The Bush approach to presidential power is simple, straightforward and clear: “L’etat, c’est moi.” As conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein puts it, even King George III would blush at asserting this level of bald, unchecked power. But the way in which the president is handling the revelations of secret wiretaps on Americans--unapologetic, and promising to continue doing it--makes it clear that this is just what the president believes.

Of course, we can feel better with the administration’s assurances that there were checks on the president’s wiretapping--by the Justice Department. Especially since those assurances come at the same time we have learned that the unanimous career-staff recommendation that the Texas redistricting scheme engineered by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that violated the Voting Rights Act was derailed by Justice Department politicos. That followed on the heels of the revelation that the abominable Georgia voter identification law, also challenged by career Justice attorneys as a poll tax, was derailed by some of the same politicos.

We can be even more reassured since this week one of the key politicos in these cases, Hans von Spakovsky, was rewarded with a nomination to the Federal Election Commission. Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez justify the wiretaps by relying on the inherent powers of the commander in chief suggests that the Bush Justice Department is to checks and balances what Paris Hilton is to chastity.

Does Congress have any cojones? Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has made his outrage known, but the preoccupation of his committee with the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito may postpone any oversight there. All the other oversight shops shuttered their doors five years ago.

But beyond oversight hearings, Congress should do two other things. First, it should re-pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with its flat language that prohibits what President Bush did without the approval required by the special court, then send it to Bush. If he signs it, that would be a signal he accepts the reality of the law. If he vetoes it, and if that veto is overridden, as it surely would be, it would underscore for him the reality of the rule of law.

Second, Specter and the other members of Judiciary need to add one more important item to the Alito hearings. We need an extended exploration of the judge’s views of presidential power. If he is indeed a strict constructionist, he will say that, as the Constitution and the framers make clear, the inherent powers of a commander in chief do not allow presidents to act like kings or despots, whether under the pressure of war or through the claim of national security--especially if they invoke a war, like the war on terror, that will never end. This step is much more likely to happen than the first.

In a way, what the president is saying to rationalize his unilateral surveillance is that the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, “the ends justify the means” is a core principle for both chambers of this Congress.

Just this week, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) violated the explicit written agreement of appropriations conferees to add in a load of major policy actions that had never been considered by the conference--an outrageous abuse of norms and standards. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has bought into the ploy by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to add drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the Defense appropriations bill, where it was never considered, and of course where it also violates the proviso against legislating on an appropriations measure. As protectors of integrity and sanctity of the legislative process and the regular order in their respective bodies, Hastert and Frist have set new lows for their jobs.

Now on to some uplifting news. As I mentioned last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), after months of intensive effort, put together a fascinating tax reform plan and has joined with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) to introduce the Fair Flat Tax in both houses.

The Wyden-Emanuel plan builds on the principles of then-President Ronald Reagan’s tax reform in 1986, the most sweeping second-term domestic policy change enacted in our lifetimes. The Reagan plan built directly on principles devised in the mid-1980s by then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) and then-Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.). The basic principles were lower marginal tax rates and a broader base.

Wyden would collapse the current six rates to three--15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent--and tax all income, whether from wages or interest and dividends, at the same rates. He would streamline deductions while making sure that poorer taxpayers get breaks as significant, proportionally, as those received by rich taxpayers. He would turn the deduction of state and local taxes into a credit to achieve the same goal. And he would sharply raise standard deductions while eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax.

One might quibble with some of the specifics of his bill, including the savings from unspecified corporate breaks and tax expenditures. But Wyden has put a meaningful and broad tax reform plan on the table that can appeal to Democrats because of its progressivity and to Republicans because of its lower rates and basic principles. At the same time, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) has put out another sweeping tax reform plan that deserves serious consideration, replacing all income taxes with a fee on all transactions.

Bush’s plan for major tax reform is on life-support at best. He never raised the issue in any specific way during the 2004 campaign, and he has done nothing since then to build any public momentum for tax reform. I find much that is commendable in the recommendations of the president’s commission on tax reform, but it has largely been deep-sixed by Republicans upset about its incremental nature.

Bipartisanship is passé in Washington, D.C., these days, and the high-handed actions by Hastert and Frist mentioned above will only increase the level of partisan acrimony. If the president is savvy, he will embrace the Wyden vision and commend the Fattah initiative. He could actually bring tax reform, in some fashion, back onto the agenda if he does something uncharacteristic for him--something that cuts against the grain of his approach on most other issues since No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001. It won’t make Americans forget Iraq or unchecked surreptitious domestic surveillance, but it could alter the dynamic on domestic policymaking enough to make things interesting again here in Washington.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.