And when he spake these thrilling words, the President of the United States, then did his followers in the Congress cheer, many rising from their seats, a dedicated army prepared to march to the promised land inspired by his stirring cry:
”Give me . . . the line-item veto.”
In the minds inside all those well-coifed Republican heads were visions of Mr. and Mrs. America, sitting in their homes, following every word, and perhaps themselves standing in rapture at Bush`s clarion call.
”By gum,” says Mr. America to the missus in this Republican fantasy,
More Top Picks Ninja Slushi Frozen Drink Maker Review
”that`s the ticket. The line-item veto. That`s what will cure what ails this country. Let us storm the barricades. I`ll say it now and I`ll say it again: the line-item veto or death.”
Because the instant polls that gauged the public reaction before the public had time to react did not deal with this matter, we may never know exactly how many households expressed that sentiment. But a good guess would be three, maybe four. That`s not percent; that`s households. A good guess would be that 99.9 percent of the American people (with a margin of error of plus or minus .08746 percent) don`t give a hoot about the line-item veto either because they don`t know what it is or because they do know exactly how much money it would save the federal government: none.
Why, then, did the president seek it with such vigor, and why was it supported with such enthusiasm by Republican senators and congressmen?
Simple. They are in power. They are in Washington. They talk mostly to one another. They are out of touch. It is possible to be powerful and in Washington and not be out of touch. It`s just very difficult.
Not that the powerful are unique. Ours is a world whose component parts are increasingly out of touch with one another and with the whole. When everything from poetry to anthropology is aimed at a tiny audience of fellow- specialists, it would be unreasonable to expect government officials to maintain a broader perspective. It would be nice if they did; it might even be indispensable to the survival of democracy. But it`s still an unreasonable expectation.
Here`s how it works: In Washington (and in its outposts around the country, usually on campus) someone, either a congressman or a thinker paid to think at a think tank, comes up with an idea. The line-item veto, for instance.
Enthusiasts, acolytes and syncophants, some of whom are the same people, then latch on to the idea, whereupon it becomes metamorphosed from a mere idea into a cause. It makes no difference whether it`s a good idea, a bad one, or, as is usually the case, debatable but not all that important. Once it makes that jump from idea to cause it becomes a watershed: To favor it proves one`s wisdom and virtue; to oppose it is the sign of knavery. Or vice-versa to the equally out-of-touch opponents.
Take the capital-gains tax, reduction of which is the one domestic matter that interests George Bush. ”Never has an issue been more demagogued,” said Bush, who then proceeded to demagogue the issue by claiming that most of its potential beneficiaries earn less than $50,000 a year. True, but they would save only a few bucks each. Those who earn $200,000 or more would save most of the money.
Either way, it isn`t a big deal. Cutting the capital-gains tax would certainly be a boon to the rich and it might provide an incentive to invest. But even economists who favor it argue only that it would increase economic growth by about half a percent a year. And other tax goodies for the wealthy are more objectionable, lacking even the possibility of doing any good for the non-rich.
But this is the one that the president and the Republicans have made into a cause. Therefore, their supporters bring it up every weekend on the public- affairs talk shows, praising it as though it would cure the economy, flat feet, lower back pain and unrequited love. The gauntlet having been thrown down, opponents talk as though enacting it will lead inevitably to plutocracy, bread lines, broken homes, frogs and locusts.
In fairness to the politicians, those who chronicle and comment on their doings are just as vulnerable to irrelevant group-think. Last weekend`s talk shows were full of speculation that another Democrat-Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri or (not again!) Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York-would enter the presidential race.
The most that can be said for such a prospect is that it is not 100 percent impossible. It`s just 99.5 percent improbable. Out here in the world, there is no clamor for Gephardt and Bentsen, honorable men but neither exciting nor cuddly enough to make a late entry. Cuomo can be both. But as he proved last week, he can also be petty, petulant and provincial. Sort of like the line-item veto.