and win the respect of the general public, besides.
As we all know, Congress has been on a pork spree, such as the infamous Alaska "bridge to nowhere." This is where the Bush Administration comes in. To spend money on blatantly wasteful projects like the bridge to nowhere is not only bad policy, it's contrary to the executive branch's duty to spend money only for the "general welfare." The President should undertake a constitutional review (which should be deferential to Congress, but not supine) of all recent highway bill appropriations, and refuse to spend money when it would not advance the general welfare. To put himself above partisanship, particular focus should be on spending in Republican congressional districts.
Note that refusing to spend money for constitutional reasons is different than the old executive claim of a general "impoundment" power, rejected by Congress during the Nixon years. Don't have the time to go into a full defense here, but I doubt the courts would intervene in an assertion of the Executive's constitutional authority.
There is the question of hypocrisy, given that the president signed the highway bill. But (1) in the absence of the legislative line-item veto, signing $270 billion legislation that includes some non-general welfare items is inevitable; and (2) if Bush could declare campaign finance laws unconstitutional and then sign one, he could certainly sign a bill and then declare parts of it unconstitutional.
UPDATE: Contrary to some comments, exercise of "executive review" would be unlikely to significantly reshape the balance of power between Congress and the President, nor would it be, more generally, "the end of the world as we know it." From Washington to Nixon, presidents had and exercise the implicit power to refuse to spend money Congress appropriated, though they didn't assert a constitutional justification for doing so, they just refused. The power was exercised moderately and responsibly.
Does providing health insurance benefits to federal employees promote the "general" welfare, or only the welfare of those employees? If the latter, it's unconstitutional!
Does the FBI field office in Topeka, Kansas promote the general welfare, or only that of the citizens of Kansas (and perhaps of contiguous states)?
Does Yellowstone National Park promote the general welfare, or only that of people who live nearby and/or people who visit the park?
... Congress can spend money. Without stating an opinion on the stupid, wasteful, shameful bridge to nowhere in Alaska, it is clear--in fact, unquestionable--that Congress has the power to spend money on such a bridge if it passes a bill providing such funds and such bill is signed into law by the president.
From a legal perspective, you make a valid point. However, spending is getting a little ridiculous. In an ideal world, people promoting pork spending simply wouldn't be re-elected. But, this isn't an ideal world, and too much legislation has been passed. There needs to be some sort of check and balance/counter to such habits.
I would prefer it if US citizens all over would sit up and take notice of what's going on, but until they do, something needs to be come up with to stymie this wasteful cash gush.
Did you write this yourself, Prof. Bernstein, or did Dick Cheney help?
Though large as an absolute number, REAL pork is simply not very much of the budget. You could end up saving a few billion, but big whoopie. The GOP gave 70 BILLION in tax breaks and new spending in a 60 billion SPENDING REDUCTION BILL (good job, GOP!)
The second problem is pork looks different from person to person. You and I could agree that the bridge to nowhere IS PORK. But you might think Medicaid is pork, or at least chock full of pork that I would insist is helping real Americans. I might think certain tax incentives for businesses doing business abroad is pork, whereas you might see that as real tools for America to compete in an international marketplace. So the Democrats have little incentive to get on board here, and will (for good and neccesary reason) paint Bush as a radical conservative whose hurting the poor in order to afford his bag of goodies for the wealthy. Which will only reinforce the negative stereotypes of him.
I'd also counsel something that I strugle with myself, which is the liberterian position (liberal on social policy, conservative on economic policy) is the WEAKEST position a politician can take. This is why Clinton and the DLC absolutely gutted the Democratic party, and why Rove is best when playing the dirtiest of politics. The old days of appealing to "lower taxes" is pretty much gone, as poll after poll shows the people by an almost two to one margin trust DEMOCRATS more on "taxes". This is almost unheard of since Goldwater.
My answer would be: no. Bush's base is the religious right, and they would favor more spending if it meant implementing religious initiatives. I'd peg the libertarian/small government part of the GOP at about 25% of the party right now.
Repeating Republican talking points is generally above this blog. Please, if you're going to base your argument upon the funding of "bridges to nowhere," then do some research on these bridges, and why they are or are not needed. At least try to make a fair determination.
The right doesn't fit into the neat little boxes of your mind. Lots of religious conservatives are uneasy about spending.
Also, please explain to me how building a bridge to nowhere in Alaska 'implements religious initiatives.'
With Congressional Rs worried about the War costs, the public's growing belief that the case for war was not made honestly (Ahmed Chalabi), scandals (DeLay, Libby), rising energy prices, and on and on, how well do you think they will take their projects getting eliminated on debatable constitutional grounds by a lame duck president after being signed into law?
It might cause the heritage foundation and John McCain to like Bush more, but his support from the rank and file in congress would evaporate. Not like he was going to pass anything major between now and 2008 anyway, so I guess at the end I agree w/ Prof. Berstein. Bring it on! (but of course he won't)
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
Briefly, there are two bridges people talk about as bridges to nowhere. One would link Anchorage with the Matanuska Susitna Valley, Anchorage's largest suburb. While it's true that few people live on the point of land which the bridge would connect to on the Mat-Su Valley side, it's not for those few people the bridge is being built. It's for the people who commute in every day, and as a way to driving time, gas, and pollution. It would cut a drive of an hour or more to about 20 minutes. Granted, there's good reasons to be against this bridge, but it's not a bridge to nowhere.
The second bridge links Ketchikan to Gravina Island, where the airport is located. Ketchikan is a fly in or boat in community, so for most the airport is the only access in or out. At present it's served by a ferry system. Again, good arguments against building this bridge (and, frankly, I'm against it). But the fact that no one lives on Gravina Island is not one of them. It's not being put in for the benefit of residents of Gravina Island, but for the benefit of residents of Ketchikan.
Of course, the likelihood of Bush actually doing this is somewhat less than him riding into his next press conference on a unicorn.
No, Congress has the power to tax, but not to spend. To quote Article I, section 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duities, Impost and Excises, to pay the Debts andprovide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Not a word about spending. That's because spending is something the executive branch does.
From Washington to Nixon, congressional appropriations were regarded as permissive rather than mandatory. If the president could carry out his duty to see that the laws be faithfully executed without spending all the money Congress made available to him for that purpose, there was no obligation for him to run around trying to use it up by June 30. (Of course, agencies often did, because they knew that if they didn't spend the money that was available to them, their appropriation would probably be cut next year. But that's another story.)
Those sort of things play to his strengths.