Digby: Until we neuter the Blue Dogs, it will be nearly impossible to enact liberal legislation.

[seafan]

Barking Mad

by digby
February 12, 2009

Chris Hayes has a must read article in The Nation about the Blue Dogs.:

I've spent the past few months trying to sort out why the Blue Dogs get so much attention. The best I can tell, there are two main reasons. One has to do with the organizational mechanics of the Blue Dog caucus, which is more unified and cohesive than any other in the House. The other has to do with the ongoing Beltway love affair with "fiscal conservatism."

Yep. And until we kill that phony meme, and put the Blue Dogs down, it will continue to make it nearly impossible to enact liberal legislation. The Republicans start unnecessary, hugely expensive wars and enact massive tax cuts, thus starving the beast, and then posture and preen like a bunch of fastidious schoolmarms when they are out of power. And the village just goes with that flow.

Someday we'll have a real debate about ideology, results and the meaning of "responsibility." Until then, they make our world and we just live in it.

Update: Be sure to read this piece by Jane Hamsher about what those fabulous indigo boys 'n girls have in store for us.

I cannot end this post without including some of the sneak preview from Hamsher:

Ben Smith says today that the left is "silent on Social Security reform" even as the administration considers it, and quotes Blue Dog Jim Cooper who says Obama is "in a honeymoon phase, and many liberals are afraid to express concerns."

Atrios calls it trolling. Perhaps it is, but there have been signs that serious Social Security reform is in the works, and people who have been briefed on the administration's plans indicate that things like raising the retirement age and cutting benefits are under consideration.

.....

You can find the plan here, but this should give you a hint:

Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones?

The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions. Unfortunately, too many analysts and politicians have ignored this reality, responding to the painful alternatives by embracing "free lunch" approaches.

[]

Our plan makes the painful choices that are necessary—selecting a combination of benefit and revenue changes to restore long-term balance. In doing so, it focuses on three areas which contribute to the actuarial imbalance: improvements in life expectancy, increases in earnings inequality, and the burden of the legacy debt from Social Security’s early history.

[]

Workers who are 55 or older will experience no change in their benefits from those scheduled under current law. For younger workers with average earnings, our proposal involves a gradual reduction in benefits from those scheduled under current law. For example, the reduction in benefits for a 45-year old average earner is less than 1 percent; for a 35-year-old, less than 5 percent; and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent. Reductions are smaller for lower earners, and larger for higher ones.

Obama met with the Blue Dogs Tuesday night. Before the House vote on the stimulus bill, Rahm Emanuel had promised them that they would soon see "signs of Obama's commitment to fiscal reform," and according to one Blue Dog, "Tuesday night was a fulfillment of the commitment Emanuel made that day."

If Blue Dogs like Cooper have been emboldened by the idea that the left will quietly accept Social Security reforms that include reductions in benefits because of Obama's popularity, they have sorely deluded themselves. As Atrios notes, it would create "an epic 360 degree shitstorm." If people on the left are being quiet, it's not because they don't care...it's because they don't think Obama will ever do it.

Digby was prescient in a post from yesterday. Her title was "Bargaining With Political Sociopaths" (i.e. Republicans); however, the Blue Dogs embody a watered-down version of the same tactics. For the progressives in the Democratic Party to truly represent the people, the Blue Dogs must be neutered and marginalized.

.....

Obama will make a huge mistake mistake if he even thinks about bargaining away social security in order to get health care just as the baby boomers are retiring. They have been paying double into social security since 1986, most of their working lives, on the understanding that their cohort was gigantic and needed extra money to pay for the program. They have just lost a huge chunk of their retirement savings in the stock and housing markets, right on the cusp of their retirement, something they were assured could not happen. Even if he tries to sell social security "reform" as the price for saving medicare, it won't matter. If Obama wants to see a generational uprising, wait until he gets a load of the aging boomers, pissed off and freaked out. No matter how much he reassures them that he only means to screw younger workers, they will not stand still for it. (And a few of them may even love their kids.)

Obama does not have to tackle every single problem he sees on the distant horizon during his first term, especially one that doesn't exist. If he puts social security in the mix with health care under the rubric of "entitlement reform" he will weaken the first and destroy his chances of enacting the second. There are no Grand Bargains with political sociopaths. All you do is give them the opportunity to kill your agenda.

Sing it, Digby.

[aquart]

1. "Neuter the Blue Dogs."

In my mind, a pretty little pyramid of neatly stacked blue balls.

[Windy]

2. I've been saying this for weeks. I even called Bill Press on his radio show and said the same thing

He was bashing Obama for not just pushing the stimulus through. I called in to say that we had to get some bipartisan support to get the blue dogs on board because they were threatening not to vote for the stimulus unless changes were made. He vehemently disagreed with me. Said that people like Landrieu and Nelson were with the program and then cut off my line.

[seafan]

8. Make sure to read the Chris Hayes piece in the OP.

Some snippets:

.....

The Blue Dogs continue to wield influence. Before the stimulus could be brought to the floor, the House had to approve emergency orders to expedite the process. The Blue Dogs balked and threatened to rebel until the White House sent a letter to several House committee chairs reaffirming its commitment to return to pay-go budgeting after the stimulus is passed. In the end, half the caucus voted against the leadership anyway. The week after the stimulus passed the House, Blue Dog co-chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin sent an open letter to Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer expressing the caucus's support for efforts by Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats to cut approximately $100 billion from the package--including money for things like school construction, rural broadband and early childhood programs. "We believe that's a highly worthwhile goal," they wrote.

.....

In late February, Obama will host a "fiscal responsibility summit," which the Blue Dogs will be attending, an event they demanded as the price for their (reluctant) cooperation with the stimulus bill. On the agenda is "entitlement reform," the longstanding dream of the Concord Coalition and the Peterson Institute to shrink the social welfare state . The full roster has yet to be announced, but it won't be surprising if Cooper is one of the headliners.

It's unclear in just what direction the summit will go, but in Washington, the perception of power is indistinguishable from actual power. And if the Blue Dogs don't have much of the latter, they have the former in spades.

The majority of the Blue Dogs voted for the stimulus package the first time around and will likely do so again when it comes out of conference committee. But their leverage is more rhetorical and political than legislative. By continuing to reinforce the notion that nonmilitary spending is pork, favors to special interests, they lend credence to a deeply entrenched conservative Beltway critique of government--that its biggest problem is that it provides too much to its citizens.

Cooper captured this sentiment perfectly in explaining his opposition to the stimulus. He was skeptical about some of the spending--notably for expanded Medicaid eligibility pools--saying it wouldn't last just two years but would extend into the future. When I asked why, he said, "Once you hand out Snickers bars, people tend to want more Snickers bars."

This kind of rhetoric obscures the deeper questions of what government should provide, and which groups get squeezed when the screws are tightened. Under Cooper's framing it's all Snickers bars. So when conservative Democrats and so-called moderate Republicans in the Senate, with the support of the Blue Dogs in the House, cut $100 billion from the stimulus package, they left in an estimated $36 billion new home tax credit whose benefits would skew heavily toward the upper middle class and wealthy, while cutting $98 million in school nutrition programs for poor kids.

For the record, they don't, as a rule, serve Snickers bars in school lunches.

It is crystal clear why these people must see their influence severely restricted.

[seafan]

18. More from the Hayes piece:

.....

Where Blue Dogs have perhaps been most effective is in helping Republicans pass legislation and blocking or diluting progressive legislation. During the months-long debate in 2006 over the Military Commissions Act, which was crafted explicitly to deny the right of habeas corpus to enemy combatants, many Blue Dogs supported the bill (against the directive of the Democratic House leadership), and ultimately twenty-three of thirty-seven voted for it. And it's not just on national security issues that they've played this role. In 2007 Representative Brad Miller proposed legislation that would have amended bankruptcy law to allow judges to alter home mortgage terms, a reform seen by many Democrats as necessary to reduce the number of foreclosures. But according to National Journal's online Congress Daily, "bankers...knew exactly whom to go to in order to stop the bill in its tracks: the Blue Dog Coalition of moderate-to-conservative Democrats." Sixteen members of the caucus signed a letter objecting to the legislation, prompting it to be pulled from consideration on the floor. As of this writing, it has yet to pass the House.

Positions like this have convinced many progressives that Blue Dogs are little more than bought-and-paid-for agents of big business. One corporate lobbyist explained the Blue Dogs' fundraising prowess this way: companies say to themselves, "Blue Dog Democrats are probably going to be more business-friendly, so let's give them more campaign contributions.... You get elected, you join the Blue Dogs...the money comes flowing." Individual fundraising is then amplified by contributions from the Blue Dog PAC, much of it from large corporations like UBS ($10,000), Citigroup ($10,000) and Coca-Cola ($10,000).

As much as politicians hate to be accused of being influenced by money, the Blue Dogs haven't necessarily gone out of their way to disabuse people of this notion: at last year's Democratic National Convention, the Blue Dog reception (with open bar!) was sponsored and paid for by the telecom industry, which was feeling generous after forty-five of the forty-seven members voted to grant it immunity from civil suits for collusion with unlawful domestic spying.

.....

Very ugly priorities.

[FLAprogressive]

3. fuck them and the corporate jets they rode in on. they are only marginally better than your average

Republican and there are some Republicans I like more then Heath Shuler, Gene Taylor, Bobby notsoBright, and fundie Mike McIntyre. At least the Republicans are honest about their political leanings.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Deeply flawed premise: this is NOT a liberal or progressive Administration

They're somewhat-to-the-right-of-center moderates. That's still a HELL of a lot better than the neo-feudalist assholes we've been at the mercy of for most of my adult life, but this is a centrist operation. It's not "their" fault, ("they" being blue dogs) "they" are more in line with the Administration than many seem to understand. It's Clintonian third-waying again; get used to it.

[sandnsea]

6. The stimulus is not liberal or progressive?

Is that really your position?

[PurityOfEssence]

15. It's necessary and started from a very compromised position

I like Obama's statement that maybe he should have started with no tax cuts.

No, I don't think this is particularly liberal or progressive, it's a fairly agreed-upon contention that stimuli are needed at times like this. A liberal approach would be one where it was super labor-intensive to get as many people working as possible, and one where a leader stood up and said "this is the time for government to take the wheel", instead of the continual reminder that anything useful can't be done without private industry.

It's middle of the road. That's fine; that's what is to be expected here. We've been vilified for so very long that government is incompetent and wasteful that selling a really liberal approach would be hard. Starting a WPA theatre project, even though an impressive proportion of the money would go directly into the pockets of individuals, would be impossible after the haranguing of the last few decades.

Even conservatives (although not the psychotic troglodytes of the fringes) accept that stimulating government spending at times like these is necessary. They blanch at the concept of market substitution, and try to cloak the reality that it's being done by government, but they accept it.

We've been so battered by nearly thirty years of reactionary rule and third-waying that anything even somewhat in the middle passes for communism these days.

No, I see the stimulus as smaller than it should have been, and with less direct government hiring of individuals for make-work projects than we really need. Whether this is the best we could do at this time is open to conjecture, and the speed with which this was done was commendable, but it's middlin.

Sorry, but that's hardly a loony and unsustainable contention.

If the administration had done more of what I cited Obama as saying at the top of this post, it might have been compromised down to something more productive. If he'd gone big bolshie right out of the blocks, we might have gotten something BIG and pinkish. There are a few salient reasons why this didn't happen: he's a MODERATE and wants to make that clear to the right, he's not truly sure he has the answer and wants the cover of bipartisanship, he's got this Clintonian delusion that the right will play ball if he just cozies up more to them, and harsh confrontation just isn't his way.

Are you SERIOUSLY going to contend that this was a bold, liberal and progressive plan?

Maybe he did everything he could, but I think he could have done more. He's in a pickle, so it's a bit unsporting to thump on him now, but this is all very serious, isn't it? I think he started with too cautious a plan and had to knock it down too far, but I ALSO think he's just not that liberal and wants to keep up the appearances of the necessity of private enterprise not just to appease the reactionaries, but out of personal belief.

Sorry if that was too snotty; I'm trying to be productive with my criticism, but I'm bewildered by the interpretations I keep hearing, and your post WAS a tad tart...

[sandnsea]

17. Oh I see

You wanted the whole thing to be the government directly hiring people, is that it? And anything short of that isn't liberal?

I disagree because there won't be any taxes to pay if people don't have jobs in the private sector. There has to be some profit from somewhere. You can't just recycle money through the economy. It will collapse which was proven in the USSR.

How do you propose to help the 80% of people who still have jobs and don't need what you define as a pinkish WPA job?

[PurityOfEssence]

21. No, not really.

It should be a combination, but the continual carping that private industry is the ONLY savior and absolutely necessary at all times is an ideologue's fixation.

The people working in a "make work" program like this WOULD STILL BE PAYING TAXES. Government workers pay taxes.

The Soviet Union fell because Communism and Socialism don't work on a large scale: if everything's completely safe, far too many people will just phone it in. If there isn't the capitalistic carrot of unholy wealth to be had, many people won't really put out. No central group can accurately structure an economy, like the old joke: in the perfect planned economy, when the eggs run out, the bacon will too... What we're talking about here are temporary measures, not fundamental structural changes.

There DOESN'T have to be some profit from somewhere; this is a deficit operation, but the trick to it is to have as much of the money recycling cycles as possible. The metric should be for less cost of raw materials, because a yard of concrete doesn't spend money; sure, workers and companies are paid to mill it and pour it, but it may be a big hunk of something that isn't all that needed, and once done, it's done, whereas wages paid will get spent, and then part of that money will be spent and it will peter out through many more transactions made by many people that will all stir the pot and keep them at least treading water.

Money needs to flow: people need to stay solvent, provide for their present and future while being responsible for their past, and spend money. A WPA theatre project would stir up a lot of activity like the performing arts always does: restaurants, parking lots, hardware stores, clothing stores, all sorts of things. People would hone their communication skills, clerical skills, construction skills, and all sorts of other personal improvement would happen that would translate into human infrastructure. How is this less effective than building a bridge overpass that would have much of its money expended in concrete and steel? Sure, those companies would benefit, but in a situation where less materials were used, more of the monies would go directly to people, which is what is needed.

The 80% of those who still have jobs would share in the benefits of this, too: there would be more customers for their products. There would be a quicker recovery. There would be less ambient emotional stress, which IS an expensive drain on a society.

I'm all for the infrastructure improvements; they'll pay off handsomely and very soon. Our electrical grid is a mess. R&D for alternative energy is a must-do, too.

Look, seriously, it's a middle approach. I think it could have been more direct in sending government money directly into the hands of those out of work, and I think that this was shied away from due to philosophical differences and worries about what the precious "other side of the aisle" would think. That other side of the aisle has been no help. Perhaps the olive branch needed to be tried for political reasons and to test the waters, but it didn't work.

I don't want to rehash this endlessly; I'm presuming you're offended because I don't swallow the party line that this is a liberal Administration, but whether one agrees or not, it's a bit of a point. I don't think these guys are slackers or playing games, I think they're philosophically somewhat wrong and a bit naive. At least they're putting out some serious heat.

This was a time for drastic action, and I think we could have done better.

[sandnsea]

24. No Democrats are carping about the private sector

being the only savior. You start from a false position so it's kind of hard to take anything else you have to say seriously.

Then you turn right around and say socialism won't work because too many people won't work hard enough.

There has to be a capitalistic carrot, but there doesn't have to be a profit.

Well okay.

But to the bill, it has a ton of money for direct assistance to those out of work, a ton of money. It has a ton of money for direct assistance to the states which will go to paying state, county and city workers. It has what is really a refundable tax credit for the lowest income workers and people on social security.

And then it has some money for construction and renovation, which will mostly go through private enterprise.

No, that does not sound centrist to me at all.

I'm disgusted that people think the middle is so far over on the left that 90% of America can't see it.

[sandnsea]

5. Did these people read the stimulus?

Even if you take out the tax cuts that are targeted at the poorest among us, it's over 500 billion of investment into liberal programs. WTF do some people want?

:crazy:

And yes, Change Minds, Change Votes.

Some of us have been saying that for 5 years.

[Generator]

7. Social security?

Insane in the membrane. Besides four billion other fuck ups and Katrina-always a special mention, Bush's "let's privatize social security tour" was the real end of the Republican ideology.

I don't know if they are Dems or Repubs but the oldsters will put that damn genie back in the bottle. Do not mess with social security. And might I add the age is already 67-when should we collect 75?? Bullshit. I'm only 46 but that makes ME mad. Not everyone lives to a hundred.

[DCKit]

10. I'm right there with you.

But decided about six years ago that our chances of receiving SS were less than 50/50, so I'm not counting on it and have made other plans.

Basically, I figure a pot of money that big is just too big a target for ANY politician to resist, so, sooner or later, they're going to figure out a way to steal it.

[Zhade]

14. Not only that, reducing benefits is outright THEFT.

NT!

[autorank]

9. Proud #5 K* Let's change their name to "Running Dogs"

Because that's what they are, dogs running with the elite trying to corner a fox that no longer exists.

They're Democrats, however. They vote the way 1/2 of the Senate caucus voted in the 110th Congress.
And they're not ashamed. They care little for the Constitution, a mere nuisance. They are
indifferent to the struggles and sufferings of citizens.

Their entire goal is the preservation of wealth; that of their patrons, not ours.

Putting them on notice would send a huge message to their peers throughout the party, shape up or
ship out. Obama's at 76% approval, the Democratic leaders in Congress at 60% and the Republican
leaders at 44% approval. But remember, Congress was at 9% to 14% last session. PollingReport.Com
It's just a matter of time.

They've got no legs and will fall as news of the conniving gets around. Make the "Running Dogs" the
the poster fellas for the disinterest of a larger group and lets get something done.

[pnwmom]

11. Yeah, let's replace them all with the right wing Rethugs who would otherwise

be in their spots.

That'll teach 'em.

:sarcasm:

Most blue dogs are blue dogs because they come from a district or State that would never vote for a liberal Democrat. But they contribute to our majority in the House and are critical to us in the Senate. So we have to make peace -- and compromises -- with them.

[Kaleva]

23. My Dem Representative is a devout Catholic...

who is right there with the Pope on the issue of abortion, doesn't support Gay marriage, sided with Bush on Stem Cells and usually gets high marks from the NRA. He has been in office since '92 and wins elections in landslides. While many here would say he isn't a real Democrat, he often votes the party line and the alternative would be a conservative Republican who would very rarely vote with the Democrats.

[pnwmom]

28. Exactly. The alternative could well be a Republican right-wing Catholic

with ties to the Knights of Columbus and Opus Dei.

[Zhade]

12. I, for one, say cut their conservative balls off.

Should have been done long ago.

[notadmblnd]

13. So Rahm Emanuel runs the show huh?

Barack Obama is just another puppet?

[snot]

16. Aside: useful to remember, the corporate media do a lot to strengthen them.

Apart from that, I think of them as moles, not dogs. They are Republican moles in Dem disguise, to weaken us from the inside.

[BlueCaliDem]

19. This is exactly how I see them too. n/t

[Lost in CT]

20. Stop moving my Cheese...

Democratic majority should mean democratic values

END OF STORY

[certainot]

22. call them LIMBAUGH DEMS!

most are red state dems who's constituencies are blanketed with the GOP talk radio monopoly that rules red state politics.

fix that monopoly and the GOP will become what it really should be- squat. but until progressives recognize the real problem it will continue to determine the flavor and tone of america and enable flat earth politicians who have no business in washington at this very imporatant time.

[democracy1st]

25. K & R

[wiggs]

26. I'm much more disgusted by the herd mentality of the GOP, where

members vote as they're told and usually vote as a solid block...a block of melted down door handles. They vote without regard to the facts, only with respect to the party and how it helps or hurts their members in elections and how it supports the party ideology. There is no room for thinking differently. Remember Voinovich crying on the floor of the senate about how dangerous Bolton is if reappointed to the UN post? It only took a couple of days before he about-faced and fell in line. That's not what we want in our party.

Yes, given republican unity, it puts pressure on blue dog dems and I sometimes wish they would fall in line too. But criticism of blue dogs should always be prefaced with ridicule of GOP sheep.

[mmonk]

27. As any vet will tell you, it's the responsible thing to do.

[bvar22]

29. Of course the Blue Dogs are better organized.

Republicans are good at lockstep.

[FatDave]

30. How could we possibly save social security?

Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base