The Hill reports that Blue Dog Democrats are very concerned about the proper balance of powers between the president and Congress. But for a big hike in farm subsidies, they’ll forget about that little constitutional matter.
House Democratic leaders will add nearly $4 billion for farmers to a bill funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to attract conservative Democrats concerned that the measure would wrongly constrict President Bush’s power as commander in chief.
The Democrats hope that moderate Republicans are just as malleable:
Democrats may also add money for children’s health insurance in the hope of winning the votes of Republicans such as Illinois Reps. Mark Kirk (R) and Judy Biggert (R), whose home state faces a $240 million deficit in its State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
To be fair, there’s no proof in the story that Kirk and Biggert are considering such a deal, but Republican leaders are reported to fear it.
In the civics books, they tell us that members of Congress deliberate about war, separation of powers, balanced budgets, and so on, and then make collective decisions. If you read a newspaper, though, you soon learn about logrolling and other budget games. Still, it’s one thing to trade your vote for farm pork for the other guy’s vote for urban pork; the taxpayers lose twice, but at least it’s only money. Trading your vote on a matter of life and death, which is also a fundamental constitutional issue, for a few billion in home‐state pork seems entirely unbecoming to a member of the legislature of the world’s most successful republic.