least we'd know there was a choice not an echo:

A) Cut the Capital Gains tax rate to 15 percent.

B) Push aggressive tort reform--no enemy is politically better than trial lawyers.

C) Privatize some of the Social Security System.

D) Expand NAFTA to all of the Americas.

E) Maintain the Internet's tax-exempt status.

F) Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Whatever posture Bush ultimately chooses to take will determine whether he's successful or not. It's not my position in life to grade Bush even though I've always been a Professor. The grading of Bush will take place in November of 2002, and the graders will be the electorate. Good luck, "W."

Let's give Mr. Bush a "B" and hope for an "A" in the not too far distant future.

MELVYN KRAUSS

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Standford University.

I like George Bush. I would like to be able to give him an overall grade of "A" for the job he has done so far as president. In fact, he deserves an A for many things he has accomplished in the short time he has been in office.

The tax cut is a case in point. Though an optimal tax cut from my point of view would have been more supply side and front-loaded, given the present political realities of the U.S. Congress, President Bush should be commended for what he was able to accomplish under very difficult circumstances.

Foreign policy has been another bright spot for the Bush administration. Missile defense is extraordinarily important for the future security of this country. Mr. Bush and his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, are proceeding in a reasoned, prudent, and forthright manner to turn this vision of self-defense into a reality. For this, they deserve our thanks and support.

They deserve support likewise for their attempt to extricate the country from bad or irrelevant treaties. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty made sense during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was our enemy and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was relevant to our security needs. Today, however, the ABM Treaty is as passe as the Cold War itself. It's time to rip up that particular piece of paper if only because it hinders our pushing forward on missile defense. The world has changed and so must our defense strategies.

In the field of environmental protection, the Bush team has made it clear that it will not sign on to the Kyoto Treaty. This too deserves applause. From a cost-benefit point of view, the Kyoto Treaty makes no sense for the United States. The potential economic costs are real and enormous, the environmental benefits illusory.

Our European friends are displeased with Mr. Bush because of the ABM and Kyoto Treaties. The tail has been wagging the dog for so long that it is a shock when the dog wags back.

The Bush foreign policy team--particularly [National Security Advisor] Condoleezza Rice--should be congratulated for putting an end to the Clinton administration's detestable policy of Japan-bashing. Japan is an important friend and ally. The only real lesson the Clinton team taught Japan was that the United States could not be trusted. What could be more stupid and counterproductive?

But while Mr. Bush's very real accomplishments should not be underestimated, there are several reasons why a grade of A is not warranted. The President speaks eloquently in favor of free trade. But he was very quick to slap on protectionist duties on steel imports. Mr. Bush needs to be reminded--action speaks louder than words.

Another case where action contradicted rhetoric was the bailout of Argentina. Mr. Bush promised there would be no more bailouts. But like the case of free trade, he failed in his very first test to practice what he preached. When push came to shove, the Bush administration behaved no differently than the Clinton administration it had vilified for its bailouts.

There is, however, a big difference between the Bush and Clinton bailouts. With Clinton, the economic team wanted the bailouts and got its way. With Bush, the economic team did not want the bailout but lost out in an internal power struggle to foreign policy interests. If this continues, the Bush administration's credibility on global economic issues will be severely compromised.

As a former teacher, I know better than most how subjective the grading process can be. Let's give Mr. Bush a "B" and hope for an "A" in the not too far distant future.