Centrist Dems Start Rebelling on Obama's Spending Plans
The first Democrat to signal his opposition to the Obama administration's $410 billion 2009 spending bill was Sen. Robert Menendez (NJ), who suggested that his vote might be in jeopardy if provisions loosening the Cuban trade embargo were kept in the measure.
But Menendez's complaints look like a drop in the bucket compared with the brewing rebellion among centrist Democrats who aren't sure they can support Obama's push to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. Politico reports that 14 Dem senators (and Joe Lieberman, naturally) are meeting behind closed doors to discuss their discomfort with Obama's $3.55 trillion 2010 budget.
Before the budget even comes to a vote, however, the 2009 spending bill must be taken care of -- and one of those centrist Dems, Evan Bayh (IN), is urging Obama to veto the $410 billion measure in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. From Bayh's piece (emphasis mine):
The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.
Does that fiscal-discipline argument against the spending bill sound familiar? Ah, right, House Republicans made it last week. Also, could someone remind Bayh that he voted against the Bush tax cuts that he's now unwilling to see expire?
Late Update: You could've seen this coming, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was so pleased with Bayh's op-ed that he formally inserted it into the Congressional Record this morning. From McConnell's speech:
As the junior senator from Indiana put it this morning in an insightful Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, this bill was drafted last year, and 'Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed dramatically which is why' -- as he put it -- 'the Senate should go back to the drawing board.'
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Could someone also remind him that the "rich" are taxed at relatively low rates compared to to other times in the last 70 years?
March 4, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is where the war starts politically. It's not against the GOP(who are dying off anyway) it will be against these sorry ass blue dog democrats who are often republicans in disguise. Quite simply, it is either a play for political favors from the adminstration or for their own re-election attempts. The only answer I can see for these blue dogs is to cut them off at the knees and let them drift with the republicans in a sea of fecal matter.
March 4, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that'll work real good! When the Blue Dogs move into the Republican camp, we'll never have to worry about getting the votes we need for a progressive budget or healthcare or energy or any other thing liberals want . . . BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WILL BE THE FUCKING MINORITY PARTY!!
I am often frustrated with the conservatives in the party but I'm even more frustrated by people like you who think the Democrats would be much better off if we kicked out all the moderates. That is just simply absurd. We would be the mirror image of the current republican party--a totally left ideological, regional party in the minority wilderness.
But maybe it wouldn't bother you if the Republicans got to give more tax cuts for the rich and big business, destroy the environment and deny healthcare to poor kids. As long as our ideological purity isn't polluted by those damn Blue Dogs, that's all that matters.
Spare me!
March 4, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue Dogs are actually a much bigger problem than the Republicans. If all the opposition were coming from the Republicans, the messaging would be very straightforward- Democrats trying to move the country forward in the teeth of obstructionism from the people who caused the problems. But the existence of the Blue Dogs and their propensity to form coalition muddies this picture sufficiently to confuse a lot of low-information swing voters. As in "See, even some Democrats don't like this legislation!"
So yes, especially since stuff can be rammed through with 51 votes in budget reconciliation, we'd be much better off if (say, in 2010) we could achieve a bare majority consisting of 51 REAL Democrats than what we have now, a bigger "majority" containing 14 untrustworthy DINOs. In the budget reconciliation process Republican votes aren't needed at all- it's turncoat Dems who can obstruct.
March 4, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incomplete phrase there- I meant to type "their propensity to form coalitions with Republicans."
March 4, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even with your own analysis the dems wouldn't get 51 votes. Subtract 14 from 59 and you get, ummm, 45. Also, I would submit that there are more than 14 "blue dogs." Dems would be sitting like the republicans right now with 3 alleged RINOs and 41 votes. The north east and west coast can't generate 51 senators. Sorry.
On the alleged bigger problem, I disagree. It allows people in the dem party in red states to say, see dems are fiscally conservative and can be "conservative," so vote for dems and send me to congress. If all dems were like REAL dems in your parlance, dems would be on the outside looking in and republicans would be f*cking up the country again.
March 4, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite yet, but as a goal we should be working toward having 51 REAL Democratic votes (and that may be achievable as soon as 2010) rather than worrying about padding the majority with unreliable turncoats. The idea of celebrating Blue Dogs just because they're willing to caucus with a party they stab in the back as often as not, is not a smart idea.
March 4, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see that Republicans aren't the only ones who can impose purity tests. It's worked out so well for them.
March 4, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not so nice to see that some people are too fucking dim to understand the difference between (imaginary) purity tests, and merely expecting members of Congress to be sufficiently loyal to their professed party to refrain from publicly stabbing it in the back on critical legislation at a time of national emergency.
March 4, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is that any different from what the republicans said about Snowe and Collins? It's a fucking purity test!
And FYI, there are plenty of people who consider themselves "real democrats" who think people like Barney Frank and Pat Leahy are the heretics!
We are supposed to be a big tent party where people like Bob Casey sit next to Barbara Boxer and Ben Nelson works hard to get Barack Obama into the White House.
March 4, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought for once you were on the side of sanity this time, since elsewhere in this very thread you rightly complain about Bayh's ridiculous position on the Bush tax cuts. So is he the kind of Democrat who actually helps to advance Democratic priorities, or not?
March 4, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are totally incapable of nuance, aren't you? You see everything in black and white, don't you?
I think Bayh is being a hypocritical ass on those tax cuts since he was willing to run on the ticket with Obama who campaigned on letting them expire.
That has NOTHING to do with my belief that we shouldn't be trying to force him out of the party! He's voted with the president more than 90% of the time so far. But idiots like you think we should kick him out because he doesn't vote 100% party line.
If we did that, we'd end up with someone like Mike Pense as the other IN senator. How many times do you think he'll vote with the president?
Call me crazy but I'd rather have a Blue Dog who gives us the numbers to be the majority party and votes with the liberals 80% of the time than a Republican who votes with him 0-10% of the time.
Now, run along and join your circular firing squad!
March 4, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's OK to vote with the party on the easy votes (comprising most of that 90%) but break with it on the really important things like letting those tax cuts expire?
The problem is not my lack of "nuance", it's your lack of consistency. (And the Congressional Democrats' lack of discipline.)
March 4, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stimulus was "easy"? I don't think so.
You think the bailouts Obama wants are "easy"?
Bayh voted with him both times.
I am totally consistent but in case you missed it here it is:
1. I am a liberal, hardcore pinko commie.
2. In a perfect world, the entire Democratic delegation would be comprised of Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Barbara Boxer and John Conyers.
3. I am practical and sick to death of seeing us sacrifice real gain for some ideological purity test.
4. We need those Blue Dogs to maintain the majority and get anything done.
5. If I have to swallow hard and accept the fact that some members are more conservative than others and that they will buck the party from time to time, I'll do it if it means healthcare, etc.
March 4, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>So is he the kind of Democrat who actually helps to advance Democratic priorities, or not?>>
YES!! Given that he has voted with the Democrats the vast majority of the time, the answer is a resounding YES!
Feingold is opposing Obama, too. Do you want him kicked out of the party? If not, why not? Oh, I know. He's a liberal and liberals are being ethical when they buck the party. Conversatives are being republicans and must be punished.
March 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a purity test, it's a core belief.
For example, I would say that, if a Senator actively campaigns for a Senator in the minority caucus in the Presidential race against a Senator in the caucus he claims to be a part of, then it's reasonable for the caucus to discipline him. Loyalty is a two-way street, and it's entirely reasonable for the caucus as a whole to demand that there are some issues where adherence to the party line is demanded.
That is, after all, the motivating idea behind a political party. Shared beliefs, etc, remember? If a person wants to have access to party resources (money, endorsements, committee chairmanships, etc.), it's entirely reasonable for the majority of the caucus to ask that all of its members fall in line from time to time.
The phrase "purity test" implies that a Senator can be judged poorly, even if they adhere to the party line 99.9% of the time, if they don't agree with every single thing that the party leadership demands of it. That's not what we're talking about here.
March 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>If a person wants to have access to party resources (money, endorsements, committee chairmanships, etc.), it's entirely reasonable for the majority of the caucus to ask that all of its members fall in line from time to time.>>
You say "from time to time". Well, Bayh has voted with the Democrats 100% of the time so far this session and probably 85% of the time throughout his career. That certainly qualifies as way more than "from time to time."
Yet, there are people here who think he should be kicked out of the party for the 15% of the time he doesn't "obey."
We criticize the Republicans for threatening to primary Snowne, Collins and Specter for breaking ranks but advocate doing the same things to wayward Dems.
Hypocrital much?
March 4, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ususally only post to you when I want someone to insult. But since you posted something other than a flame, I'll do the same.
The only thing that can be rammed through the Senate with 51 votes is the budget! That is the only thing that can't be filibustered. So, while you're wanting your pure 51 real Democrats, you are absolutely wrong on how the Senate works.
March 4, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a lot of things can be shoehorned into the budget. Health care and carbon emissions have already been floated.
March 4, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. We *might* be able to shoehorn some things into the budget.
But tell me this Mr. Labonne. How do we shoehorn stem cell research and the repeal of DADT and DOMA and SCHIP and clean water regs into the budget? Can't be done!
They would require 60 votes to even get to the floor. But if you're willing to sacrifice those things to "purify" the Democratic party then you're obviously more concerned with chest-thumping than actual results.
March 4, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the blue dogs move into the gop if that what worries you and the democrats will find a "populist" replacement in the next election cycle. Your position is one that belittles and forgets what got the democrtas in power; it's the people not special interests. Your indignation here shows that you have no shame!
March 4, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, junior! A state only gets two senators! So, if my senator Kay Hagen because a Republican, we wouldn't get another bite at the apple. NC would simply have two Republican senators.
And if we had run Barbara Boxer against Liddy Dole, Dole would be starting her second term in the Senate. And the president would not have had Hagen's vote on things like SCHIP and pay equity and the stimulus.
Also, I've Robin Hayes for my rep. He is a fucking cave man. He opposed choice and stem cell and everything even remotely moderate. We just elected Larry Kissel who is not a liberal as I would want but he's voted with the Dems everytime and supports choice and gay rights and stem cell research.
So don't tell me I'd be better off with a republican than a Blue Dog.
March 4, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand this desire for dem purity and everyone toeing a far liberal line that most of the country would not be in favor of and would never get enacted in any event. Isn't the government supposed to represent the interests of everyone, as closely as possible? I mean your analogies are correct and we would have 40 senators if we were lucky if everyone was a barbara boxer clone. I would rather have hagan from north carolina than a jesse helms clone any day.
March 4, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, what got Democrats in power is running candidates who match their constitutents. We got in power because we got seats in places like MO, VA, NC, CO, NM.
As long as we kept trying to force liberals down the throats of moderate/conservative democrats in places like Eastern North Carolina, we ended up with Jesse Helms and Robin Hayes!
We got back in power by being practical.
March 4, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem with the blue dogs is that they're economically Republicans. It constitutes misinformation to voters to label them as Democrats. In a free market we need correct product labeling.
In the meantime, they need to be embarrassed with President Obama's poll numbers. People realize that somehow the bill needs to be paid, and the only people who are good to do it are those who've actually been making money the last 20 years.
March 4, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying a Blue Dog is economically a republican is not truth in advertising. Yes, they tend to be more fiscally conservative but they are not queer for the free market. They don't think we should let starving people do without unemployment benefits to prove a point! They don't have wet dreams over capital gains tax cuts!
That said, I'd rather have a Democrat that is economically a republican than a republican who is socially, economically and anti-sciencely a republican.
March 4, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I criticized the way Obama dealt with these knuckleheads on the stimulus bill, but credit where credit is due- this time I think he's a little more out front of this predictable tragicomedy after learning from what happened with the stimulus. I suspect that his initial proposal on the budget, unlike with the stimulus, is probably significantly north of what he would be privately happy to settle for.
But Jesus, it really would be nice if we ever developed even 1/10 of the party discipline of the Republicans. And kindly note, for all the liberal-bashing that goes on around here, that it's the "moderates" who will try to knife Obama in the back, just as their predecessors did to Clinton.
By the way, are these people really too stupid to realize that the Bush tax cuts are simply going to expire rather than having to be repealed? There's not a damn thing these hypocrites can do
about that.
March 4, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are the democratic party. The democratic party has no discipline, which actually is a good thing in my book. It truly is representative of the people.
I agree that the budget will be parsed down to appease the blue dogs and probably was set up ahead of time to allow for the parsing. I would much rather see an intermural fight within the party, then republicans being involved in any event. At least the dems aren't a rubber stamp and are doing what congress is supposed to do, but failed to for 6 years under the king.
It will be fun to watch in any event. Also, it makes the dems as a whole look fiscally responsible, so it takes away the argument from republicans, who aren't fiscally responsible in any event. The bluedogs are doing dems a favor here.
March 4, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like hell they are.
March 4, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The bluedogs are doing dems a favor here."
This is a most absurb comment and surprising coming from you. These are not for gamemenship but for strong action for the needy and the hurt across this country.
March 4, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am all for strong action to help the needy across the country and for the expiration of the tax cuts and for more taxes on those who can pay more. Three points:
1. This is next years budget primarily. The interim bill will get passed with ear marks and all.
2. If a handful of bluedogs want to whine, what is the problem? I'd rather have the press concentrate on that then republican whining. Let the press concentrate with them on whether lush is the leader of their party.
3. I don't want dems to walk in lock step like robots. They should be representing the constituencies of the states that sent them to washington. That's what bayh is doing. It's the democratic party for pete's sake. They never walk in lock step.
March 4, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I agree with points 2 or 3.
For point 2, I would MUCH prefer the press to continue to focus on Republican obstinancy. Having any Democrats complaining in a public way just gives the Republicans cover for their obstruction. "See, even a lot of Dems don't like this bill!".
For point 3, I'd argue Bayh is NOT serving his home state. He's from Indiana. Indiana voted for Obama, against a very long history of voting for Republican presidents. That means something. And unless I'm mistaken, Indiana is not chock full of people that would be affected by letting these tax cuts expire.
March 4, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Bayh is doing what's best for his state? You mean IN, where unemployment is at ZERO and 30% of the population makes more than $250K? Puhleeze. Indiana is hurting -- bad. One town had it's unemployment rate triple in one year. Yet, this asshole is going to go to the mattress for Bush's tax cuts?
March 4, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say he was doing what's best for his state? No. I said that he was representing his constituents how he sees it. Do I agree with what bayh is saying? No, I don't as indicated by the rest of the post.
The tax cut expiration is over a year down the road. Now is not the time to be arguing about it and I said that I was for higher taxes as envisioned by obama. Incidentally, if the economy is still in a tail spin when those tax cuts are due to expire, I would suspect that obama will not allow all the cuts to expire.
Incidentally, obama did not run as a "tax and spend liberal." He ran as a pragmatist, pay go and balance the budget eventually. He only won indiana by less than 1% for pete's sake. It's not like he got a huge mandate out of indiana. I would suspect that bayh knows his constituents.
I don't like bayh at all, nor his politics. I don't know how I wind up always defending people that I don't like. I just like the d by his name and his vote on things in the senate that support the d agenda.
March 4, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama ran on the promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire. He factored that into his budget. Now, Bayh, who was willing to be on the ticket with Obama, is not rebelling against that?
Bayh is not representing his constituents. He's representing himself--a guy from a wealthy family whose wife makes nearly $1 million a year as a lobbyist.
March 4, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you are probably right. I give. I definitely don't like his tax cut stand by the way. That's the most problematic thing. Again, I never liked the guy or his politics. I give up.
March 4, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Obama, I'd veto the Omnibus and tell them to remove all the earmarks. It would really fire up everyone but it would sure be great theater watching the conservative Republicans warming up to Obama.
March 4, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think thats a great idea. As political theater and as a counter to all the R's PR strategies.
Of course the Rep's and Senators would whine but
such a move would be very popular with those unimportant voters.
March 4, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama should just piss off House Democrats for the difficult vote they just cast providing major increases to education and transportation just for $8 billion of earmarks? This particularly when Obama wants their vote for the budget, which raises taxes considerably? Come on. This is one where Obama should just take the heat for the team.
It's a question of what kind of legacy Obama wants 20, 30 years from now. Does he want to be remembered 20, 30 years from now as the President who stopped $9 billion from a $410 billion bill or does he want to be the President who got universal health care and energy independence? You got to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
March 4, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is disgusting. For all the world it appears that most of these guys are richy riches wanting to protect their piece of the pie.
Anyone with sense knows the top tax rate should go back to 1968 levels. And these guys are doing it at a time where they'll a) hurt the economy by doing it, b) hurt party strength, c) embolden and strengthen the weak Rushpublicans.
We can't get Franken in soon enough! I hope Obama finds a way to shove this down their throats pronto this time but I suspect it will be watered down to appease these sloppy "me first" faux democrats (who secretly love Rush).
March 4, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are these people insane?? They are against the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? Ranting against these tax cuts has been the main Democratic talking-point over the past eight years, where have they been???
Speaking of Senate centrists, Arlen Specter has drawn his first primary opponent. (Finally!)
March 4, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a time for fiscal discipline when the economy is relatively strong...but not now!
March 4, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Omnibus vote was ridiculous as the same Republicans who voted to stop the spending are well represented on the earmarks received lists.
Senator / # of Earmarks / $ in millions
1. Cochran (R-MS): 204 471
2. Wicker (R-MS): 143 390
3. Landrieu (D-LA): 177 332
4. Harkin (D-IA): 177 292
5. Vitter (R-LA): 142 249
6. Bond (R-MO): 86 248
7. Feinstein (D-CA): 153 235
8. Inouye (D-HI): 106 225
9. Shelby (R-AL): 125 219
10. Grassley (R-IA): 125 219
11. Murkowski (R-AK): 93 181
12. Murray (D-WA): 155 171
13. Lincoln (D-AK): 93 181
14. Pryor (D-AK): 92 167
15. Menendez (D-NJ): 171 160
16. Lautenberg (D-NJ): 173 159
17. Hutchinson (R-TX): 106 106
18. Levin (D-MI): 178 152
19. Stabenow (D-MI): 178 152
20. Byrd (D-WV): 76 152
March 4, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it's called hypocrisy last time I checked.
March 4, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were also governor during some pretty flush times. Try balancing the budget now, bub.
It says a lot that people can claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility while blowing gaping holes in the budget with big tax cuts and no one calls them on it.
March 4, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let the Democratic circular firing squad begin. When is this party going to learn discipline from the opposition? Hell, it's the ONLY thing they do right.
March 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
At some point, somehow, someone is going to have to pound the message into the heads of these people, and especially their constituients, that "controlling spending" is a bad thing during a deep recession.
Keynes 101. Aggregate demand has plummeted. Only government spending can make up the difference. Government spending that would be excessive in good times is essential in bad times. The economic policies that cause Republicans to bleat about "out of control spending" and "drunken sailors" are a big part of what got us into this mess.
Republicans have spent thirty years pounding the tenants of their voodoo economics into people's heads. Even now, at some level they believe Greenspanomics is absolutely correct economic theory, which should be the invariable basis of public policy, and that Keynes is some discredited kook, to the extent they've heard of him at all. Ninety percent of the asshattery coming from the talking hairdos on cable news is base don this implicit assumption.
Bitching about the national debt and government spending is a constant occupation for people here and, I suspect, in a lot of the formerly red states we picked up, the purple ones we're eyeing and probably even in the deep blue ones. At some point, Obama is probably going to have to climb into the bully pulpit and deliver an economics lesson.
But, here in the blogs would be a good place to start, so join the refrain with me:
"Government spending is good during a deep recession.
Government spending is the only thing that can get us out of the recession.
The crackpot economic theories that the Republicans are clinging to are what got us into the recession."
(Repeat)
March 4, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
In principle, I agree, but I don't think that means you just spend away and never think about what you're buying. In fact, it's when times are tough that it's really necessary to make sure you get the most bang for the buck. Earmarks should all be stripped from the bill. All of them. Those that are worthwhile should be funded through the normal budgeting process. We all know there's all sorts of crap in this bill that is a waste of money.
I don't mind sending tax dollars to Washington, but I expect they will take at least as much care in how that money is spent as I do in my own budget.
March 4, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Earmarks" is a red herring. People are confusing "earmark" with "boondoggle." They are not synonyms and, when we confuse them, we give lift to the Repbublican belief that all spending is bad.
"Earmark" means money in a bill that is targeted to a specific project in a legislator's state or district as opposed to just being dumped into the coffers of an executive agency or a state to do with as it pleases--or linked to a formula that would be applied by a bureaucrat in the executive branch. There are plenty of worthy projects that are "earmarked." Obama's earmarks as a senator were the very model of how earmarking should be done and why there's nothing wrong with it in principle.
A bad earmark would be one funding something horrible, such as an expensive and needlessly destructive water project or one done as a favor to contributors. But I don't see that possibility as a reason for the legislative branch to cede its power to appropriate to the executive or the governors of the states.
Beyond that, though, I think that right now it would make more sense to pay people to dig holes and fill them in again starting tomorrow than to spend nine months planning, speccing and putting out for bids a perfect project with maximum multiplier bang for the buck. In most things in life and government you have two choices, speed or efficiency and have to pick one. If we want this thing to be over before 2019, we'd better go with speed.
March 4, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Commenter Formerly Known As...You have to be the smartest person on TPM. I so agree with your post on it's time to spend, and I agree even more on your correct read on the "earmark" BS. Do we really want the feds controlling spend at a local level? Come on, that's what is really scary. "Build this bridge!!" Umm, no one uses it anymore. "Build it anyway!!" Malarkey. And for weeks I've read people on both sides of the spectrum decry deficits when a deficit--and I might add a really, really big one--is imperative to finding our way out of this deflationary mess. I'm floored by how little of macro economic theory is understood by Congress and that the talking-head media can't see they need to bring bona fide economists into the nightly news discussion. Way too many are still drunk on the 80s cool aid of inflationary fighting tactics and consumer spending with no savings rate. That game is over and gone for a good while, probably decades. If we don't wake up we will have a Great Depression II on our hands and it could largely be avoided with some basic economic education. I think Obama should give bi-weekly Oval Office speeches where he explains how this spending works to save our country. Go straight to the people!
March 4, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember during the primaries, when this clown was being touted as Hillary's VP of choice?
Good times.
March 4, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The headline on this story is wrong. TPM is falling into a right-wing framing trap when it accepts the description of these democrats as "centrists". They're no more centrist than someone who wants to broker a compromise between people who believe the earth is round and people who believe it's flat. Call them "conservative" or "right-wing" or even "bipartisan" but they're way right of center.
March 4, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
so democrats have rich friends and they put those friends above what is best for the rest of the people.
and people here are in shock??
March 4, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show us where anyone registers "shock". It's anger. Take your dog whistle and constant democrat bashing over to red state.
March 4, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another "centrist" douchebag. Another imbecile enabler of the DISCREDITED GOP policies that created this mess.
FDR is rolling in his grave. DEMOCRATIC Senators worried about increasing taxes on millionaires to prior levels! Blue dog my ass, they're frauds.
These bastards will be the cause of watered down legislation which will fail to address the nations problems.
End the God-damned fillibuster rule, that undemocratic anorchonism, and tell these plutocratic bootlickers to fuck off.
March 4, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're not really moderates. They're cowards who aren't comfortable practicing the values they profess. That, and they're really bothered by Republicans not approving of them.
March 4, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Politico article is really discomforting. Mark Begich and Amy Klobuchar are two of only a handful of Senators who have co-sponsored all ten Sen. Democratic caucus bills, including S.4, the universal health care bill (which Sens. McCaskill and Casey, also on that list, have co-sponsored), S.5, the global warming bill (which Sens. McCaskill, Shaheen, and Casey, also on that list, have co-sponsored), and S.7, the education bill (which Sens. McCaskill, Shaheen, and Casey, also on that list, have co-sponsored).
March 4, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who decided to label these folks "centrists", as just about every news report I've seen does?
March 4, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They're not really moderates. They're cowards" and lazy. Its easier to pander to the wealthy donors than to represent a broad constituency. Plus I'm pretty sure Bayh is closer to being affected by tax increases than the other 95% of the country.
March 4, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly true, but I am increasingly wondering whether the problem with Bayh and Ben Nelson isn't just one of being flat out dumbasses.
March 4, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should just stall and veto his way out of this. Because most of the Bush tax cuts were temporary, they can be allowed to expire unless the Blue Dogs expressly bring legislation saying otherwise AND muster the support to override the president. That's not going to happen.
The Blue Dogs can understand that if they don't cooperate, taxes will actually be higher than if they do. Obama's proposal does not fully restore pre-2001 taxes, especially not with regard to estate taxes, and it involves a permanent lowering of middle-class tax rates. So do the Blue Dogs really want to block this? If they do, then Obama's quite within his rights to triangulate with the use of his veto pen, and I expect he probably will.
March 4, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under President Ike Eisenhower (R) the top marginal percentage income tax rate was 91%; under President Jimmy Carter (D) it was 70%. Both were dramatically higher compared to 39.6%.
I wouldn’t feel too sorry for wealthier Americans.
March 4, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naturally, the senators who are "rebelling" are predominantly from states like Alaska and Louisiana that are, how shall we say, federal spending whores.
March 4, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the one time when I have wished the President had a line-item veto. How great would it be to watch him zero out THEIR pet projects?
March 4, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM: Thanks for covering this story. I'm watching it closely. If you can give us hints about the organizations doing most effective advocacy on the topic, it'll help me know where to put my dollars and letter-writing hours.
March 4, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives won this election, despite how many attempt to characterize Obama as a centerist. Blue Dogs and Red Pacaderms better get use to it!
March 4, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others are right to point out that these aren't "centrist" at all but neocon-ish right wingers.
Remember that next time - or better yet, correct the story now and call the conservatives that directly.
March 4, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh needs to learn not to poop where he eats
March 4, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a deep breath everyone. Progressive Dems may balk at some of the President's war plans. Should they be drummed out of the party? If some compromise is necessary, heaven knows Obama is comnfortable enough compromising with the likes of McCain, so he should be able to hear out Bayh. But herein is the difference: Republican want to weaken Obama anyway they can, and if they can help paint him as an ineffective leader that advances the reactionary agenda. Democrats always argue among themselves. Menendez is just wrong. The embargo against Cuba has been a dismal failure other than punishing the Cuban people. It's time for the embargo to be gone. More travel and commerce will open up the Cuban society.
March 4, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The line item veto is unconstitutional. Imagine what Cheney would have done with it?
March 4, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is truly appalling that Evan Bayh is using the language "raising taxes" to describe letting tax cuts expire as they originally were supposed to. Now is not the time to worry about cutting taxes, not with a trillion dollar deficit. It's especially not the time to worry about cutting taxes on the wealthy.
We really need to face the fact that we've been in a de facto class war since the Reagan administration. The refusal to allow tax cuts to expire can only be viewed in that light.
After what "the rich" have done to the financial markets, they do not deserve any more favors.
Since any attempt to keep the tax cuts from expiring would require not only new legislation but also the President's signature, I have to wonder what exactly Bayh's motivation is here. Does he really expect Obama to go along with not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire? That was a central plank of Obama's platform! Actual Democrats want the Bush tax cuts to expire!
March 4, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy." - WSJ attributed to Bayh
That of course is hardly the truth. There's no general reason why spending and taxes cannot lead or lag each other. And given the need for stimulus spending (or so they say in a 'consensus of economists'), there should be no problem spending and borrowing some more at this time. Rates are relatively low and the sacred cow of the economy needs the activity (ps - the economy is not a sacred cow).
But the real problem is that the bill is for 2009 and the ending of the tax cuts is down the pipe.
Did Bayh's clock start running backwards recently? Or is this a setup to make McConnell look bad?
March 4, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know, I have to object to the label "centrist" being used to describe anybody who supports tax cuts for the rich. I don't care if they are Democrats - it is possible for Democrats to be to the right of "centrist", after all.
Being a Democrat in name does not by itself mean that, no matter how far Bayh tacks to the right, the furthest he can get is "centrist".
Can we start describing him as a "conservative", please?
March 4, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be nice if even one of those Senators had to worry about where they are going to get the money for next weeks grocery bill! Not even thinking about next months mortgage bill or even what the kids might need in the way of health care.
Sadly, that isn't going to happen. The mamby pambies in DC are going to sit around and worry about whether Bill Gates gets to keep his F'ing TAX CUT! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
March 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
About taxes at 1968 levels...
Before I start, let me say I am a liberal who is all for highly progressive taxation. I think that letting the Bush cuts expire is not anywhere near enough.
However, I think it is worth noting that the tax code pre-Reagan was drastically different in many ways other than the marginal rates. It was outrageously long and complex, with thousands of weird deductions which were habitually exploited by the rich. I've even seen analysis concluding that the tax code became more progressive after Reagan got done with it.
I haven't checked that theory out, but it should be relatively easy; doesn't the CBO produce tax burden stats? Anyway, it obviously hasn't been progressive enough regardless; witness the changes in income and wealth since Reagan. But I think attributing this to tax policy is a mistake. Over the last 30 years globalization, information technology, and mass media have tilted the balance of return toward capital and away from labor. In other words, the market itself has favored the rich even more than in the past.
The obvious solution to this, of course, is more progressive taxation. Or, you could take Clinton's approach and focus on benefits and wages instead. But the key here is to recognize that a 79% top marginal tax rate in 1968 isn't the same thing as a 79% top rate today. Such a rate without all those deductions and loopholes could actually go too far. If we were to honestly start shrinking the nominal wealth of the rich, we would be in a pickle. We don't need to go there...but bumping top rates to say 50% or so might be just the ticket. And of course slashing rates on low- and middle-income earners would help dramatically as well.
What we'd really like to see is income and wealth growth like that of 1950-1980. And I think that's what you mean by returning to the tax rates of 1968. My point is just that with the tax code simplification/loophole-closing of 1981, the number that gets us there is somewhat lower.
March 4, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Growth post-WWII was artificial. In 1945 the US had the only well-functioning economic apparatus of any significance. The Marshall Plan spurred European recovery. We, and others, reaped the benefits of the investment. The cost of food production and transportation generally went down as investment in technological artifacts (engineered goods) went up. Enforced austerity in WWII and de facto austerity (with some forcing) in the 1930s changed expectations and lifestyles.
Interestingly, the US had a depression after WWI.
Anyway, I agree that taxes should not be punitive by design. But they should be sufficient to cover ongoing government spending (it's okay to borrow a bit here or there). Reagan totally violated that notion in addition to playing a bit recklessly with tax rates.
I was interested to note in an old Krugman piece that Greenspan saw a problem with a forming stock bubble in 1996. G. then went on to talk exactly the opposite talk, he glorified things. And then Krugman in 2002 talks about Greenspan needing a housing bubble. Weird. When did G. go through the Looking Glass?
Anyway, about taxes, I believe there are still a lot of "loophole" sort of deductions etc. in the current tax code. And planning for 10 years of $500B deficits is not good (esp. when the first year or two are expected to be more like $1T each). So I have to support at least some of the Blue Dog position. This year might not be the year to raise taxes, but I think everyone should expect to pay more taxes within 18 months unless all incomes tank (in which case we're looking at a major depression, possibly bigger than the 30s).
My best guess is that the economy was kept afloat by private borrowing which was unsound, to the tune of over $1T/yr (unsecured as well as home equity and inflated home sales). This ripoff of investors and lenders requires a response, and so we expect to see economic activity contract in some close proportion, even with coming government spending.
The question is: -10%, -20%, or -more on GDP?
March 4, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these democrats? Does anyone know or is it truly secret? I want their names so I can write to them.
March 4, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the names are in the article that is linked to the TPM post.
I grew up in Indiana during Sen. Bayh's political rise. He never stood up for any significant progressive interest at the time and he won't do it now. So, I am no fan of his.
However, if we're going to try to be Keynesians now, we have to face facts. It won't do any good to inject money into the economy and then pull it back out with tax cuts. That's why the nation kept slipping back into recession under FDR, who kept trying to balance the budget after each round of spending.
Obama would be smart to let the Bush tax cuts expire and simultaneously enact equivalent tax cuts for the poor and middle class who will spend the money lickety-split (economic jargon for really quick). Let the so-called moderates rail against that!
Under the path Obama has chosen, the only hope to balance the budget is to grow our way out of it some ways down the road. A big "if" for sure, but...in for a penny, in for a pound.
March 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: It won't do any good to inject money into the economy and then pull it back out with tax INCREASES.
March 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary, the main purpose of stimulating the economy is to get it to produce taxable income for taxes, from the government point of view. It might be correct to not raise taxes too soon, but Obama knows that. If the "recession" ends in the next 12 months, tax increases from the Oct 2010 budget might be reasonable, and for 2011 quite plausible.
"Under the path Obama has chosen, the only hope to balance the budget is to grow our way out of it some ways down the road"
What other paths offer alternative to balancing the budget? Surely you don't mean just cutting all government spending in half across the board. What other paths were options for Obama here?
March 4, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember the stake-out in front of his house as the world waited for Obama to announce his running mate. Whew! that was a close one. Time is running out for Evan Bayh, every four years he comes out of his hiding place and says to the Democrats "Hey, wouldn't I make a cute looking President?" and the next chance this closet conservative has is a long time off. Before Obama's inauguration this clod announce that he would head up the centerist Blue Dogs. That was a long time ago, early January, Evan it's a new world be there or be left on the side of the road. Right this minute you and your friends fearful stance puts you on the outs with most Americans who have given the President a mandate to really go for it now. You are misreading the signs and that's the sign of a real amateur.
March 4, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bore! It's something to watch Republicans go all giddy over any Democrat sounding off with one of their cliched soundbites. I really don't know how Mr. Bayh sleeps at night. Things must be really uncomfortable for him right now as a former (and current??) shill for the financial industry.
March 5, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink