The Week - U.S. politics

National Review, June 11, 2001

--Well, at least maybe we can get rid of the dairy compact now.

--Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont is not a moderate. He is a liberal. When he was a House Republican, he voted against Ronald Reagan more often than with him. His record as a Senate Republican is exemplified by the progress, if that is the word, of the current education bill. Ted Kennedy was finding it difficult to reach agreement with the White House because Jeffords kept pulling him to the left. So Jeffords's decision to leave the Republican party-and, apparently, to vote to give the Democrats control of the Senate (it is uncertain as we go to press)-is a clarifying one. It makes it clear that the Republicans are the conservative party and the Democrats the liberal party. It makes it clear, too, that conservatives do not have a majority in the Senate, and indeed have never had one. The cost of Jeffords's decision is that Democrats will almost certainly use their newfound power over scheduling and committee structure to block conservative nominees and initiatives that could otherwise pass the Senate. If that happens, President Bush will have to respond with something more than meek protestations of his bipartisan intentions. He will have to campaign against a liberal Senate Democratic leadership that obstructs needed reforms. That, too, would serve the cause of clarity.

--Jeffords's defection should also lead to some constructive recriminations among Republicans. The Washington Republican establishment weighed in heavily for Jeffords when a conservative mounted a primary challenge to him in 1988-even though Jeffords had announced he would run as an independent if he lost the primary (which means the conservative could have won a three-way race). In 1997, Trent Lott squelched a challenge to Jeffords's committee chairmanship by conservative Dan Coats. What did these favors get the Republicans? Jeffords did not vote with them on many bills, and now that his vote matters for control of the Senate, he has bolted. The fact that his vote mattered at all reflects poorly on the Republican leadership. GOP candidates came very close to winning Senate races in Nebraska and New Jersey last year, but did not receive the funding they needed from the national party. It is time for a housecleaning.

--When the FBI discovered files relating to the McVeigh case that had not been disclosed to the bomber's lawyers, his execution was postponed, and the nation's editorial pages joined in castigating the Bureau. Sure, it was another screw-up in a troubled agency. But wasn't there also a whiff of relief, among enemies of capital punishment, at deferring, however briefly, a painful dilemma? McVeigh had admitted to the bombing, and forsworn appeals. The documents-a fraction of the vast load of paper generated by such an investigation-will subtract nothing from his guilt. But if capital punishment is wrong in itself, it is wrong when it is meted out to Timothy McVeigh. It would be wrong for Pol Pot, or Caligula. Either the state has the right to take life in cold blood, with all the chances for error that attend any human action, or it does not. If it does not, then McVeigh must be carefully supported, at public expense, even to the point of guarding him from other prisoners who might do him harm, for the rest of his natural days. Who says A, must say B.

--Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill says that America has averted a recession. We had all better hope so, because the tax cut Congress is preparing to pass will not help us much if he is wrong. President Bush originally proposed that the 39 percent and 31 percent tax rates be dropped by 6 points each; the Senate bill drops them by only 3, and takes six years to do it. The rate cuts should be deeper and faster. They should be coupled with a cut in the capital-gains tax, which would generate extra revenue to help finance them. To make room for deeper rate cuts, it may also be necessary to drop other elements of the tax bill. An end to the marriage penalty, for example, is a worthy goal, but there should be an effort to pass it on its own later in the year. We are unlikely to get another opportunity for rate cuts for a good long time.

--In a commencement speech at Notre Dame, President Bush reiterated his commitment to his faith-based initiative. He described that initiative as the next step in welfare reform. Now, the initiative may or may not be a good idea. We worry that participation in federal grant programs will over time make religious charities more dependent on government, less effective, and less religious-and President Bush's speech has not allayed those doubts. But even if those concerns were unwarranted, his initiative would still be misdirected. The government would do far more to help the poor by discouraging divorce and illegitimacy than by improving the effectiveness of social services. The trouble with compassionate conservatism isn't that it is too ambitious. It's that it isn't ambitious enough.

--Sens. Breaux, Frist, and Jeffords have devised a compromise "patients' bill of rights" that has won the support of the White House. It is better than the major alternatives, which are heavier on regulation. But the bill includes no provisions to expand medical savings accounts. This is a crucial omission. The regulations in the bill will increase premiums and thus increase the number of uninsured people. Medical savings accounts would counteract this effect. And by giving more control to patients, liberalized accounts would go far toward solving the underlying problem of third-party rationing that inspired the patients' bill of rights in the first place. A bill without medical savings accounts is not worth supporting.