Michael Kinsley's column in yesterday's Washington Post considers the plight of the poor besotted anti-war members of Congress, forced to choose between constraining the President's ability to conduct the Iraq war (and yes, John Edwards, the war on terror) and staying within the boundaries set for their actions by the Constitution.
What are you supposed to do, according to supporters of the Iraq
war, if you think that the war is a dreadful mistake? Suppose you are a
member of Congress, elected by constituents who also, like most
Americans, according to opinion polls, oppose the war. Is there any
legitimate action you can take? Or must you simply allow the war to go
on and let young Americans die in what you regard as a bad cause? What
are your options?
The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have
the Power . . . to declare War." That power does not mean much unless
it includes the power not to declare war as well.
They had the power "not to declare war," but they chose not to exercise it, instead choosing to declare war in the 2002 AUMF (pdf). What Mr. Kinsley is looking for is congressional power to "undeclare" war. That one doesn't exist.
But presidents from both parties have pretty much stolen Congress's war
power, with the ordinarily "strict constructionist" Republicans taking
the lead.
Except that no one "stole" anything this time around, with President Bush getting the AUMF from Congress - with wide bipartisan margins - before the invasion.
Last week President Bush condescended to sign a bill
authorizing $100 billion for his war, but only after any serious
timetables or criteria or deadlines for troop withdrawal were stripped
from the legislation.
"Condescended?" Could we find a more pejorative term?
There was a time, circa 1999, when Republicans considered it the height
of naivete, irresponsibility and indifference to the fate of American
soldiers to commit any troops to action in a foreign country without
what used to be called an "exit strategy." That was when the president
was a Democrat.
There's quite a difference between use of troops for peacekeeping when American security is not at risk and use of troops for removing a genocidal dictator in the aftermath of both 12 years of continuing hostilities and Islamic terrorism striking our shores. But making such a distinction would undermine this argument - so Mr. Kinsley doesn't. Oh, and, the troops left Bosnia when?
Now it is considered the height of naivete, irresponsibility and
indifference to the fate of American soldiers to suggest the
possibility of any exit strategy short of triumph. If you do, you are
betraying the troops.
No, Mr. Kinsley, it is considered the height of irresponsibiity and indifference to suggest leaving the fate of Iraq at this stage to either Shiite militias supported by Iran or Sunni Al Qaeda terrorists. That is betraying the troops who have already sacrificed.
And woe betide any politician who suggests that waiting for complete
triumph might not be the only alternative -- just in case democracy,
prosperity, peace and brotherhood don't flower in Iraq next week. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed the war-funding bill because it lacked even the mealy-mouthed timetables in an earlier version that Bush vetoed.
Straw man alert. We're not looking for the flowering of a peaceful society in Iraq next week. Nobody is. What we're looking for is sufficient strength by the Iraqi government and Iraqi military that they can battle the insurgents and militias and terrorists on their own. Whether that happens does depend on some inclusiveness of Shia, Sunni and Kurd in the government, and that does remain to be seen. But there won't be a conventional victory celebrated by a "V-I Day."
Mr. Obama has been, to his credit in terms of consistency, anti-war all along. That doesn't mean he has answers - he doesn't - but at least it's consistent. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, voted against the resolution in naked political calculation, courting the most vocal and left-wing and politically active segment of the Democratic coalition. She had, until recently, defended her prior votes in favor of the AUMF and continuing operations. But this argument is about timetables, and about the power to "undeclare" war, essentially a congressional veto of Constitutional presidential authority under Article II. They don't have that.
What they do have is the power of the purse. If Congress is against the war so strongly then de-fund it completely. The troops will then be forced to come home, and Congress will have accomplished openly what it is attempting to accomplish through stealth. They want George W. Bush's signature on the order to come home, not theirs. They would be held accountable for that, and they know it.
And here is where Mr. Kinsley is at his most dishonest, performing slight of hand that would make David Copperfield proud.
But what happens if you, as a member of Congress, do attempt to use the power of the purse? Sens. Clinton, Obama and Chris Dodd
(also running for president) voted against the final Iraq funding bill
because all meaningful deadlines and timetables had been stripped out
so that President Bush would sign it. That Wall Street Journal
editorial accuses these three Democratic senators of "vot[ing] to
undermine U.S. troops in the middle of a difficult mission." If this is
true of last week's vote, it will always be true of any attempt to cut
off a war by cutting off funds. Unless the Journal is in favor of
undermining U.S. troops, this makes the alleged "power of the purse"
unusable.
Did you catch that? A vote against a bill that funds the war with no timetables is the same as voting to cut off funds, at least in Mr. Kinsley's mind. Ah, but it's not to the cowards in Congress, who were twisting themselves into pretzels avoiding such obvious accountability. That is the complaint that I and clearly the Wall Street Journal editorial staff have with the restrictive resolutions.
On the other hand Mr. Obama, Mr. Dodd and Ms. Clinton did not vote to withdraw all funds. They voted against funding the troops without clauses that would force future withdrawal in the absence of consideration of conditions on the ground. That is undermining troops in harm's way by asking them to remain in harm's way, and risk death and injury, while guaranteeing that that sacrifice will meet ultimately with failure. That is the height of cynicism, and Mr. Obama of all people should know better.
While I identified Medicare as becoming the major player in the administrative pricing structure of medicine, it is by no means the only culprit. What the authors of the two comments fail to stress is the major point of my editorial which is administrative pricing (whether public or private sector driven) is THE MAJOR PROBLEM.
None of us individually or even collectively can prospectively define the correct prices. It is an iterative process and prices are (and should be) very context dependent. Incorrect prices are defined ultimately by their result in terms of production and allocation and price allocated systems are the best systems yet devised to get the most bang for the most people. Furthermore, price coordinated systems have the potential to be rapidly self correcting.
I am in a position to see how pricing structures in medicine influence the decisions making of the next generation of physicians. While we might want to believe that a substantial proportion should be driven my motives other than self-interest and money, that perspective is not entirely grounded in reality. The most competitive residencies appear to be attractive for reasons other than service and altruism. Whether these competitive specialties are highly compensated because they provide extraordinary value for patients is doubtful.
Beyond the perverted incentives between specialties created by administrative pricing, within specialties are created an additional set of undesirable incentives. Since administrative prices basically set one price for a service independent of context, the service is valued essentially the same whether delivered by someone with extensive experience or not, whether indicated or not, and whether high quality or low quality is delivered. Thus, why not ramp up the volume, do the easy stuff, and pawn off the hard stuff on some poor doc with a conscience who will take the financial hit.
Like it or not, there is no historical precedent in the entire history of mankind of an entity that has set prices administratively (whether government or non-governmental) which effectively dealt with these issues.
So the question still remains, whatever system is put in place, who or what will set the prices, how will they do so, and what sort of self correction mechanism will be in place to get the prices right?