Party Loyalty

ProfessorBainbridge blogged Hugh Hewitt has made party loyalty a centerpiece of his pro-Harriet Miers arguments. Latest example:

I think 2006 is going to look a lot more like 2002 than any other off-year in history. The realignment is real and lasting --if the GOP doesn't carve itself up over matters such as Miers and immigration.

But to what end? Here's two items ripped from today's headlines. First, the W$J's report on airport security:

Four years after Sept. 11, experts are considering ways to transform airport security checkpoints to make them less annoying for travelers and more effective at stopping potential terrorists. ... The new thinking is being spurred by the fact that some of the efforts to beef up security in recent years either haven't been completely effective or have caused problems of their own. For example, airports have high failure rates in detecting banned items. Also, the congestion at screening checkpoints creates crowds of people that could themselves become terrorism targets.

Four years of GOP rule at virtually all levels of the federal government and they still haven't gotten airport security right?

No more planes have been flown into buildings, so I would not say they have not gotten it right, but if they can make it easier on travelers and yet catch more terrorists I think it is worthwhile to try.

Second, I have blogged repeatedly on the need for real reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant quasi-governmental mortgage institutions. Their corporate governance is horrendous and their risky behavior constantly threatens to result in the need for a government bailout. Finally, it seemed, Congress is prepared to Act. Unfortunately, as the W$J editorial board explained, the action is hardly what anyone would call real reform:

The bill sponsored by Congressmen Richard Baker and Michael Oxley is remarkable for not doing what it claims to do -- which is to reform both the operation and the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the trillion-dollar, government-sponsored mortgage giants. And it is even more astonishing for the bad things it does instead -- e.g., skimming a portion of those companies' profits to create yet another "affordable housing" program.

This is the first I have heard of that bill. Based on what you say, it does not sound good, but I will have to study it to learn more about it.

The bill passed Mr. Oxley's Financial Services Committee in May on a 65-5 vote -- the kind of near-universal assent that should make any taxpayer nervous. The bill's new "affordable housing" fund confiscates potentially billions of dollars of the profits of these nominally private companies to finance the pet projects of Barney Frank and other Democrats. This sort of targeted profits tax is not only a bad idea in its own right but also gives Members of Congress an even greater stake in opposing any reform that might dent that profit stream. That is precisely why it is being promoted by the homebuilder lobby and others who benefit from Fannie subsidies.

And the Journal concludes with this zinger:

The sad political truth is that a Democratic Congress probably couldn't pass this stinker without being accused (accurately) of promoting state socialism. That an ostensibly conservative House will pass it is another embarrassment for Republican governance.

Party loyalty is a two-way street. If the GOP is unwilling to stand for conservative principles, why should conservatives stand with the GOP? Because the alternative might be worse? How much worse?

It could be a lot worse. The Republicans are spending too much, but with the exception of the Medicare drug bill, the spending does not cause new entitlements, and the Dems would certainly create those.

Maybe what the GOP needs is another stint in exile to learn its lessons before being allowed to becoming the governing majority for which Hewitt hopes.