Wall Street Journal Editorial: A high-stakes budget showdown is shaping up this fall between President Bush and Congressional Democrats. The debate will also be a moment of truth for the so-called "blue dog" Democrats: the 48 self-described fiscal conservatives in the House Democratic Caucus. The bone of contention is the $22 billion in domestic spending that Democrats passed in their budget resolution above what Mr. Bush requested in his own budget. The Democratic spending plan would increase non-defense expenditures by 6.5% next year--more than double the inflation rate. The White House is threatening vetoes . . . The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to "refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt." If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a "continuing resolution" budget that would fund all programs at last year's level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. . . . Here's the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. . . . 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted "no" on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs . . .
Voting records from recent years confirm that the blue dogs are less than consistent spending hawks. The National Taxpayers Union . . . found that the blue dogs had an average fiscal score of 24 out of 100, earning them a grade of D as a group . . . the blue dogs sponsored $145 of new spending for every dollar of budget reductions, for a net spending increase per member of more than $140 billion.
The blue dogs are consistent on one fiscal issue: stopping tax cuts. . . . But those concerns evaporated when all but nine in the blue dog coalition voted to expand the Schip health-care program to include many middle-class families, at a cost of $132.6 billion over the 2008-2017 period. So in the weeks ahead we will see whether the blue dog Democrats work to reduce the $22 billion spending bonus their party leadership is seeking. They were elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and we are about to find out if they meant it . . . [Read More]
ARRA Editor's Comment: The Blue Dog Coalition may now be only a ruse. Under a Republican led House. the "blue dogs" they had power and influence. Now that they are led by their own - liberal Democrats, they appear weakened, compromised and unable to deliver on the promises of their coalition. One has to ask - are there any Blue Dogs left? In Arkansas, John Ross and Marion Berry belong to the Blue Dog coalition. Surprising, since Berry has supported legislation that has provided for his personal gain via farm subsidies. Ross has always been able to bring home the "bacon" to his Arkansas district, but. at what cost to all the American taxpayers? It will be interesting to observe whether they vote their alleged "blue dog" principles or if they are now fully co-opted by their liberal Democrat leadership.
Tags: Blue Dogs, Congressional Pork, Democrats, liberals, pork, pork-barrel spenders To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment