The Incoherence Of Being A Blue Dog

Color Paul Krugman confused, something that doesn't happen a lot.

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

I think it comes down to the fact that being a conservative, whether a Democrat or a Republican, is often times confusing because the ideology itself is rarely consistent in practice. But the other side note of course is the health care insurance industry money lining the pockets of so many Blue Dogs. I'm not quite as charitable as Krugman though, I think many of them ARE looking at going the Tauzin route and are focused on getting paid. And that's also the reason why I think the Democrats in the House should just bring the healthcare reform bill to the floor and make these folks vote against it.

See as I have said before for these Blue Dogs to win in purple or red districts they usually need some Republican votes. But what they HAVE to have is almost unanimous support from the Democrats in their district. If they vote against health care reform, a plank of the Democratic platform for years and years, they will sign a death warrant on their political careers. Now maybe for some of them it won't matter much because they will have lucrative jobs in the health care industry waiting for them after its all said and done. But I am almost positive that more than half of the Blue Dog coalition won't have such a safety net protecting them and when push comes to shove they will want to keep their job.

Put the best Democratic bill on the floor and make them sign their name to a no vote and see just what kind of resolve these people have.