Blue Dogs Rolled at “Fiscal Responsibility” Summit
Yesterday’s fiscal responsibility summit turned out to be pretty boring. And that all-encompassing dullness tended, I think, to obscure the real story coming out of the summit—the way Barack Obama basically rolled the Blue Dogs. I’ve been resistant to “secret plan” theories of Obama administration activities, but now that we can look at this sequence of events in retrospect, the plan looks to have been pretty solid. Faced with Blue Dog pressure over the stimulus, the White House agreed to bend-not-break and make a big deal about how the deficit is terrible and we need a summit about fiscal responsibility. Then he unveiled a plan to contain the medium-term deficit that consists of tax hikes on the wealthy and fewer wars. Good ideas! But not ideas that involve liberals giving any actual ground. Similarly, he’s moved decisively to execute liberals’ long-time hope of redefining the “entitlement problem” as primarily a problem that requires systematic health care reform.
None of this, obviously, forces Blue Dogs to support the Obama agenda. But it does more or less smoke them out. The caucus has managed to obtain a reputation for “fiscal discipline” over the past few years without doing anything to observe it. Moderate Democrats have been much more likely than liberals to support the two main drivers of debt over the past eight years—tax cuts and the war in Iraq—but a lot of hot air and sporadic opposition to small-bore items like alternative energy funding have sufficed to get that reputation. Obama has managed to not so much seize the mantle of fiscal responsibility as simply dramatize the longstanding point that there’s been nothing especially deficit hawkish about Blue Doggery nor anything especially budget busting about the basic progressive agenda.
All told, it’s a small-scale political masterstroke. Obama’s progressive agenda remains what it’s always been, but now it’s fiscally responsible! Not that I thought it is or was ever irresponsible. But it lacked the “fiscally responsible” label, and now he’s got it without giving anything up.
31 Responses to “Blue Dogs Rolled at “Fiscal Responsibility” Summit”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 24th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Peter Orzag did a great job on this when I saw him yesterday on Morning Joe; through of course the conversation when he left turned to Nancy Pelosi stopping social security issues.
Great picture, by the way.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Wait. Yesterday we heard some sarcastic groaning about “libertarianism’s one-note approach to public policy.” Now we get approving nods about how “Obama’s progressive agenda remains what it’s always been.”
I love consistency. As long as people consistently agree with me.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I have my doubts- though no evidence- that people don’t really care about “fiscal responsibility”. It’ll get high marks in a poll, but electoral history is pretty clear that they won’t throw a President out just for running a deficit.
It’s only effective when it’s linked to something else that voters do really like. For instance, in most of Washington, “fiscal responsibility” has come to mean, “cut programs so we can pay for our tax cuts.” People like tax cuts, so if fiscal responsibility is what they need to get it then, Wow, gimmee some! It almost becoems a proxy issue, but I dunno, that might just be semantics.
Anyway, Obama’s trying to link “Fiscal responsibility” to health care reform, and maybe a little bit of leaving Iraq. Both are popular issues, so if he successfully makes the link, we’re in for a very interesting political era.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:44 am
“Wait. Yesterday we heard some sarcastic groaning about “libertarianism’s one-note approach to public policy.” Now we get approving nods about how “Obama’s progressive agenda remains what it’s always been.””
No reason to wait. The “one-note” comment referred to advocating one solution to every problem. The “Obama” comment referred to continuing to advocate one solution to ONE problem, no matter how the political calculus may have changed since you first advocated it. Those are two pretty separate concepts, so you can criticize one and laud the other without any inconsistency.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:47 am
DTM, this left-bashing crap is getting more than tiresome. It’s a well-reported FACT, for example, that pressure from the left vastly IMPROVED the “fiscal responsibility summit” by getting Peterson and his sorry Social Security bullshit out of there (of course given your ignorant views on SS I’m sure that was a bug and not a feature for you- tough luck, buddy.) You need to read up on FDR and “now make me do it” and make some attempt to understand the ways in which there can be a very productive dynamic between progressives outside the Administration and a more centrist President who is nevertheless open to progressive goals. Pressure from the left has a real role in helping him loosen the constraints of which you speak.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:51 am
This is a good post, but the title is a little weak. The Blue Dogs are too stupid and lack enough of a substantive position to actually get rolled on an issue like this. If you can frame your issue as fiscal responsibility or some centrist, Broderist sounding nonsense, you can probably get their support. Not to detract from the coup that would be redefining military adventurism and obstinacy on healthcare reform as fiscal recklessness, but still. Let’s not give the Blue Dogs more credit than they deserve. They are a bunch of idiots whose only focus in politics is to establish themselves as centrists as part of their strategy to get reelected. There’s nothing more to it.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:52 am
We’ll see. Way to much attention is paid by the literate crowd to what is said as if bullshit was policy. Or politics, for that matter.
Light at the end of the tunnel peace in our time peace with honor fair trade blah blah stimulus package stress testing fiscal responsibility.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I don’t get what, exactly, was ever “secret” about what was going on. Ezra Klein documented it all fairly closely, with quotes from administration officials underlying his reporting. Moreover, there were, you know, past statements Obama had made about Iraq spending, taxes, entitlements, and so on to look at. And this is, of course, politics, so of course there’s going to be an aspect of theater to anything. The whole thing was, in other words, incredibly predictable. Obama made a big to do about things the establishment cares about, used establishment language to do it, and then used the platform to advocate for his agenda in establishment language. What, exactly, was so hard to figure out about that? And why does that require backhanded compliments at the people who, you know, accurately assessed the political situation all along, as opposed to people like Jane Hamsher who are looking to be screwed over at every turn?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hold on: that comment yesterday referred to libertarians’ using the same policy approach – tax cuts and deregulation – to respond to the deep recession and the financial metldown that they were pushing as their economic/financial program during the boom times.
Obama has offered a hugely different response to those particular problems – namely, a big stimulus bill and different types of financial programs – than what he supported during ordinary economic times.
It’s in his long-term (meaning, extending beyond the crises of the moment) plans that he’s showing consistency – so much so that he’s had to outline a plan to completely reverse course from his stimulus/bailout efforts in 2-3 years to address the budgetary situation. If that libertarian commenter had offered his remarks in the same sense – as the long-term strategy to maintain a solid economic and fiscal position once the country gets past our current troubles – then nobody would be complaining about his one-note policy. It’s because he DIDN’T do what Obama has done – promote different policies for short-term, deep recession vs. long-term growth – that made the charge appropriate.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Great post, but you’ve buried the lede a bit here.
It’s a very important insight that the Republican/Righty Dem reputation for fiscal conservatism is maintained by loud opposition to useful programs that add little or nothing to the deficit. This, of course, while they bristle at any suggestion that we should do anything to contain the explosion in medical costs or turn off the tap on the the unrestrained, unaccountable billions going down the toilet every month in Bush’s failed overseas military adventures.
You could probably do a whole post just on that!
February 24th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Obama won’t be fiscally responsible unless he fixes the financial mess.
The opposition to nationalization from his economic team is very worrisome.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
They are a bunch of idiots whose only focus in politics is to establish themselves as centrists as part of their strategy to get reelected.
Exactly. And Obama is smart enough to make them feel that they got their way when they didn’t. He’s redefining the center by moving it left.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:41 am
But it lacked the “fiscally responsible” label, and now he’s got it without giving anything up.
He’s far from perfect, but he has these frequent moments where he pulls these absolute Zen master moves.
OTOH, I still pray for the spirit of Lyndon Johnson to return to this world and take over Harry Reid’s brain.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“The opposition to nationalization from his economic team is very worrisome.”
It’s sound and fury, signifying nothing. If Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Graham and Greenspan are singing from the same hymnal, the thing is on a monorail. The Obama team can stomp their feet (tho they’re doing that even less), but it’s pretty inevitable.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
3. Sam M Says:
Is it just me, or are Matt’s trolls getting dumber?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
“Good ideas! But not ideas that involve liberals giving any actual ground.”
Fantasy land, Matt. Raising taxes on the rich and pulling out of Iraq (while getting more deeply involved in Afghanistan) won’t be enough to get the deficit down to $500 billion (a level that caused liberals, if you remember, to scream about). Obama can’t give everyone a pony.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Moron:
Just you.
You’re welcome.
As for this:
“Obama has offered a hugely different response to those particular problems – namely, a big stimulus bill and different types of financial programs – than what he supported during ordinary economic times.”
Really? He was against massive “infrastructure” spending in the past? Weird. I wonder why progressives supported him.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I think Sam M had a point before, though obviously we’ve reached the name-calling stage now.
The argument that conservatives or libertarians or leftists or anybody have a “one-note” approach to anything is usually empty language – a silly, content-free dig that doesn’t really mean anything.
As someone who’s way to the left on foreign policy, I’m often subjected to the argument that my POV should be disregarded because I think the solution to every problem is for the US to mind its own business and spend less of its GDP on weapons and warmaking.
That’s a hard argument to meet, because it’s basically true! I think most of our current foreign policy problems stem from having a military that’s too large and that we are too willing to send off on damn fool crusades. If we shrunk the military, and used it less, in my view a lot of those problems would ease. “Facts on the ground” influence HOW I might want to go about doing such a thing, but they don’t cause me to stop thinking it’s a good idea to do it.
Similarly, libertarians and most conservatives think income taxes are way too high and that most of our economic problems stem from that economic imbalance. Thus when things are good, they will say “hey! this is a great time to cut taxes!” When there’s a crisis, they will pitch it as a reason to cut taxes. And on and on.
There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is, in reality our income tax rates are not strangling our economy. Corporations are not being driven to Ireland by out outsized, draconian restrictions on profitmaking. If these things were actually big problems, it would be a good idea to fix them regardless of how the economy is doing. But they aren’t big problems!
In the end it’s not that useful to judge ideas against themselves. You have to judge them based on whether they’re true or not.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The Obama team can stomp their feet (tho they’re doing that even less), but it’s pretty inevitable.
Please, please, please don’t throw me into the briar patch. I can’t stand to have the banks nationalized. You can’t make me do it, its un American.
Well, if its what needs to be done then I guess if Alan Greenjeans says we must, then we must.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
It’s a good move. And Orszag in particular has done a terrific job in selling the (true) story that the necessary part of any “entitlement reform” is healthcare reform that delivers greater efficiency and slower growth of health expenditure.
But I’m worried that Obama has basically caved on the military budget, and also upped the stakes in Afghanistan. Trying to fix Afghanistan is just a bad idea all round: geography and culture are just vastly unfriendly to anyone trying to impose order there, and it’s so damn big and inaccessible that you can waste a fortune on it (while the enemies you really want aren’t even *there* any more – they’ve hopped into Pakistan).
Under Clinton we had unrivalled global military dominance for about $300B/year. Now we’re spending about $650B/year or more for god knows what. Personally I’d like to shoot for $150B/year – more than twice as much as any rival – but getting back down to the Clinton-era $300B/year would be an excellent start.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
RC:
I think that basically you are correct in this assessment. However, Obama campaigned (as Kerry did 4 years prior) on the idea that redirecting resources and attention from Iraq to Afghanistan would make it possible for us to set up a stable government that could rule Afghanistan after we left.
I’m skeptical of this plan and for that reason I really never liked that line of argument, but now that Obama’s in office he is going to have to carry through on his pledge to disengage from Iraq and beef up the presence in Afghanistan. That’s his plan and he’s going to execute it. I hope it works out better than we expect it to.
APS
February 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“He was against massive “infrastructure” spending in the past?”
I know I say this a lot, but it’s true- such obvious mistakes (or, were I being cynical, intellectually dishonest tactics) don’t make your point for you, they just discredit it (And a lot of other things you say).
Because NOBODY SAID OBAMA WAS EVER AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING. Check the very thing you quoted, it doesn’t even use the WORD “infrastructure”.
Obama did NOT, however, advocate a massive stimulus bill in 2007, nor does he advocate it as the solution to the budget deficit, the housing crisis, banking regulation, etc. Thus, he clearly thinks that different problems require different solutions, so he is NOT “one note”. He does, OTOH, think that the solution to this problem is the solution no matter how the political calculus of the issue changes, so he IS “consistent”. That’s the point- “Consistent” and “one-note” are two different things, and you can like one and dislike the other without any problem.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Please, please, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
Honestly, I think that’s exactly what’s going on, but the “Secret plan” thing gets so much abuse around here, that I decided to take their words at face value (and even then, their words are moderating a LOT and very QUICKLY). In some ways, this might be the only real example of “Now MAKE me do it.”
February 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“would make it possible for us to set up a stable government”
See, this is where I part ways with Obama. I’d be fine going into Afghanistan for the purpose of crushing AQ or the Taliban, but our forays into setting up governments have been the very best examples of “EPIC FAIL” over the years. I’d just as soon we not try again, even if they’re all swearin’ it’s different this time.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Raising taxes on the rich and pulling out of Iraq (while getting more deeply involved in Afghanistan) won’t be enough to get the deficit down to $500 billion
Doing those things while ceasing to pay for TARP and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-type spending, which is his actual proposal, will.
Really? He was against massive “infrastructure” spending in the past? He was against massive infrastructure spending without adequate budget offsets to make expansions there budget-neutral. He was also not proposing unemployment benefit extensions, big aid packages to the states, and maintaining Bush’s upper-income tax cuts for 2-3 more years.
Richard Crownie,
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Obama caved on the military budget. Yes, this year’s DoD appropriations request is bigger than last year’s, but that’s because it includes a lot of the spending that was previously part of the “emergency” supplementals.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
No, Sam M is pretty dumb. It takes a special brand of vapidity to think that there’s any equivalence between arguing one solution for many different problems and branding your package of many solutions to many different problems as the best solution to a specific problem. I mean, for God’s sake, how many drugs did your mother have to do to make you that dumb?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
and maintaining Bush’s upper-income tax cuts for 2-3 more years.
This is a particularly good example. Barack Obama campaigned for two years, and argued for years before that, on repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich immediately. But as the economy began tanking, he changed his position on this. He went from arguing one position, to arguing its opposite, on this issue, as a result of changing conditions.
The Republicans? Not so much, really. They argued for those tax cuts throughout the booming 90s, passed them during the 2001 recession, then argued for making them permanent throughout the recovery period of the 00s, and are now arguing that they be made permanent during the biggest economic downturn in 80 years.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Jonesy:
I mean, for God’s sake, how many drugs did your mother have to do to make you that dumb?
Good argument. I’ll have to remember that one for my next Lincoln-Douglas debate!
February 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“Yes, this year’s DoD appropriations request is bigger than last year’s, but that’s because it includes a lot of the spending that was previously part of the “emergency” supplementals.”
It’s also STILL smaller than what the DoD brass wanted…though these guys are pros, they know when to “highball” a number.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
DTM:
Agreed. As with most big government budget items that are growing out of control, the key is to find a way to restrain growth, not to try to actually shrink it in absolute terms. That’s true whether it’s Medicare or the Pentagon.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
just started reborning and just hooked on as much info as poss; thank you.
I am from India and now study English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Helps people search airline schedules for the best flights and connections.”
Thank you so much for your future answers
. Narcissa.