SUNDAY, MAY 30, 2010
GEORGE F. WILL
Obama’s Scrooge act
B
arack Obama, an unbeliever genuflecting before the altar of frugality, is asking Con- gress, as presidents do, to give him something like a line-item veto. Coming in today’s context of his unrelenting agenda of expanding government, his proposal consti- tutes a counterfeit promise to get serious about controlling spend- ing and the deficit. His purpose is to distract the public while Demo- crats enact something like Stimu- lus III.
Obama’s Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act confirms the axiom that the titles of bills, like the titles of Marx brothers movies (“Duck Soup,” “Horse Feathers”), are ut- terly uninformative. The act would aggravate a distortion of the Constitution that has grown for seven decades, enlarging presi- dential power by allowing presi- dents to treat spending bills as caf- eterias from which they can take what they like and reject the rest. Under Obama’s proposal, presi- dents would list dubious spend- ing, then Congress would have to accept or reject, by a simple ma- jority, his entire list, which could not be filibustered. This might, or might not, be constitutionally problematic. It certainly would not reduce
deficit spending: Under the presi- dent’s proposal, if Congress kills the projects on the president’s list, the budgetary allocation would not be reduced, so legislators could dream up new things on which to spend the money. In 1996, when a Republican- controlled Congress gave Presi- dent Bill Clinton, by statute, a line- item veto, Pat Moynihan’s inter- vention in the Senate debate be- gan: “I rise in the serene confi- dence that this measure is constitutionally doomed.” The Su- preme Court proved Moynihan prescient. That law’s constitutional infir-
mity was that it empowered the president to cancel provisions of legislation. This violated the sepa- ration of powers by making the president’s activity indistinguish- able from making laws rather than executing them. The Consti- tution says that “every bill” passed by Congress shall be “presented” to the president, who shall sign “it” or return “it” with his ob- jections. The antecedent of the pronoun is the bill — all of it, not bits of it. Even if Congress enacted Oba-
ma’s proposed “expedited rescis- sion” (an existing rescission proc- ess enables presidents to recom- mend cuts) and even if the law passed constitutional muster, it would be inconsequential as a control on spending. Actually, it probably would make matters worse. Today, 62 percent of federal spending goes to entitlements (56)
DAVID S. BRODER
t took almost a full hour of Ba- rack Obama’s news conference for the professor-president to come down from his lecture plat- form and show the human reac- tion to the gulf oil leak accident that people had been looking for. Early on, he referred to it as a
Empathizer in chief
I
“tragedy,” but the rest of his words were characteristically calm — precise and clear but hardly be- traying any emotion. When we elect a president, we understand that we are not hiring an actor and that we are not enti- tled to expect him to fulfill all our audience needs. But we want to think that the person who leads our country shares and reflects our feelings. Politicians know this. A few hours after Obama addressed the media on Thursday, CNN showed a news clip of Rep. Charlie Me- lancon, a Louisiana legislator who was talking at a hearing about the impact the oily pollution was hav- ing on the wetlands of his native state — and had to stop because he was weeping so hard. There was instant empathy. Obama does not ask or get that.
What he offered instead was ex- actly what his constituents have seen since he was elected: a clear sense that he understood the situ- ation, that he was in command and that he fully accepted the responsibility. He made all that unmistakably
clear, as he had done in other mo- ments when his leadership was being tested: In Philadelphia, during the campaign, when he had to deal with the issue of race raised by his former pastor’s in- flammatory comments; in the opening weeks of his presidency, when the nation tottered on the brink of financial collapse; when he set the course in Afghanistan and committed thousands of ad- ditional U.S. troops; and when he asked Congress to try once more on health-care reform.
KLMNO
R
A17
KATHLEEN PARKER
and debt service (6). Both will be growing portions of budgets, and both are immune to any vetoes. Defense and homeland security are 21 percent of the budget and will be almost entirely immune. So the line-item veto’s target would be at most 17 percent of the budget. What about earmarks? If all
9,499 of last year’s had been vetoed, this would have saved $15.9 billion, or a risible 0.45 per- cent of spending. Furthermore, Obama’s pro- posed law would encourage legis- lators to feel free to appropriate even more irresponsibly, because it would locate responsibility in the presidency. And presidents could decline to veto particular spending projects in exchange for the sponsoring legislators’ sup- port on other matters. When Con- gress gave Clinton the line-item veto in 1996, the year of welfare reform, Vice President Al Gore said Clinton would use the prom- ise of not vetoing pet projects to leverage higher welfare spending. Presidents resent having to choose complete acceptance or re- jection of gargantuan spending bills. In 1789, the First Congress’s only appropriations bill was 142 words long; Ronald Reagan ar- gued for a line-item veto by bran- dishing a 43-pound, 3,296-page bill.
Although George Washington acknowledged that he must “ap- prove all the parts of a bill, or re- ject it, in toto,” he and most sub- sequent presidents considered ap- propriations permissive rather than mandatory. But after Wa- tergate, Congress acted against the presidential practice of “im- pounding” — not spending — monies Congress appropriated. Obama probably hopes that his proposal will divert attention from a slew of spending that, tak- en together, constitutes some- thing that dare not speak its name —Stimulus III — because its pred- ecessors mostly pleased only the political class and its employees. After George Bush’s $168 billion Stimulus I in 2008, the Obama ad- ministration predicted that its $787 billion Stimulus II (actual cost: $862 billion) would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8 percent. Unemployment is now 9.9 percent. Hence Stimulus III. Like Stimulus II, its scores of bil- lions of spending will enlarge the deficit in order to disproportion- ately benefit spendthrift state and local governments and their unionized employees. Last year, Obama ordered 15 de-
partment heads to find economies totaling $100 million, which was then 13 minutes (0.0029 percent) of federal spending. His new re- scission proposal also is frugality theater and is similarly frivolous.
georgewill@washpost.com
Ready to clean House
O
© ZOHRA BENSEMRA/REUTERS
U.S. Army soldiers have lunch at a police station in Khost province in Afghanistan.
What I learned at war
by J. Mark Jackson
L
ate last year, after eight months of service halfway around the world, I decided to take stock of myself: I had not been moni-
toring my stock portfolios and investments closely. I was not current on the machinations of the faltering economy or what the health-care debate meant for my insurance. I had never heard of the finalists on any of the reality shows. Was I unenlightened and out of touch with re-
ality? Perhaps, by a conventional definition of be- ing connected, informed and up-to-date, I was woefully ignorant. Iwas deployed in Afghanistan, and that com-
bat sabbatical taught a completely different regi- men of vital knowledge. I have learned: Although soldiers are predominantly young, virile men, cut off from feminine wiles and charms, what they miss most is food. But having said that . . . Megan Fox is to Afghanistan what Betty Gra- ble was to World War II. When you look into the face of a gravely wounded soldier, your eyes fill with tears. With some imagination, the sling seat in the gunner’s turret of a Cougar combat vehicle can seem like a rocking chair. Sometimes it is better to stay on radio watch than freeze in your sleeping bag. The bulk of soldiers would relinquish their birthright for one ice-cold beer. I dread the specter of death but do not fear it. I am capable of performing acts of brutality but don’t. Although all Americans are born equal, all boots are not. Having a culture different than America’s doesn’t mean there is something wrong with that culture or that it is not as good. When heated and liberally seasoned with Ta- basco, all MREs are good. You don’t feel the effects of a battle until the day after. Then you are swept with feelings of anxiety, anger, thankfulness and a profound wea- riness. A hollow sense of shock descends. It pass- es, mostly. Afghan food, although prepared in a way that would make a state health inspector faint, is tasty. And . . . The vast majority of soldiers get sick on American, not Afghan, food. The Afghan people are a giving, warmhearted group. The Afghan children are absolutely beautiful, with their hopeful smiles. Nothing is more important than family. Nothing. When Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz” said,
I doubt there were very many Americans concerned about the events in the Gulf of Mexico who did not find a substantial reassur- ance in seeing Obama taking the heat on the crisis. But then, finally, he gave the
country something more — a brief glimpse into what the challenges of his job mean to him personally. “When I woke up this morning
and I’m shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peeks in her head and she says, ‘Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?’ ” The next sentence leaps from the mundane to the universal. “I think everybody understands that when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implica- tions not just for this generation but for future generations.” What he says next is so simple and personal that its authenticity cannot be doubted: “I grew up in Hawaii, where the ocean is sa- cred.” And back to the shared real- ity: “And when you see birds fly- ing around with oil all over their feathers and turtles dying” — as every viewer now has had to watch — “that doesn’t just speak to the immediate economic con- sequences of this; this speaks to, you know, how are we caring for this incredible bounty that we have.”
And then he focused directly on the people living near the gulf. “Sometimes, when I hear folks down in Louisiana expressing frustrations, I may not always think that their comments are fair. On the other hand, I probably think to myself, you know, these are folks who grew up fishing in these wetlands and seeing this as an integral part of who they are. And to see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating.” What began as a defensive aca- demic exercise ended on a much better note.
davidbroder@washpost.com
DAVID IGNATIUS
On defense, a team of rivals
F
or many months, rumors have circulated that a shakeup is coming in the administration’s Af- ghanistan team because of internal tensions. But
to the contrary, President Obama appears comfort- able with the group he has assembled — in part be- cause he doesn’t mind dissent, so long as it stays fo- cused on policy issues. The gossip mill has centered on two areas of appar-
ent friction. Both appear to have been defused over the past several months, partly because of signals from the White House that one official characterizes this way: “Stop the sniping and get on with it.” The first area of tension involved Richard Hol-
brooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A famously talented but sometimes abrasive diplomat, Holbrooke assembled an aggressive staff that included representatives from 10 agencies. Part of his mission was to rock the boat by integrating pol- icies for Afghanistan and Pakistan that previously had been in different bureaucratic stovepipes. But Holbrooke was weakened last year by reports of
hostility between him and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which led some to question whether he could continue to be effective. When Holbrooke didn’t ac- company Obama on his trip to Afghanistan in late March, observers wondered if he was being eased out. Holbrooke’s standing with Obama still appears
strong. He worked closely with the White House to prepare this month’s visit to Washington by Karzai, which was viewed by U.S. and Afghan officials as a success. The veteran diplomat has also labored to im- prove his relations with Karzai and other key Afghan officials. Obama is now said to view Holbrooke as an experienced strategist who can drive policy as the United States and Afghanistan move toward a process of engagement with the Taliban next year. The second tension point has been the relationship
between Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Ka- bul, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the military com- mander there. This hasn’t been an easy partnership, to put it mildly. It’s the four-star McChrystal, rather than the three-star-turned-diplomat Eikenberry, who has the warmer relationship with Karzai. Yet here again, despite speculation that Eikenberry might be replaced, insiders say there is no indication that Oba- ma intends to make a change. The Eikenberry-McChrystal friction surfaced last year when the ambassador sent cables to Washington that were sharply critical of Karzai, without showing
“There’s no place like home,” she was spot-on. Soldiers still flock like pigeons when mail arrives. Notes, packages and letters from Americans we don’t even know warm our souls to the core. Pictures and letters from a first-grade class make our sacrifices seem worthy. The Afghan people deserve better than they have gotten the past 300 years. The M240B machine gun is a wonderful weapon and never jams. The Afghans are tough as nails and extremely resourceful. Mortar and rocket explosions are much loud- er at night. So is machine-gun fire. American soldiers are here by choice. They want to make a difference for Afghans and pro- vide security for the folks back home. This war is necessary and worthwhile. When you are cut off, out of fuel, water and food, it feels even worse than it sounds. There is no risk too great or mission too dan- gerous for the U.S. soldier if the goal is to re- trieve a missing comrade. Narcolepsy is rampant in the military. No place is too uncomfortable to sleep. When a roadside bomb explodes, even if you know it is coming, you still jump. When I look at my right sleeve and see the 101st Airborne combat patch and the subdued American flag, I am stirred with pride. The first thing you say in a firefight is: “What the hell was that?” This is quickly followed by: “Where the hell did it come from?” You never know how beautiful a sunrise is until you don’t know if you’ll live to see it. I am always incredulous when the bullets stop whizzing past and no one is hit. American FRACU (Flame Retardant Army Combat Uniform) uniforms fade to dingy, mot- tled beige and are made of papier-mache. Life for Afghans is an inexact science. The MRAP is a fabulous, mine-resistant vehi- cle. It gives its life willingly so our soldiers do not have to give theirs. Normally hard as tungsten and cold as sleet, a soldier will cry at a memorial service for fallen brethren. The Afghans laugh at us behind our backs, too. The war will not be won or lost in a conven- tional definition of victory or defeat. Stability is the ultimate goal, not notches on our national battle flags. We win when the Afghan people win, and not before. It is up to them, not us, when this war ends. We will persevere as long as they persevere.
The writer, a major in the U.S. Army Reserve, was in Afghanistan from April to December 2009.
n domestic issues, House Mi- nority Leader John Boehner is unequivocal in his support for three items: Quench, Dawn and OxiClean.
Quench refers to the body lotion,
Dawn the dishwashing liquid and OxiClean the laundry stain remover —the first two are products of Proc- ter & Gamble, one of the largest em- ployers in Boehner’s Ohio. These state secrets surfaced when I asked the perpetually tan Boehner, who insists he was “born tan,” how to treat my sunburn. Fir- ing up a Camel Light, his first of three during our 40-minute inter- view in his Capitol office, he said, “Ah, I’m a Quench believer.” Before we moved on to more pressing concerns, Boehner riffed on other favorite products. Dawn works not only on dishes but on oil- slicked birds, as the manufacturer’s Web site boasts. As for OxiClean, look no further than Boehner’s daz- zling white shirt. You have to admire a man who
can juggle both Heloise and Nancy Pelosi in the same paragraph. You also can’t help noticing that Boehn- er is at once commanding and pre- ternaturally laid back. What he doesn’t show (but others tell) is that he is savvy, a man of his word, and has a coach’s eye for others’ talent and is happy to hand off the ball. So why should Americans trust Republicans in light of the GOP’s profligate ways when they con- trolled Congress? Boehner’s answer might be his party’s bumper sticker this year: “We learned our lesson.” “Are people leery? Oh yeah. But
we’re winning 2 to 1 with independ- ents today.” For Boehner, being called the
“Party of No” isn’t a regrettable in- vective. It is a strategy aimed at highlighting the contrast between those running things and those who want to run things. That deafening silence you hear from Republicans about the gulf oil spill? All the better for Americans to hear the glubglub- glub of Democrats and the adminis- tration going down the drain. Boehner & Co. are busy, mean- while, conducting a massive digital listening tour via the GOP’s new “America Speaking Out” Web site, where voters can submit and vote on ideas. It’s user-friendly to a fault, with undertones of “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,” such that Dick, Jane and even Spot can play. Then again, Republicans finally
them first to the U.S. commander. When the cables were leaked, Eikenberry’s relationship with Karzai was badly damaged. The ambassador has tried to heal wounds during the past few months, and, here again, the successful Karzai visit seems to have helped. One substantive dispute between Eikenberry and
McChrystal illustrates a broader tension. The com- mander favors bottom-up experiments to strengthen tribes and local self-defense groups, at the same time that the United States pursues its top-down strategy of building the Afghan national army and police. Eikenberry, in contrast, has often sided with Afghan officials in Kabul who worry that these local experi- ments will undermine the authority of the central government. “The military is more in favor of empowering local
security than our counterparts at State,” says one Pen- tagon official. Obama would be wise to take McChrys- tal’s side on this one and encourage more local experi- mentation. That’s the best way to test what works in the limited time available. The Afghanistan process illustrates an interesting
aspect of Obama’s overall approach to foreign policy. Though he favors a “no-drama” united front in public, he appears comfortable with a sometimes fractious internal process. His “team of rivals” has worked in part because the top three officials — Bob Gates at De- fense, Hillary Clinton at State and Jim Jones at the Na- tional Security Council — agree on most major issues. But on Afghanistan, where it’s hard to be sure of the right course, Obama appears to welcome the compet- ing views.
Obama has also come to appreciate the value of cer- emonial events in sending clear messages on foreign policy. The Karzai visit was a case in point. Relations with the Afghan president had been nearing a break- down during the spring. But the Washington trip helped reverse the downward slide — precisely be- cause it was so carefully scripted and stage-managed. Just as important, the Karzai trip provided an impe- tus for the administration team to get its act together — and to keep creative tension from turning into something poisonous. Obama needs to be careful: Debate is fine, so long as it doesn’t obstruct clear policy choices. He has bet his presidency on success in Afghanistan, and he needs to make sure he has in place the people who can get the job done.
davidignatius@washpost.com
have figured out the miracle of so- cial media and are using it to en- gage voters angry that Washington seems to neither listen nor care what they think. Companion to the “speaking out” site is YouCut, un- veiled by Rep. Eric Cantor this month, where Americans can vote on spending cuts. In one video, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) an- nounces the winner: pay raises for Congress and federal employees (except military personnel). The sites have stirred some con- troversy among Democrats, who have their own ideas for spending cuts — the money being used to un- derwrite the Web sites. While Re- publican leaders insist that the sites are vehicles for collecting ideas that will shape the GOP’s agenda, Demo- crats have charged that public fund- ing is being used for political pur- poses. Of course, Democrats did the same thing with their “Six for ’06” effort. What is in the public interest, and what may also prove politically advantageous, is a blurred tightrope both parties have walked. Boehner’s office says that no campaign funds have been used, nor is there a cam- paign component to the sites. Boehner is reluctant to speculate about November, when 100 seats will be in play. If things should go bump on election night — and should Boehner replace Pelosi as speaker — expect to see lots of blood on the floor. First to get the hatchet would be health-care reform, which Republicans would seek to replace with “common sense” measures to reduce insurance costs and secure jobs. Other priorities would include line-by-line budget cuts, entitle- ment reform and restoration of the integrity of the House, which Boehner says has been damaged by previous speakers’ emphasis on par- tisan gains. “That’s why the Con- gress of the United States is broken and I aim to fix it.” That’s a mighty high bar, espe- cially given the significant “scar tis- sue” between the parties, as Boehn- er puts it. But when 43 cents of ev- ery dollar spent has to be borrowed, somebody, as President Obama de- scribed the oil crisis, has to “plug the damn hole.” Whether Republicans have the
ways and means to do that remains to be determined by the voters, but while Democrats are scrubbing oil from the gulf, Republicans are greasing the gears for a much-antic- ipated rebellion.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158