Wednesday, February 12, 1997
BUDGET:
‘Talk so much, do so nothing’ attitude fosters public cynicismBy
Russell Baker
New York Times
After all that hoo-hah about money corrupting the recent
elections, you expected the Washington crowd to plunge right in and
do something about it? Of course you didn’t.
That’s because you are cynical. Shame! You think politicians
these days can be described by the words of a Minnesota voter,
whose English was still influenced by his Balkan heritage,
addressed to his congressman: "Talk so much, do so nothing."
How depressing this cynicism is to Congress. It depresses the
president too. He worries about "this toxic atmosphere of
cynicism." And yet Â
While deploring cynicism it is all very well to put on a pious
face, but it can’t hurt to ponder Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a
cynic in his "Devil’s Dictionary":
"Cynic  a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as
they are, not as they ought to be."
In the world as it ought to be, Congress and President Clinton
would already be perspiring heavily in the struggle to save our
political system from destruction by the high price of TV political
ads.
At the end of that squalid 1996 presidential campaign,
politicians and press spoke of little else but the urgency of
saving the democratic system from smothering in money.
Meanwhile, back at the world as it is, what is the first order
of Washington business? A constitutional amendment to require
perpetual balance in the federal budget.
All sides had a dandy political dust-up just two years ago with
this one. There has been powerful political catnip in the words
"balanced budget" ever since Ross Perot disclosed that millions
think balancing the budget will pull us back from the brink of
destruction, and everybody, especially Republicans, wanted a
colorful way  a constitutional amendment, by George! Â
to display their devotion to the cause.
Two years ago this popular nostrum lost by only a single vote in
the Senate. Since then, new senators and new House members have
come to Washington. All right, they deserve a chance to show the
home folk their willingness to play fast and loose with the
Constitution if that’s what it takes to stop them from indulging
their own vices.
But haven’t we been given a fast shuffle here? What about that
awful campaign-finance situation? Democracy totally owned by
corporations and zillionaires, even aliens. Awful. Terribly awful.
Clinton spoke of its awfulness the other evening while interrupting
another O.J. Simpson show on TV.
He said everybody ought to get behind a bill to do something
about it. All Congressfolk applauded. "Right! An appalling
situation. We must do something about it  someday."
Then, "Heigh-ho, heigh-ho, it’s off to rewrite the Constitution
we go." Without arguing the merits of the balanced-budget
amendment, one point is obvious. A Congress that needs a
constitutional amendment to stop its own wanton spending of tax
money must also be powerless to stop its own wanton campaign
spending by passing a mere law.
Well, the trick here, ladies and gents, is to stay entertained.
Staying entertained by politics helps stave off cynical
thoughts.
The entertainment lies in Congress’ hatred of its own powers,
the very powers embedded in the Constitution it now wants to amend
in order to weaken itself.
Think of Congress as a human sunk in incurable vice Â
alcohol, narcotics, sexual lust, serial murder. It simply cannot
stop itself from spending and spending again. It can balance the
budget by voting against this and that, but it cannot bear to cast
such votes, because folks back home want the budget balanced, but
not at their expense.
So Congress votes to spend and scrawls desperate pleas to the
police: "Stop me before I spend again." The balanced-budget
amendment is one such plea. Maybe the Constitution will stop this
terrible addiction. Last year there was the monumental surrender of
a line-item veto power to the president. An incredible surrender of
congressional power. "Stop us, Mr. President, before we spend
again."
Congress’ power to control spending derives from the British
House of Commons, which fought a civil war to win it from kings in
the seventeenth century. Now Congress is busy trying to give it
back. Why should it cost so much to keep re-electing such a meek
litter of pussycats?