Only fiscal conservatives would say we can't afford to reduce the deficit

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:30


Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives.  In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website.  That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority.

Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:

CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period. (CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the legislation's potential impact on spending that is subject to future appropriation action.) In the decade after 2019, the bill would probably result in slight reductions in federal budget deficits.

Great! Reducing the deficit is what Blue Dogs are all about, right? This should be a slam dunk for them!

Not so much. More than half of the 52 Blue dogs are going to vote against the bill:

The number of Blue Dogs leaning toward or committed to "no" votes could be in the 30s, according to members, although Blue Dog leaders stress that they've done no whip count.

Why are they going to vote against the bill? Blue Dog Gene Taylor sums it up nicely:

"I've been spending a lot of time with my members who are kind of going from pillar to post saying, 'Look, we don't need this; we can't afford this,' " Taylor explained.

Truly, only fiscal conservatives like the Blue Dogs would argue that we can't afford to reduce the deficit.  

Chris Bowers :: Only fiscal conservatives would say we can't afford to reduce the deficit

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Sure, the US CAN reduce the deficit. 50% of the budget is defense spending (4.00 / 5)
Cut that down to half that amount, and you have plenty of room to get back to a balanced budget AND a generous healthcare bill. But will there be any support for this among the military crazy public?

And as Krugman (once again) correctly points out, this actually is a fight with a strawman. The deficit isn't a real problem now. Don't get distracted by focussing on rethuglican talking points!

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter


We have spent (3.33 / 6)
on Iraq and Afghanistan and "global war on terror" over $944 billion since 2001.  This doesn't include $50 billion+ for Iraq reconstruction and $30 billion+ for Afghanistan reconstruction.  

So until Blue Dogs want to talk about those costs they need to STFU and get out of way.

Moderation isn't going to get us out this economic mess which many of them helped create by supporting Bush's policies.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.


[ Parent ]
Btw, where were those guys when Bush fought the recession... (4.00 / 5)
with his huge tax reductions that pushed the US into deficit? Did they complain about this, too, or isn't it true that some of them even voted for this?

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

I am furious at Kratovil (4.00 / 1)
He is voting against health ins reform. What good is he? And exactly how soon will I be asked by this blog, by the WH and by VanHollen (who by the way is financing and coordinating the Kratovil Re-Elect Campaign) to forgive him and make calls and give money in 2010? Do the mere existence of the Blue Dogs serve the middle and the left? http://www.baltimoresun.com/he...



he did vote for the climate change bill, iirc (0.00 / 0)
that's not nothing

[ Parent ]
its a dilemma (0.00 / 0)
isn't it? kinda like obama and the progressives...how do we remain under this crazy tent and accept the loses like Maine and single payer and god-forbid the public option? how do we live with the anger and disappointment?


[ Parent ]
This blog won't ask you to support Kratovil (4.00 / 1)
If anything, we will ask you to call him and get your money back.

[ Parent ]
I suspect that by Sept/Oct 2010 (0.00 / 0)
you and the blogosphere will sing a different tune. We helped elect this guy along with many other right-leaning dems. Its a dilemma we (the online community) have yet to work out....imo.

[ Parent ]
Based on what? (4.00 / 2)
We made no actions on Kratovil's behalf in 2008. He wasn't even part of the Personal Paid Media campaign.

[ Parent ]
You are right, but (0.00 / 0)
I know that OL was not a Kratovil supporter. I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that there are congressmen who voted against the bill (and/or amendment) that had blogosphere support.

But I guess what I was trying to say is that I am confused by when people online are for a candidate and when they are against them....for example Sestak will probably be a moderate to conservative dem Senator. What is the standard? Is it the lesser of two evils? Will we primary Sestack in 2018?

(and I understand that we are probably getting something from Specter in the process of supporting Sestak...)

I am confused by the strategy. I don't see a longterm strategy. Its knee jerk and one dimensional.

Will we spend the next two weeks whining about the blue dogs and trying to get revenge or will we focus on getting the health bill out of the Senate?

Looking forward I think the focus should be on "real" progressive candidates and not just primarying someone because their opponent is a jerk or is conservative. its a waste of the movement. imo


[ Parent ]
If there's a good reason and a good chance to primary Sestak in 2018... (0.00 / 0)
...then by all means.

We have to work with the congress we have, not the congress we want, but that doesn't mean that when better options turn up we can't turn to them. As a general rule, we should support the most reliably progressive candidate who is electable.

And on the flip side, we should cut off at the knees those who sabotage us. Personally, I'd like to see Green candidates running with blogosphere support in districts like Kratovil's, just to prove that you shouldn't fuck with us.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
no third parties (0.00 / 0)
I am not in favor of third parties. I have never seen it work and there are plenty of examples of third parties sabotaging the party that they are most like. (Gore/Nader and Bush/Perot) And btw I came here to elect higer quality dems. The Iraq vote demonstrated how terribly wrong our party had become. It needed to be fixed. It still needs to be fixed.

Supporting the most reliably progressive candidate who is electable is a good standard imo.  


[ Parent ]
They are exposing themselves ... (4.00 / 2)
for who they are ... corporate whores .. can Mike Stark .. or someone .. ask them how they can't vote for it .. when it reduces the deficit?  I wanna see their heads explode when their stupidity is pointed out to them

Who is "we?" (4.00 / 3)
"(His fellow BDs say to him) 'Look, we don't need this;...'" Taylor explained.

Grayson needs to add the Blue Dogs to his district-by-district death counts. So much for being pro-life...

...Adding, perhaps Taylor needs to be reminded that his constituents were all at one point unborn fetuses and still deserve all the Federal protection/care he advocates for the unborn.  

Health care reform = Employer payroll savings = More hiring and more jobs!


does anyone here understand a little macro 101? (4.00 / 2)
reducing the fed deficit now wouldn't just be irresponsible, it would be suicidal.

yikes. please don't advocate bad economic policy in order to score a few political points.


Government stimulus is keeping the economy afloat (4.00 / 1)
If you remove it know, it's going to sink like the Lusitania and burn like the Hindenberg, as household debt and weak bank balance sheets preclude any other sources of credit from entering the economy.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
sorry for the late response (0.00 / 0)
a good read is Wynne Godley and. L. Randall Wray's paper, "Is Goldilocks Doomed?"

http://diglib.lib.utk.edu/utj/...

and their follow on papers....


[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the "Blue Dogs" just recognize that this is a very bad piece of legislation?

If they do . . . (0.00 / 0)
. . .they're keeping their reasons a secret.  Maybe Blue Dogs are like Freemasons. They have rules, handshakes and principles the rest of us aren't privy to.

I just think they're all lobbyists-in-training who couldn't cut it as Republicans and who who have bamboozled the media into lauding them as wise "centrists".  But it's all just bullshit.

Why are we wasting time trying to pick off these scoundrels one by one?  Why not start telling the country the truth about their whole rotten corporate scam?

This should be the mission of the left-wing blogosphere for the next four years.  


[ Parent ]
It would (0.00 / 0)
It would indeed give the progressives a better standing and probably a little more acceptance for their agenda.

[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search