Here are some binoculars. Look toward the horizon — see that horse? Must be six miles away by now. Well, let's shut the ol' barn door; better late than never.
In related news, President Bush has asked Congress for the line-item veto to control spending.
In five years, Bush has not vetoed a single bill. Some observers think he regards big government as a tool to advance conservative ideas, which is a little like Godzilla using his tail for urban renewal. Others theorize there's a Rovian plan to undercut the Democrats by throwing great sacks of money at their pet causes. If the GOP can invent huge, chewy sow-teats like the prescription drug benefit AND make the Democrats look like knock-kneed Barney Fifes on defense, it would help assure that permanent realignment everyone was talking about in '04.
That was the theory. Whether it will work remains to be seen. Hard-core Democrats will always believe that the Republican Party exists to take single mothers' milk money and give it to chortling bankers, so it's doubtful anything short of nationalizing Wal-Mart and giving everyone a $10K gift card would change their minds.
Moderates? Who knows. Like peculiar subatomic particles, their behavior changes when they're merely observed. Ask if they want less spending, and they say yes — as long as it's pork. Horrid, nasty, wasteful pork. Generally defined as a community center more than a 45-minute drive away. When no one's watching, they'll vote in the guy with the goody bag.
We had a taste of line-item goodness in the happy-go-lucky '90s: A Republican Congress gave that handy little Exacto knife to President Clinton in 1996. He cut almost 40 military projects. Congress overturned him. The system worked! The Supreme Court, however, decided that the line-item veto was unconstitutional; the president can't tinker with laws after Congress has passed them. Congress let out a big "Awwwww" and slumped away, chastened. Then realized they could spend trillions without heed, and promptly brightened.
So what's Bush thinking now? Another constitutional amendment, perhaps, fresh off the lightning victory of the Defense of Marriage amendment? No. This line-item veto is different. Instead of killing an expenditure dead on the spot, a veto would go back to Congress, where it would be voted on again. And presumably passed again. Perhaps the intention is to humiliate individual expenditures, making them feel like the skinny kid in the gym class shower room.
But shame is a remarkably ineffective tool for making Congress spend less. The insular culture of the institution is more disposed to trading favors, not abolishing them. You subsidize my back-scratcher factory, I'll support a back-scratcher job training program for your district.
The Democrats may try to use the spending issue to peel off Republicans. Good luck. "Vote for us! We'll spend less!" But they'll also legalize fourth-trimester abortions and gay polygamy, empty Gitmo and leave Iraq to al-Qaida, and block the entitlement reform the bloated budget demands. And somehow, we suspect, spend more. No thanks, most GOPers would say; we'll wait for a real conservative.
As for the moderates and Dems anxious about spending: "More taxes" is no longer the surefire, compelling issue it once was. (In 1934, when people thought millionaires paid nothing. Then came the lottery — The entire nation learned that a $300 million payoff meant $7.50 after taxes. So tax the billionaires! The 10 of them ought to yield enough to pay for all the pork we want. This year, anyway.)
Expect Congress to make great gusts of self-congratulatory rhetoric as it passes the line-item veto measure. John Kerry is already aboard the swift boat on this issue, supporting the measure as a means of keeping the president's "feet to the fire." Great! Go for it, guys. But did you ever consider passing fewer line items that need to be vetoed?
