Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Dionne and Shlaes

the breakfast table
entries
1234567891011
from: E.J. Dionne

Enduring the Pain of a Clinton Celebration

Posted Monday, Feb. 1, 1999, at 1:12 PM ET

Dear Amity,

First, bless you for being one of the handful of conservatives in America at the moment who really and truly does care more about tax policy than the impeachment trial. As for this particular piece of tax policy, I have absolutely no idea what to make of it, though some of the other efforts to close loopholes that Schlesinger and Hitt mention make sense to me. As you suggested, you might feel a little cross-pressured here: You'd oppose the tax increase, but might not be so opposed to the fact that this change could reduce the incentive for companies to settle cases. (Which is to say, trial lawyers might not like it.)

More generally, this shows how difficult it will be to get to an entirely neutral tax code, let alone to a flat tax. One person's loophole is another's legit business expense.

Haven't seen or read A Civil Action yet. I have the book, but I shudder too much thinking about what those parents went through. Maybe some day I will get up the courage to read it. It's hard to believe, though, that the theme is that "method, evidence, truth" aren't important. Isn't the hero of the book concerned precisely with evidence and truth?

Since you were so honorable in not bringing up the scandal, I'll do it, courtesy of your own op-ed pages. I was struck Robert Bork's strong argument ("Read the Constitution: It's Removal or Nothing"), a principled case against splitting up the impeachment vote into "a finding of fact" and a separate vote for removal.

The course of the debate over what to do about Clinton has been remarkable. Some of the same people who once argued that censure was unconstitutional are now coming up with this (let's be charitable) novel reading of the Constitution simply because they can't stand the fact that the votes aren't there to remove Clinton.

Bork is right: There is no point in inventing a doctrine just out of anger, or for political purposes. In National Review 's Washington bulletin, Ramesh Ponnuru and John Miller are straight up about the political rationale behind this proposal: "The best argument in favor of the finding-of-fact resolution currently gaining momentum among Senate Republicans is the White House's adamant opposition to it. The Clintons clearly think this outcome would be a loss for them--whereas a removal vote falling short of two-thirds would be spun ... as an acquittal for Clinton and a defeat for a partisan effort to defensestrate him."

That argument isn't good enough for Bork who says that "to endure the pain" of a Clinton celebration "will be preferable to another radical deformation of the Constitution."

In fact, the debate Clinton's opponents want to have about how strongly he should be condemned can take place around how to word a censure resolution. I know many Republicans think that censure is simply a "cover" for Democrats. Sure, many Democrats do want to cast a vote saying they dislike what Clinton did. In fact, having pushed the censure idea in the 1998 campaign, they have an obligation to see it through. But politics aside, I've always thought it would have been far better for everybody (Republicans included) to have a censure resolution that won a large majority than the partisan fight that was inevitable once we went down the impeachment road.

And besides, wouldn't there be something strange (even Clintonian) about letting Senators have it both ways and say 1) he definitely committed these crimes for which he might be removed, but 2) for whatever reason (the polls, perhaps?) I'll vote against removal?

But enough on impeachment. I have to run. I'd call your attention to William Raspberry's fine column on the current controversy inside the government of the District of Columbia. It's an issue on which we might even agree. But I want to save that for later.

Hope your kids are well, E.J.

the breakfast table
entries
1234567891011
from: E.J. Dionne

Enduring the Pain of a Clinton Celebration

Posted Monday, Feb. 1, 1999, at 1:12 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
E.J. Dionne is a columnist at the Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Amity Shlaes, the author of The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What To Do About It, is a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post