Time to Dog the Dogs
Who stands in the way of the reforms vital to get us out of the deep hole we are in?
Republicans, of course, have decided to be the party of "no," staking their future on Obama's failure. But that isn't a surprise.
The entrenched interests whose oxen get gored are suitably enraged, and mobilizing million dollar lobby efforts - Big Oil, Big Pharma, insurance companies, agribusiness, global corporations, Wall Street. But we knew that was coming.
The timidity of conventional wisdom - particularly in dealing with the Wall Street banksters - has delayed the necessary restructuring of the insolvent banks. As the AIG bonus scandal suggests, the president's economic team may well be shooting itself in the knee.
But the most treacherous opposition comes from within the Democratic Party itself, from so-called "moderate" and conservative Democrats, particularly the Blue Dogs in the House and their cousins in the Senate who are working to block the changes that we need. House Blue Dogs threaten constantly to join with Republicans to cut vital investments and limit basic reforms. New Dems ingloriously worked for banks in weakening judges ability to adjust mortgages in bankruptcy. But it is in the Senate, where the opposition is most damaging. Consider:
It was Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska, who gave Republicans their legs in weakening the vital stimulus package. Joining with the Maine Republican Senators, Nelson succeeded in reducing the size of the stimulus package and in cutting investment to support more tax cuts, particularly the egregious "fix" of the alternative minimum tax that goes to high end earners and is least effective in generating jobs. Nelson not only turned on the president's plan, he made it much weaker.
Now Evan Bayh, the Ken doll handsome Senator from Indiana, has joined with Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln to organize the equivalent of a Blue Dog group in the Senate. Bayh objects to early reports that described them as working to obstruct the president's reforms and water down his budget, arguing "we're not a counterweight to anybody. We're not here to obstruct anything. We're here to help get to 60 votes," referencing the threshold that's needed to overcome filibusters.
Exactly. That is the threat that enables them to obstruct the president's reforms and water down his budget. Bayh and his colleagues have joined with Republicans to insist that the president gain a super-majority of 60 to pass any of his major reforms. Bayh joined with others to warn the president not to use existing budget rules that require only a simple majority of 51 votes to pass either his clean energy or his health care reforms. The rules around what are called reconciliation bills are one procedure in the Senate wherein majority rule still governs, because filibusters are not allowed. On all other major votes, Republican obstruction promises a filibuster that requires 60 votes to overcome. Not surprisingly, major changes often are packed into reconciliation bills. That is how, for example, Reagan and Bush got their top end tax cuts passed. Bayh is joining with other conservative Senators to deprive Obama of the very means he needs to pass his major reforms.
The president isn't omniscient, so I for one don't expect Democrats to line up to support his every move. Certainly, he would be well served if opposition to his failed banking plan grows.
But Evan Bayh and his Blue Dog Senators haven't exactly earned trust for their judgment. Bayh, for example, was a leading supporter of making war on Iraq. He joined with the noxious Joe Lieberman in casting the most votes against the president during the stimulus fight. He recently penned a truly bizarre editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling on the president to veto the final appropriations for this fiscal year.
In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with the economy hemorrhaging jobs, Bayh argued that the appropriation bill was too big and spent too much money. "Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.' "Spending," the Senator argues, " should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy."
Now listen, folks, this is elemental. The economy is collapsing. Having lost some $13 trillion in household and stock market wealth, consumers are tightening their belts. Businesses are cutting back and laying off workers. Export markets have collapsed. States and localities are facing serious layoffs. The only thing lifting this economy is deficit spending by the federal government. It is at this time that the federal government must loosen its belt, not tighten it. Republicans won't admit that. Bayh clearly doesn't get it.
The new Senate Blue Dogs claim, of course, to be high minded advocates of "fiscal responsibility." But this is often a cover for more parochial concerns. Nelson objects to the Obama budget because it calls for moving to direct lending for student loans, saving billions in subsidies to banks and using that money to pay for increased grant aid. Nelnet, a leading student lender, will be hit badly by the change. Its headquarters happen to be in Nebraska.
Kent Conrad argues piously that the deficits are too high, but that doesn't stop him for opposing Obama's call to save billions by paring the wasteful subsidies that go to agribusiness, leading contributors to Conrad's campaign coffers.
Thus far, these Senate wannabe Blue Dogs have done a lot of barking, while threatening to trip up the reforms we need. What they really need is a little discipline. We can't put them on a leash. But at the very least, we could tell them to behave. Why not let them know directly that we don't appreciate their standing in the way? It is time to start dogging the dogs.
The Campaign for America's Future has decided to make this easy. Go to ourfuture.org. We provide a list of the Blue Dogs in the House and the leaders of would be Blue Dogs in the Senate. Pick one, and help instruct them by phone or email. It's time to dog the dogs.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
leave it to the dems to f up a good darn thing, finally have a majority that rivals the rnc, and u want to spit off and be withthe opposition who have no ideas at all.
thanks alot. for showingyour true colors. we will vote agians t u next itme mr bye bye
back to the 20th century we go...no science, regulation of greed, healthcare reform, alt energy...
Since their sudden entrance onto the national stage, the "Blue Dog" democrats have attempted to operate as a separate party, not as a segment of the larger Democratic party. I believe that they have an over-inflated sense of self-importance given their part in the overwhelming Democratic gains of the past few election cycles. However, their election success can be chalked up to dissatisfaction with Republicans as much as good will for Democrats. They must remember that their seats are the most vulnerable in the Democratic Party, and that their long term prospects are directly tied to the success of the Democratic Party as a whole.
True. But their prospects are also tied to the opinion of their own constituents, who are mostly to the right of the Democratic party as a whole.
"Democrat" "Republican"
These are just labels. You will know them by their actions and words.
Just so we all know, last election cycle, Big Pharma's top donatees were Democrats, number 1 being our President, number 2 being our Secretary of State. Big Oil was number 2 for Obama. Wall Street was number 1 for Obama. So please, stop this lobbyist bellyaching, he got the most donations from ever sector.
Of course the usual special interests jumped on the bandwagon after it started to look inevitable. The netroots got in early and made it start looking that way. He owes us more than he owes them.
We need to let a few bills be filibustered. If these Democrats really want to go on record as supporting a filibuster (remember this is not just voting against a bill) against their own President they should be allowed to do so. I don't have a problem with them voting against something and if it can't get 51 votes, then so be it, but to support the opposition in a filibuster would be disturbing.
I say we go after these 'blue dog' clowns. Expose them for what they vote for. My 'blue dog' reprepresentative voted for the bankruptcy bill as well as the others in districts close by a few years ago. He mainly runs unopposed. I am going to check out Accountability Now and do what I can to put the spot light on these government profiteers.
JonStewart, it's time for you to do your thing - go after them, show them for what they are.
Yes let them go. Then they can merge with the moderate republicans and then will represent most of the country. Both extremes then will be left out in the cold. Great idea. It could not happen soon enough for me!
See Robert L. Borosage's Profile
"moderate Republicans" is close to being an oxymoron. This is a truly endangered specie, as Rush Limbaugh is proving.
And I suggest that if Blue Dogs join with Rs to block significant parts of the president's reforms on health care, education and new energy, there will be hell to pay -- and it won't be those who supported the prez -- the "extremes" -- who are left out in the cold.
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
yup, and boo$h raised it from 5 trillion to 10 trillion.
See Robert L. Borosage's Profile
The figue means nothing. The question is the load of the debt to GDP. At this point, our debt to GDP ratio is less than most industrial nations. That's one reason the dollar is going up, not down, and interest on US bonds is going down, not up. The world's money is coming to the safe harbor -- the US -- in the storm. You can worry about the 11 trillion. The money in the world seems to be betting on the US remain a strong economy.
Bill Gates probably owes more money than I do. But as a percentage of his income, the burden is much much less.
After decades of liberal demonization, conservatives have proved to be the beast within.
Senator Evan Bayh is betraying the Democratic party, the President, the nation (by acting the obstructionist in time of crisis), and in the end, even himself. In so doing, he is shaming the Bayh name.
It's a pity he didn't feel the burning need for frugality when cheerleading for involvement in Iraq.
I can't help but wonder whether his including healhcare in his obstructionist agenda has anything to do with his wife Susan's membership on the Wellpoint board, for which she gets paid in the millions.
It's time the Democratic party found a candidate of their party to challenge him in 2010.
in less than two months too.
The 2008 election is called a "victory." Blue dogs make that a victory much less effective than it otherwise would have been. The Democratic party includes the DLC and the Blue Dogs. These elements are pro-business, pro-war, anti-health care, and so on, right down the line.
Unless the Demoicratic party can curb these dogs, it is an exercise in futility. The basis of Obama's victory - reaching out to the middle -has always prevented effective change in America.
The Cold War was prolonged by Democrat Scoop Jackson, for example to bring aircraft jobs to his home state.Ther
In Europe this has been a standing joke since the late sixties. Only Americans are not in on the joke. The brunt of the joke is the middle and lower classes and this will worsen during the Depression.
Unless the Democrats can clean their own house, and without organized labor being much of a force, the status quo will prevail. Their agenda is war, not jobs.
The "stimulus" is so small as to be a joke, let's face the truth. Wall Street still dominates the Democratic party; reform of the derivatives markets is unlikely as Dems focus on bonuses for CEO - a mere .01% of the bailout. The Democrats are paralyzed an marginalized by their own ranks.
It didn't help matters much when the day that Bayh formed the New Democrats that Pres Obama proclaimed himself to be a New Democrat, too. Pres Obama needs to become much more populist/p
Be careful what you wish for. You wanted to attract conservative voters to Democratic candidates. With this strategy, Rahm Emanuel was able to take back control of the House in '06. You now have conservative Democrats representing conservative constituents. Do you honestly think that these voters will vote for the liberals you desire as replacements?
Go ahead, wage war on the Blue-Dogs you courted (and needed). These districts will flip right back to the GOP. If you do adopt this strategy, you may well lose control of the House in 2010.
Vichy Democrats one and all. I hate them MORE than republikans. They are a dangerous fifth column.
Quislings.
Yeah dummies, we'll vote and work and spend to get you out of office. Either help Obama or polish up your resume. The change in your future is not that far away. Our money is on Obama and everyone working with him to save this country. Otherwise, we the majority of the voters will oust you from a position you never deserved. You don't think we can see him keeping his word better than any president in history? We're not as blind as you give us credit for being. You're still counting on us to believe your b.s.
The country doesn't need saving. The people (all the people) are better off now than they have ever been.
What?
Good one Raymond. You really know how to p1$$ people off.
A better way to decrease Blue Dog influence is to donate to the Accountability Now PAC. Look it up on HuffPo, you will find a few articles about it. Its purpose is to fund primary challenges to Democratic reps who don't really rep their constituents. Such as Blue Dogs.
Thanks! I will.
See Robert L. Borosage's Profile
Yes, this valuable invention may help bring straying Democrats to their senses.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
