Blue Hoovers

Of course this makes no sense for an economy that is just barely in recovery mode, but "Blue Dog" Democrats mistake economic literacy for fiscal discipline. As for their jobs being on the line if jobs gains don't materialize soon, I'd say don't count on that.

The Medicaid provision, which would extend assistance first granted in last year’s stimulus package, was considered such a sure bet by many governors and legislative leaders that they prematurely included the money in their budgeting. But under pressure from conservative Democrats to rein in deficit spending, House leaders in late May eliminated $24 billion in aid to states from a tax and jobs bill that was approved and forwarded to the Senate.

The voting public -- at least those with jobs or getting Social Security checks -- appears to be less concerned with massive job cuts then they are with the federal deficit of which they know nothing and are not helped by our Big Media Pundits.

Republican tactics may not be so effective

Unfortunately, withholding money from the DSCC won't get Baucus, Conrad, and Lincoln to change their votes on the Public Plan. Yes, it brings a certain satisfaction, but they don't rely on money from the DSCC nor even from their constituents, but rather on the insurance companies they represented in yesterday's Finance Committee vote.

Following the money

Yglesias points to an interesting chart showing the ebbs and flows of health care industry money to Republicans and Democrats. But the chart doesn't indicated which Democrats are benefiting most greatly from this recent boon.

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

It's almost enough to make you cynical.

Clinton, CBO projections and the danger of Blue Dogs

No one can take a complicated subject and thoughtfully explain it the way Barack Obama can. On the other hand, no one can take a complicated subject and do this with it the way Bill Clinton can.

Speaking a few days after the CBO estimated that the White House's latest "gamechanger," an independent Medicare Advisory Commission to set prices, would save little money over 10 years, Clinton urged policy-makers -- and here he means Democrats -- to not accept the CBO's scores without adding a dollop of common sense. " I recognize that if you're in that budget office, you've got to project the future," Clinton said. But certain programs would realize savings "regardless of whether the mathematical rules they are now up with will prove it or not." He said that those with a stake in changing the system "almost always get the short end of the stick" when it comes to budget projections. "In Washington, we strain a lot of gnats while we''re swallowing camels." Lost in the debate about how much health care reform will cost, Clinton said, is the debate about whether the reforms will work. (I took this to be an implicit criticism of Blue Dog Democrats who focus near-obsessively with the impact of health reform on the deficit and of committee chairs who have imbued the CBO with near mystical powers.)

My emphasis. I'm not entirely clear what straining gnats means, but it's a great image.

Meanwhile, in a true Krugmaniad, Paul Krugman does not even begin to think that the so-called Blue Dogs are anything but honest, if incoherent, in their criticisms of the various health care proposals.

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 what motivates the Blue Dogs on health care is nothing more than a knee jerk fear that their more conservative constituents will throw them out if they go along with anything that can be branded by potential oppenents as "tax and spend." I think those fears are obsolete, but there you have it. Having a safe seat is more important than being effective legislators -- and also more important than the relative success of their party. Right now, they have nothing to lose by opposing both health care reform and the deficit-neutral proposals that would help pay for it.

Democratic politics 2.0

While it seems to be in its nascent stages, the Obama campaign apparently intends to use its vast volunteer operation and email lists to create a political organization intended not to be used for 2012, but rather to help achieve Obama's agenda. Called Barack Obama 2.0, it may have its greatest effect in congressional districts where Democratic congressmen may feel vulnerable to the Right.

As Kevin Drum notes, this fundamentally changes the game.

This is something that Mark Kleiman more or less predicted many months ago. (To me, anyway. I'm not sure if he blogged about it.) His conjecture was that Obama's organization had fundamentally redefined presidential politics thanks to its huge pool of dedicated volunteers and its ability to quickly raise unheard-of sums of money. After all, what congressman is likely to buck the boss if the boss can offer — or withhold — hundreds of thousands of dollars without batting an eye and mobilize — or withhold — hundreds of thousands of phone calls and telegrams depending on how closely you toe the presidential line? Every president has a certain amount of power he can bring to bear against holdout legislators, but Obama's organization brings this to a whole new level.

UPDATE: It's interesting -- and typically liberal Democratic -- how many of Kevin's commenters finds this "sinister." Their objections seem to fall in two areas: 1.) That this is somehow a precursor to fascism; that those nice "Change" t-shirts will change to brown shirts in short order. Or, 2.) That it is unseemly for the Obama campaign to continue to send emails to supporters (current or former) that include a "Donate" button, especially since he's committed a number of crimes against the heterodoxy, such as having Rick Warren say some prayer next week. What they seem to forget is that the 2008 election shifted the nation to the left, and that it would be foolish to assume that this is a permanent occurence. Many Democrats won seats in districts that typically vote Republican. Pressure on them to move to the Right on things like climate change, the stimulus package, intelligent defense spending, etc., will be enormous. This shouldn't be seen as a threat to them from an all-powerful and greedy chief executive, but rather as an opportunity for those vulnerable Democrats to be able to tap into an enormous organization they could never dream of putting together themselves.

I guess the critics think that MoveOn represents democracy while B.O. 2.0 represents Welcoming Our New Overlord.