Bush's Bag Of Legislative Tricks

President Bush responds to dissent among Senate Republicans during a news conference in the Rose Garden at the White House, in Washington, Friday, Sept. 15, 2006. Facing a GOP revolt in the Senate, President Bush urged Congress on Friday to join in backing legislation to spell out strategies for interrogating and trying terror suspects, saying "the enemy wants to attack us again."
This column was written by Fred Barnes
You can't govern from Capitol Hill. Newt Gingrich, as Republican House speaker, tried after the landslide of 1994 and failed. Yet Democrats, with their "100 hours" agenda in the House and 10 legislative "priorities" in the Senate, act as if they can run Washington. House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are promising to take the country in a "new direction." Good luck.

What stands in their way? Three rather large impediments. One, the Democratic majority in the Senate is fragile (51-49), and it's hardly overwhelming in the House (233-202). Second, Democrats are fractured on many issues--not just Iraq but even on whether to pursue a moderate strategy of moving slowly and carefully or one of going for broke to roll back the conservative advances of the Bush years. And third, there's Bush and his weapons.

The president has quite an arsenal: veto, filibuster by Senate Republicans, bully pulpit, a potential alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats on selected issues, recess appointments, discretion to act on foreign policy without congressional approval. In a political fight, Congress can't match a president's tools.

And Bush is prepared to use them. His strategy is to join with Democrats on issues on which they agree--extension of No Child Left Behind, comprehensive immigration reform, and stepped-up funding for alternative energy--and strongly oppose everything else that Democrats are proposing. This amounts to limited bipartisanship--very limited.

Bush, according to aides, feels "liberated" to insist on fiscal restraint. He was more or less obligated--or at least felt he was--to sign spending bills passed by a Republican Congress. But with a Democratic Congress, "he can be bolder than he otherwise might have been," an aide says. That means a willingness--perhaps an eagerness--to use the veto. In his first six years as president, Bush often threatened vetoes but vetoed only a single measure.

To the delight of the White House, Democrats have endorsed the same fiscal goal as the president: a balanced budget by 2012. But Bush and Democrats are sure to disagree on how to achieve it. The White House wants to hold down spending but not raise taxes. Bush advisers assume Democrats will prefer higher spending plus tax increases. And they're convinced the politics of the two plans favors Republicans. "I want the Democrats saying higher taxes," an aide says.

This approach is a bit of a gamble. Democrats believe raising taxes on the well-to-do to pay for, say, expanded health care benefits for children is a political winner. It might be. But when Bush adviser Karl Rove spoke to Grover Norquist's weekly gathering of conservatives last week in Washington, he offered to bet anyone in the room $5 that the president would finish his two terms without having signed a single tax hike. Rove had only one taker.

If Rove is right--and I believe he is--Social Security reform is off the table in Bush's final two years. Democrats look kindly on a fiscal fix for Social Security that involves raising the ceiling on income subject to payroll taxation. But they won't offer Bush what he might want--personal investment accounts--in exchange for swallowing a tax increase. "He's not going to raise taxes for nothing," an adviser says.