The more I think about the influence of Blue Dogs in the health reform debate, the more convinced I am that they should form their own party. Them seem to share little in the way of values or goals with democrats. Maybe they should shed their DINO disguise and join with Chuck Hagel and Joe Leiberman and form a right center party. Here’s Krugman on the incoherence of their position on health reform:
Op-Ed Columnist – An Incoherent Truth – NYTimes.com.
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…
…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.
The basically want to complain about costs while opposing, you know, actual provisions that would control costs. The real question is if the President will allow them to destroy health reform.
The other option would be a closed door meeting where he explains to them that opposition will have a price:
- Expect well-funded primary challengers.
- Expect no money from the national party to help with re-election campaigns.
- Expect no help at all from the President.
- If you hate the legislation all we ask is you vote to prevent a filibuster in the Senate, then vote your conscience on the legislation when it comes to the floor if you think it will help keep you seat.
In short, the Democrats need something approximating party discipline. What’s more important here? Mollifying the Blue Dogs or the best chance at reforming health care since Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton all failed before the corrupting influence of powerful moneyed interests? Is effective legislation more important than inclusiveness in the process? The President as done a lot to reach out to players in health care, to offer them a seat at the table. He’s tried to learn the lessons of the Clinton failure by allowing Congress to write the legislation instead of running the reform effort from the White House. He needs to take more of leadership role now and begin setting out the perimeters of reform. Congress will not craft legislation that’s good for the nation, they’ll craft something that’s good for lobbyists and large campaign contributors.
