LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 23, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

A Call to Action

Bizarre, Apparently Jihadist Slaying in London (Video)

Oklahoma Needs Help, Not Ideology

Hell on Earth for Greeks

Terracide and the Terrarists: Destroying the Planet for Record Profits

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Fish Migration Reveals Ocean Warming

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * A Call to Action
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Lineages of the Absolutist State

Lineages of the Absolutist State

By Perry Anderson
$17.91

more items

 
Reports

Blue Dogs: The Special Interest Pets

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 23, 2009
DoD / Cherie A. Thurlby

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, left, receives a briefing on the F-22 Raptor aircraft.

By Joe Conason

“Fiscal conservative” is one of those terms used by politicians of all sorts to describe themselves, without any real justification. Parroted mindlessly from one news cycle to the next by major media outlets, that phrase is often used to mislead the public about the priorities and policies favored by those who claim to embody budgetary prudence.

Consider the Democrats in the Blue Dog caucus, who constantly trumpet their fiscal conservatism and enjoy hearing that claim echoed in the media, especially now, when they are threatening to block health care reform. The Blue Dogs don’t like the public option for national health insurance; they bemoan the estimated trillion-dollar cost of covering everyone; and they zealously defend the prerogatives of the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical manufacturers (who coincidentally give them millions of dollars in contributions). When it comes to spending money on the health of uninsured or underinsured constituents, the Blue Dogs worry about every penny.

But when the budget debate turns to military spending, the voices of the Blue Dogs suddenly turn sweetly indulgent. Confronted with the gross waste of taxpayer dollars on Pentagon boondoggles, including weapons programs that are outdated or simply don’t work, these fierce budget watchdogs lose their bark and bite. They never lose their appetite for useless contracting that brings money to their own districts, however.

The F-22 fighter plane, touted as the most advanced military aircraft in the world, offers a fine example of this syndrome. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is trying to cut the F-22 program because the planes don’t function very well, aren’t needed in the foreseeable future and cost nearly $400 million each. In a speech he delivered on July 17 about the need to reform the defense budget, the exasperated defense chief said: “Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity—whether for more F-22s or anything else—is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable.”

His pleas for fiscal sanity have been consistently ignored by Blue Dog Democrats as well as Republicans, who have joined forces to save the F-22. Among the proud ringleaders of this campaign is Georgia Democrat Jim Marshall, whose House district happens to include contractors with deep interests in the jet program. Unconcerned with ever-increasing cost overruns or questions about the aircraft’s safety and usefulness, Marshall recently corralled enough votes of his fellow Blue Dogs to save the F-22 program in a committee showdown.

Advertisement

Indeed, Marshall is typical of the Blue Dog mentality in his enthusiasm for useless military spending. He is an outspoken advocate of the missile defense program—perhaps the biggest waste of money ever undertaken by government, because it doesn’t work as advertised and almost certainly never will—at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars so far. As far as the Blue Dogs and their Republican allies are concerned, there is hardly ever such a thing as a wasteful military contract—and certainly never in their own districts. The United States now spends on defense roughly the total amount spent by all the other countries in the world combined, yet the fiscal conservatives rarely ever find programs worth cutting. We also spend more per capita on health care than most developed nations, yet our politicians cannot figure out how to make that huge expenditure pay for universal care, although every other wealthy nation does it.

So whenever someone describes the Blue Dogs as fiscally conservative because they oppose health care reform, remember how promiscuously they spend our money on projects that are far more wasteful and far less likely to benefit anyone, except the contractors who donate to their campaign coffers. Remember that self-righteous posturing over spending has very little to do with saving public money or serving the nation’s greatest needs. When politicians say they’re fiscally conservative, chances are that they are anything but.

© 2009 Creators.com


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By hippie4ever, July 25, 2009 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Thanks for exposing these Blue Dogs for the whores they really are. Trillions for the Military Industrial Complex, hundreds of billions for the Bankers, hundreds of millions for mercenaries; hundreds of thousands for education, and hundreds of dollars for voter “stimulus” checks.

Report this

By JBC, July 24, 2009 at 10:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jim Marshall is also in a district where tax payers care about the futures of their children, are appalled by the debt being piled on their kids shoulders by this administration, and have about had it with a President that seeks to drive legislation through without thorough vetting.  And Jim Marshall will not likely be retained in his district if he takes the wrong position on health care.  Having voted for the stimulous debacle and cap and trade, I think you’ll find voters are out of patience. So they are watching carefully.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, July 24, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

That’s the idea, Bogi666; fact is, there is NO “change we can believe in”—and there won’t be as long as the Statist Party (which masquerades as two parties) has a death grip on American politics.

Report this

By bogi666, July 24, 2009 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

mdgr. all the more reason to call him President Obushama

Report this

By Lola Flores, July 24, 2009 at 6:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Fiscal conservatives” is, in my opinion, an oxymoron, the same as honest politician.  The right wingers will swallow it - but then again the right wingers swallow anything from WMD in Iraq to Obama being born in Kenya - so that doesn’t really mean anything

Report this

By bogi666, July 24, 2009 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

The Blue Dog are looking for bribe money. They do so under both Republican and Democratic administrations, selling their vote[s] to the highest bidder. In fact those most in need of health care probably are Blue Dog constituents. They are also the most ignorant and gullible.

Report this

By DeannaLee1369, July 24, 2009 at 1:20 am Link to this comment

The truth of the matter is that there is a battle going on in the Democrat party. The President is calling for a Health Care Reform Bill.  And the Democrats have the vote to pass a health care bill; that is just the way it is. The current HR3200 public insurance plan bill does not include HR676 single payer public plan.  The Democrats are fighting over to allow an amendment of HR676 single payer public plan to be included in the Health Care Reform Bill.
The President and the Democratic caucus are allowing the American people to make a CHOICE to allow ‘single payer’ HR676 public plan to be included in the health care reform bill.
Single payer HR676 this amendment propels the growing single payer health care movement at the state level. There are at least ten states which have active single payer efforts in their legislatures. They are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. The amendment mandates a single payer state will receive the right to waive the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which has in the past been used to nullify efforts to expand state or local government health care.
Under the Kucinich HR676 Amendment a state’s application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the provision kept in the bill at final passage!
So we can build full momentum behind this movement for real health care.  Please get involved and tell Congress you Support HR676 single payer public plan to be included in the health care reform bill. Right now the final bill does not include a single payer public plan.
The President wants to know if the American people support HR676 single payer public plan to be included in the health care reform bill.
HR676 single payer public plan was introduced to congress in 1945.  Single payer public plan is a progressive financial idea that allows the public plan to directly purchase health care services from health care providers. 
The medical industry and Congress has stopped single payer public plan for 64 years.
The American people have never been so close to a single payer public plan.  There has never been ‘single payer’ public option in America.
What about MASSACHUSETTS you say they have public health care.  No there needs to be an amendment to the tax law that mandates a single payer state will receive the right to waive the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Massachusetts has a public insurance option just like HR3200 and NOT a single payer public plan like HR676.
Please let your Congressmen and Senators know that you support single payer HR676 public plan to be include in the Health Care Reform Bill.
Congress has been influenced by the 1.7 million dollars a day that the medical insurance industry; and the medical providers industry; and the pharmaceutical companies are spending to sway Congress and the public opinion against single payer public option.

Report this

By mdgr, July 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

This is a good article, but let it be known that the excessive influence of the Blue Dogs is to be found in an unexpected quarter.

In appointing the likes of Geithner and Summers and in doggedly endorsing their egregious diversion of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street., Obama himself can be said to have given the Blue Dogs most of their talking points.

If health care reform is hopelessly watered down, therefore, it won’t be because of the nasty Repugs or the Blue Dogs, but because a president whom we all expected much more of has performed in a manner that at best could be described as disappointing. His poll numbers are dropping like a stone. There is no surprise here, seeing as Obama’s theft of several trillion dollars was so publicly transparent.

There is a growing chance of a fascist takeover in this country in 2012. While many progressives like myself are beginning to loathe Obama, emotion itself shouldn’t be the determinative force of the hour. Strategic thinking is needed. Along these lines, what I am hoping that someone who is much more well-connected than me will publicly call for a mass resignation from the Democratic Party unless there is a major sea change from within the Party. Here, I am talking about ten million people.

I realize that almost certainly wouldn’t happen. One sees courageous acts of dissent elsewhere in the world but not in the United States, where the most radical thing that goes down is an online petition from Move-On.

My point, however, is that in order to truly make a change, we need to act in concert, and our actions need to be strategic, not just petulant.

I am hoping that someone would finally and eventually call for specific action steps, now that public consciousness has finally been raised. I doubt anyone will do that, however.

What the luminaries will probably continue to do is to say is “Goodness gracious me,” even as we continue to fall off the edge of the cliff. . . .

Report this

By bg1, July 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Blue Dogs” or “centrists”, they’ve got their hands out to all big donors.  They’re for anything that increases their rake and against anything that cuts it. They play both sides of the street for maximum profit.  The way to determine what position they take on a policy is to determine what course makes them the most money. “Blue Dogs” or “centrists” = corruption at its most blatent.

Report this

By jonr, July 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The irony of the American Defense Industry being financed by the Chinese is that it works so well for them…  While America invests extraordinary amounts of borrowed money defending itself against nonexistent threats, China invests in infrastructure, education, health care; i.e. its people.  Silly commies.

Report this

By tomack, July 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Red Dogs and Blue Hogs,
Righty grime and Lefty swine,
Share the grog, Share the wine.

In cahoots,
Cash in the boots,
The public they loot.

Spend on strife,
Cut back on life,
Cheat on the wife.

Vote for me,
I’ll set ya free,
Just watch TV.

Report this

By Spiritgirl, July 23, 2009 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

These “Blue-Dogs” should rename themselves to republican!  The truth is Blue-Dogs are a series in the artwork of George Rodrigue - his artwork is cute, the Congressmen are not!

These people have been feeding at the trough of the Corporate Oligarchy for so long that they don’t know who they are anymore!  What really annoys me - their constituents that continue to put these selfish me first bast—ds into office!  I think that we need IQ tests for their constituencies, because these people obviously don’t have the common sense the good Lord gave them!

Report this

By doalive, July 23, 2009 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The demo DOGS and the the repug la GOGS do have a characteristic trait in common when referring to themselve in first,second and third person rhetorical innuendo,they conserve allright,their treason(ammendment-#-?) to serve an entity other than the will of the governed(assisted)whair as regulated they should be and hard,,,corruption rots absolutley,and as close to home as the constitution and the ways of freedom allow,whair in any natural laws does such blatant hipocracy thrive except the horde and greed of a thouroughly corrupted group(body-politic) brain/mind

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, July 23, 2009 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

The only real “fiscal conservative” in either house of Congress, for what it’s worth, is Ron Paul ...

Report this

By myxzptlk, July 23, 2009 at 6:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The blue dogs’ principle on spending is consistent with their position on “the sanctity of life” - they apply it very selectively - loss of adult lives in offensive wars don’t count.

The inconsistency in how blue dogs aim to corral spending raises the obvious question of whether spending, deficits, and the national debt are at issue.  Conason notes the correlation between blue dog “principles” and their campaign donations, for example.  That’s a very logical jump that I wish we’d see more of in our mass media.

I have, for several months now, responded to every Democratic Party funding appeal with the same message - until you replace or somehow get control over all of your DINOs, I will not only fail to donate, I will actively oppose any Democratic candidate who exhibits similar traits.

Report this

By HC, July 23, 2009 at 6:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A few items… 1) Gates’ speech echoes Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” speech of Jan. 17, 1961, from which we have not learned; 2) let it not be forgotten that the strategy of the so-called “defense establishment” is to farm out as much production to as many Congressional districts as possible, thus increasing costs as well as political support; and 3) the real hoot of the irony is that this is ultimately being financed by the Chinese.

Report this

By thomas, July 23, 2009 at 6:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Report this

By Jaded Prole, July 23, 2009 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

The so-called “Blue dogs” are for all intent and purpose Republicans posing as Democrats. If the Democrats were a real party they would oust these posers. The fact that they do not reveals that they are only the less ideologically extreme wing of the One Corporate Party.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.