There is overlap between the Bush Dogs and Blue Dogs, but also some examples of outstanding Blue Dogs like Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania. Most Blue Dogs claim that the group focuses on fiscal responsibility, controlling spending, and balancing budgets. But the Wall Street Journal argues otherwise.
The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to "refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt." If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a "continuing resolution" budget that would fund all programs at last year's level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. But Republicans can't do that on their own: they need the votes of these moderate Democrats.
Here's the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is enforcing party discipline, and as a result 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted "no" on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. The 13 freshman Democrats who represent conservative districts--such as Heath Shuler (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas)--have been a particular disappointment; back home these same blue dogs trumpet their "independent streak."
Voting records from recent years confirm that the blue dogs are less than consistent spending hawks. The National Taxpayers Union did some checking and found that the blue dogs had an average fiscal score of 24 out of 100, earning them a grade of D as a group. It also found that last year the blue dogs sponsored $145 of new spending for every dollar of budget reductions, for a net spending increase per member of more than $140 billion.
The blue dogs are consistent on one fiscal issue: stopping tax cuts. As a group they opposed the Bush tax cuts and the extension of those tax cuts, and a super-majority vote requirement to raise taxes--all in the name of easing the debt burden on future generations. But those concerns evaporated when all but nine in the blue dog coalition voted to expand the Schip health-care program to include many middle-class families, at a cost of $132.6 billion over the 2008-2017 period.
So in the weeks ahead we will see whether the blue dog Democrats work to reduce the $22 billion spending bonus their party leadership is seeking. They were elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and we are about to find out if they meant it.
The Wall Street Journal isn't buying the Blue Dog claim that they are just a group of fiscally conservative Democrats. While a few Democrats seem to still believe that fiscal issues define the Blue Dogs, Patrick Murphy and his protege Bill Foster in Illinois are the exception. Given the overlap between Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs, it seems that Blue Dogs are more conservative on everything but spending issues.
This is probably the worst scenario. Blue Dogs campaign on fiscal responsibility, and then don't live up to it. Their credibility is hurt and instead they vote conservative on the issues that are being rejected by voters nationwide: supporting the War in Iraq and the War on Civil Liberties.
STATE BLOGS
