It is difficult to respond to Ron Fournier's "analysis" piece about both Democrats and Republicans abandoning "the middle" without just offering up a string of invectives about Fournier's complete absence of research and analytical skills. Here is the lead paragraph from the AP's Washington bureau chief:
Charlie Crist's departure from the Republican Party is not just a Florida story; it's an American story - a tale of two parties driven by their ideologues, squeezing out moderate candidates, alienating independent voters and isolating the place in U.S. politics where most things get done: the middle.
The entire proof that Fournier offers up for Democrats abandoning the middle is Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary. No joke--that is the only evidence he offers up in this "analysis" piece.
This might be because any analysis of the changing composition of Democratic members of Congress would have shown that the Democratic house caucus has actually moved noticeably to the right over the past six years. For example:
50 of 106 Democratic House members who are members of the Blue Dog coalition and / or New Democratic coalition were first elected in 2004 or later. Another, Baron Hill, was first elected in 1998, defeated in 2004, but re-elected in 2006
Of the 93 Democratic members of the House of Representatives who were first elected in 2004 or later, 51 are members of the Blue Dog Coalition and / or the New Democrat Coalition. Even if Andre Carson, Jared Polis, and Laura Richardson are removed from that list because they also joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and even if Baron Hill is removed because he first won a seat in Congress back in the 1998 elections, that still makes 47 out of 92, or a majority.
By comparison, of the 162 House Democrats who first won their seat in 2003 or earlier, only 55 are members of the Blue Dog Coalition and / or New Democrat coalition. That is only 34%, compared to 51% for Democrats first elected in 2004 or later.
The Democratic House caucus is moving to the right. Even leaving aside joining self-proclaimed "moderate" caucuses like the Blue Dogs and the New Dems, quite literally every ideological voting scorecard in existence will tell you that House Democrats with less seniority are further to the right of those with more seniority.
Further, conducting actual analysis of caucus memberships and voting records is not something Fournier was ever going to do himself. Even if Democrats were moving to the left--something that I have been unable to accomplish, despite my best efforts--Fournier isn't going delve into the research and facts necessary to prove it. Instead, he is just going to assert it is true, and then quote Pat Buchanan as supporting "evidence." (seriously) Hell, Fournier didn't even bother to prove that Republicans are moving to the right, even though that is actually something that is provable.
If you are going to write a piece claiming that both parties are abandoning the middle, then the least you should do is actually show that both parties are moving away from the middle. Fournier doesn't bother to do that, and focuses only on a couple of anecdotes in primaries to demonstrate his thesis. This is a pathetic amount of research for someone holding such a position of authority in our political discourse. Even freshman college students aren't allowed to get away with dreck like this. For Fournier to simultaneously complain in his piece that part of the problem in this country is that too many people are consuming news from media outlets where "facts are fungible" is the height of irony and lack of self-awareness.
In other words, is there room for moderate candidates and moderate voters in either party? #crist
Wow. Just, wow.
Amazing that the Washington bureau chief of the Associated Press can somehow forget that there are two large centrist caucuses of Democrats in both branches of Congress. First,, the self-described m"moderate" New Democrats boast over one in four Democrats in the House:
A July 2009 Press release described the organization as "the largest moderate coalition in the U.S. House of Representatives", announced the election of Representative Joseph Crowley (New York) as the Coalition's Chair and counted 68 Members in the House of Representatives
Then there are the Blue Dogs, who claim another 54 members in the House. Even though 16 of their members are also New Democrats, that still makes for 106 out of 254 House Democrats, or 42%, who self-identify with a Democratic caucus that is openly moderate. And this doesn't even count members like Chet Edwards, who is not a member of either group.
In the Senate, there are 16 members of Evan Bayh's moderate working group (the 15 listed in the link, plus Arlen Specter), and 14 New Democrats. Combined, there are 22 Democratic Senators who are members of at least one of those two self-identified "moderate" groups, or 37% of the entire Democratic Senate caucus.
All told, 41%, or 128 of 313, Democratic members of Congress belong to one of these self-identified "moderate" groups. But maybe Ron Fournier considers Blue Dogs to be flaming liberals.
In terms of voters, in 2009 fully 60% of self-identified Democrats identify as either "moderate" or "conservative," according to Gallup:
Further, also according to Gallup, 39% of self-identified moderates self-identify as Democrats, compared to only 24% as Republicans:
But, I guess those voters don't exist.
To claim that there are no moderates in the Democratic Party requires maintaining a remarkable amount of distance from the reality of the internal workings of the party. It also requires a health dose of bratty, whining petulance. Can Ron Fournier really believe, even as a deficit commission appointed by President Obama is underway, and even as virtually every piece of legislation Democrats try to move through Congress was basically photocopied from proposals by Third Way, that "moderation" is somehow not being served by the Democratic Party Washington, D.C.?
This goes hand in hand with Mary Landrieu's preposterous claim that progressive Senators, rather than groups of conservative Democrats, are really in charge of what sort of legislation moves through the Senate. The adolescent, divorced-from-reality, blame everyone else, cry baby, uber privileged mentality that is at the heart of contemporary American "moderation" is truly mind-blowing.
To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, "New Democrat" movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as "the Third Way," which often defended the use of private means for public ends. (It's also arguably central to the American liberal tradition going back to Woodrow Wilson, and is even evident in parts of the New Deal and Great Society initiatives alongside elements of the "social democratic" tradition, which is characterized by support for publicly operated programs in key areas).
To be clear, this is not the same as the conservative "privatization" strategy, which simply devolves public responsibilities to private entities without much in the way of regulation. In education policy, to cite one example, New Democrats (and the Obama administration) have championed charter public schools, which are highly regulated but privately operated schools that receive public funds in exchange for successful performance of publicly-defined tasks. Conservatives have typically called for private-school vouchers, which simply shift public funds to private schools more or less unconditionally, on the theory that they know best how to educate children.
The First "Third Way"--Social Democracy, Was A GOOD THING.
In a comment, I raised the point that there often wasn't that much difference between conservative privatization and neoliberal "Third Way" privatization--see how little has changed since Bush in our use of mercenaries, for example. In this diary, I'd like to lay out a framework for understanding what I meant by this and why it must be so. The framework is that of the three "Third Ways". The first "Third Way" was social democracy, as exemplified by the German Social Democratic Party. It was a "Third Way" between naked capitalism and revolutionary socialism. Their main policy for gaining broad public support was universal health care-in the 1870s. It was a very popular idea-so popular, in fact, that conservative mastermind Otto Van Bismark decided to co-opt the idea, thereby depriving the social democrats of their signature issue, and implementing it in such a way that it furthered elite nationalist goals by giving German manufacturers a healthier, more secure, more productive and more loyal workforce to aid in their international competition with Britain and other industrial powers.
In my opinion the first "Third Way" was a good thing. The revolutionary socialists basically had the economics right, compared to the laissez-faire capitalists. It wasn't anything that indiividual capitalists did that was responsible for the enormous increase in wealth brought about by Industrial Revolution--they were simply positioned to capture a vastly disproportionate share of the proceeds--even as the working class, transformed from rural peasants into an urben proletariat, suffered a tremendous mass immiseration in the process. But the revolutionary socialists had most everything else wrong--especially the complete rejection of democracy, except for purely tactical purpose. By combining a socialist economic view with a democratic political view, this was a "Third Way" you could believe in. The others, not so much.
Or, the difference between New Democrats and Blue Dogs revealed
The difference between a New Democrat and a Blue Dog Democrat is often hard to see for many people. This is because neither group has either a coherent list of policies and principles, and because their House caucuses share fifteen members.*
Today, President Obama and Senator Blanche Lincoln put that difference on display for the whole country to see.** Lincoln, who trails badly in her quixotic quest for re-election, had an illuminating back and forth with President Obama. In this discussion, Lincoln argued that Democrats just need to attack the left, look independent and bi-partisan, and maintain status quo policies (or, really whatever policies Republicans want). President Obama argued that Democrats need to scrap Republican policies, leverage the private sector to perform public services, and then attack the left.
Here is how Lincoln started her question:
LINCOLN: Mr. President, I come from a seventh-generation Arkansas family. My dad was a good Democrat, and he was a great Arkansan, and he was very typical of Arkansans in that he was very independent-minded, as am I, and as most of my constituents. And he used to tell me early on when I ran for Congress, he said it's really results that count. And as I look at what's going on in my state and among my constituents -- I visited with a constituent yesterday, good Democrat, small business owner, who was extremely frustrated -- extremely frustrated because there was a lack of certainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses. He's -- he and his father have worked hard, they've built three or four different small businesses, and he fears that there's no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and have to make a payroll on Friday. He wants results. He wants predictability.
And I think that you're exactly right. People out there watching us, they see us nothing more than Democrats and Republicans up here fighting, fighting only to win a few political points, not to get the problem solved.
Lincoln's question is entirely about identity. Instead of policy, she mentions her family lineage. She notes how she is "independent minded." She talks about how people in the administration are unable to identify with specific experiences. She mentions how it is important to appear as though you are solving a problem, rather than appear as though you are fighting. The entire question is based on identity and image, excepting her insistence on "results" without ever defining what "results" actually mean. Even the one thing close to a specific that she offers, "predictability," essentially means no change to policy at all. The most predictable policies are the ones that never change.
For Lincoln, the problem Democrats have with voters is entirely born of identity and public persona. As such, her solution is also entirely based on image and identity. Just attack the left, and make it look like you are working with Republicans:
LINCOLN: [A]re we willing as Democrats not only to reach out to Republicans but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes, and look for the common ground that's going to get us the success that we need not only for our constituents but for our country in this global community, in this global economy? Are we willing as Democrats to also push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans and to get the answers?
Lincoln offers no policy solutions at all. In fact, she explicitly argues against any new policies, instead favoring "predictability." Keep all policies the same, attack the left in public, and get lots of photo-ops and co-sponsored bills with Republicans (bills that don't change any policy, of course). This is an identity-based ideology, just as Blue Dog-ism itself is an identity based ideology entirely about publically differentiating oneself from the left:
"Blue Dog Democrat" is derived from the term "Yellow Dog Democrat." Former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left.
There are no policies here. There are no principles. Being a Blue Dog is just about appearing anti-left. That is the founding, essential tenet of Blue Dog philosophy.
With surprising forcefulness, President Obama responded to Senator Lincoln that reaching out to Republicans, and adopting their policies, isn't going to do any good for Democrats. This is because Republican policies have have failed, and caused real economic problems that are making voters angry:
OBAMA: Well, if the agenda -- if the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same.
I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place.
Yesterday I argued that the netroots were funneling millions to the Blue Dogs every cycle, and needed to completely turn off the spigot. Today, I spent some time trying to figure out just how much money the netroots were donating to the Blue Dogs every cycle. As it turns out, the totals are not very high.
First, 9.15% of all donations to the 35 House Democrats who were first elected in 2008, and who are still in Congress, came from Act Blue. For eighteen of those House newbies, Act Blue was the top donor overall. For another eight, Act Blue was the second largest donor. Overall, the totals are $5,820,075 was raised for these 35 Democratic Representatives on Act Blue, out of a total $63,583,306 in donations from a source other than self-financing.
Among the six Blue Dogs first elected in 2008 and still in Congress (Bright, Childers, Griffith, Kratovil, Minnick, Nye), $188,374 of the $9,422,494 they raised from a source other than self-financing came from Act Blue. Overall, this represents only 2.0% of their total fundraising.
Among the seven Progressives first elected in 2008 and still in Congress (Carson, Edwards, Fudge, Grayson, Lujan, Pingree, Richardson), $1,348,659 of the $8,800,177 they raised from a source other than self-financing came from Act Blue. Overall, this represents 15.33% of their overall fundraising. This is a far higher percentage than Blue Dog Act Blue fundraising, even if it is heavily concentrated in Pingree and Edwards.
There are at least 15 freshmen members of the New Democrat coalition. However, the only name I can confirm at this time is Andre Carson, who is also a member of the Progressive caucus. Removing both the Blue Dogs and the Progressives from the overall list, but keeping Carson, the remaining Democrats raised $4,374,144 of their $47,012,948 non-self financing from Act Blue. It is likely that this 9.30% is close to the overall percentage of New Democrat freshmen money raised on Act Blue, given that more than half of the 23 freshmen included in these totals are now in the New Democratic caucus.
So, this analysis suggests that the netroots aren't really funding the Blue Dogs much at all, but are instead pumping millions of dollars into New Democrat coffers (they use the term New Democrat, not New Democratic). While the netroots are a higher percentage of Progressive fundraising, overall we give more money to New Democrats.
This situation is not ideal, but it is better than funneling millions into Blue Dog coffers. Although I don't have updated numbers, previous analysis has suggested that the New Democrats are almost precisely equidistant from the Blue Dogs and Progressives in terms of voting patterns, and very slightly to the right of the Democratic caucus overall. Given the disproportionate Act Blue donations to Progressive frosh compared to Blue Dogs frosh, overall this probably means that netroots money is being spent on keeping the ideological balance of the caucus roughly at the status quo. As such, it is not the disastrous situation I made it out to be yesterday, but it is still something that must be improved upon in 2010. Our money needs to be going to push the caucus to the left, not keep it where it currently is.
(Notes: Numbers taken from Open Secrets. Freshman fundraising totals can be seen here. ActBlue contribution totals can be seen here. Candidate self-financing not included in overall contribution totals. Current server troubles have prevented me from uploading the chart I made with all these numbers.)
During the final weeks of the presidential campaign, then Senator Obama had a high profile meeting with the Blue Dogs. After the meeting, the Blue Dogs made a patently false claim about their power. Even though it takes 218 votes to reach a majority in the House, the Blue Dogs claimed they were important because, with 49 members, they supposedly had the power to either block or clear legislation:
But the three could play a big role in the success or failure of the next president, one reason Obama took a break from campaigning last week to call each of them, among the leaders of the "Blue Dog Coalition," a group of conservative-leaning Democrats who are committed to balancing the federal budget. The group's 49 members already wield significant power in the House, and their ranks are expected to expand in the next Congress.
"He said he planned to be the next president and he wanted to work with us," Ross said in recounting his conversation with Obama before the House approved a $700 billion economic rescue package. "He also recognized that we had the numbers to block or clear" legislation coming from the White House if he is elected.
How could 49 members of the House claim that they have the power to "block or clear" legislation, even though it take 218 votes, or 169 more than the Blue Dogs possessed at the time, to actually block or clear legislation? There is only one answer: they will join with Republicans.
As David already discussed earlier today, President Obama has not yet met with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even though he has met with every other group in Congress (Blue Dogs, New Dems, House Republicans, etc). Some Progressive (capitalized because it signifies a member of the caucus, rather than just anyone who calls him or herself a progressive) are feeling slighted by this. I am going to chime in and agree with the general sentiment in the comments to David's post: rather than feeling slighted, Progressives need to start throwing more weight around so that such a meeting is required, rather than an act of politeness.
There are lots of ways that Progressives could be throwing their weight around, but are not. The most obvious current misuse of Progressive strength is the inability to maximize their, and our, strength among small donors. Progressives have enormous potential fundraising ability that can match the large donor and corporate PAC money other ideological caucuses and networks can provide to their members. This fundraising is a major reason why candidates join these groups, and progressives can do the same thing. Unfortunately, we don't use our networks as well as we should.
The blogosphere gets pretty angry at Blue Dogs and New Democrats on a regular basis. This isn't surprising since, according to the best information I have seen (some of which is not public) about 80% of the people who read progressive blogs and / or who are members of progressive email list organizations self-identify as either "liberal" or "progressive." However, from 2004-2008, and even in the excitement over the NY-20 special election next Tuesday where the Democrat has already declared himself to be a Blue Dog, I'd wager that a similar proportion of netroots congressional donations have gone to electing Blue Dogs and New Democrats (specific numbers are not available right now because the current caucus membership lists are not available). It is kind of a perverse cycle: we give huge amounts of money to Blue Dog and New Democratic candidates, and then we spend a huge amount of our time complaining about Blue Dog and New Democratic members of the House. We are funding our own complaints.
Just in case there was any doubt about which wing of the Democratic Party President Obama sides with, he put that to rest yesterday. While he has long resisted ideological labels, President Obama declared himself to be a New Democrat:
President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.
"I am a New Democrat," he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.
The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
It is worth noting that the Democratic Leadership Council and the New Democrat Coalition (their own phrasing is "Democrat," rather than "Democratic") are openly affiliated with each other. From the DLC's website:
The New Democrat Coalition was formed in 1997 by Congressmen Cal Dooley (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), and Tim Roemer (D-IN) to establish an ideological home in the U.S. House of Representatives for the New Democratic movement started by the Democratic Leadership Council in the late 1980's and led nationally by President Bill Clinton in the 1990's
Recently, when faced with losing their tax-exempt status for being a partisan political organization, the DLC claimed that "its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for--e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements--got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress."
The New Democrat Coalition was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (California), Jim Moran (Virginia) and Timothy J. Roemer (Indiana) as a congressional affiliate of the avowedly centrist Democratic Leadership Council, whose members, including former President Bill Clinton, call themselves "New Democrats." As of February 2005, the House New Democrats are chaired by Representative Ellen Tauscher (California), with Representatives Artur Davis (Alabama) and Ron Kind (Wisconsin) serving as co-chairs. Representative Adam Smith (Washington) serves as chair of the group's political action committee.
The Senate New Democrat Coalition was founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Evan Bayh (Indiana), Bob Graham (Florida), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), and Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas).
Check out a list of Senate New Democrat here. At some point, it would be nice if we had a serious contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination who wasn't in this group. With the exception of Howard Dean, who was once in the DLC, I believe, that hasn't happened since, oh, 1984. Nice.
So, there you have it, from President Obama's own mouth. He considers himself a "New Democrat," not a left-wing progressive. That is his labeling, not mine.
There seem to be only three instances where the New Democrats have made a public splash over the last six months: passing the $700 billion bailout, vowing to prevent too much regulation of the financial industry, and taking the industry's side in the current housing bankruptcy fight. The Wall Street connection between these three areas of policy is pretty obvious, and leads one to ask: do the New Democrats do anything, as a caucus, except funnel money to Wall Street and limit financial regulations? It is just a Wall Street protection racket?
Here are three thought experiments on the bankruptcy fight:
Representative Ellen Tauscher is bragging to Politico that the delay on the Help Families Dave Their Homes Act (for details on the bill, click here) is a show of strength from House moderates:
"It shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex," said California Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, who chairs the New Democrat Coalition and played a central role in negotiations over the bankruptcy bill.
First thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politico that delaying a bill is a show of political strength, then how exactly are we to know that you have good faith policy disagreements with the bill? Seems to me that once you start bragging about delaying legislation as a show of political power, any claim to good faith goes our the window.
The financial services industry and House Republicans are fighting back against a bill pushed by House Democrats that would empower bankruptcy judges to write down mortgage interest rates and principal.
The financial-services industry has vigorously opposed "cramdown" legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down the principal and interest payments on mortgages for primary residences. The industry says the bill, as written, is too broad and would allow homeowners to head to court before attempting to work out a modified mortgage with their lender.
Second thought experiment: what are the odds that the financial services industry and House Republicans actually have the public's best interests at heart in opposing this bill? What about their behavior over the last few years would lead one to such a conclusion? Given their track record, isn't it far more likely that they are trying to make themselves wealthier at the public's expense?
That prompted lawmakers, like Tauscher, to limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible, even though this measure is only loosely related to the president's broader proposal.
Third thought experiment: if you are bragging to the Politco about showing off political power, and if you are aligned with the financial services industry in their attempt to narrow the scope of the bill, then what are the odds that you are working on behalf of the public interest in this fight?
Thought experiment over--now, let's take some action. Firedoglake has a couple of great ways to make a difference on The Help Families Save Their Homes Act:
These are great tools that give you an easy way to make a difference, today. There is still time to sway minds on this one, as President Obama is sending is new Housing Secretary to talk to wayward Democrats on this matter tonight. Before that conversation, let members of Congress know there is popular support behind the President's plan.
The House vote on "cramdown" housing legislation, which allows bankruptcy judges to re-value mortgages according to current market prices, swill take place on Tuesday. In advance of the vote, The Center for Responsible Lending has a useful chart up showing that 800,000 homeowners, or 10% of all American homeowners facing foreclosure,. could be saved from foreclosure by "cramdown" legislation. Among the 86 congressional districts represented by either a New Democrat or a Blue Dog, 143,672 homeowners are projected to be saved from foreclosure by cramdown legislation.
143,672 is a pretty big number. It is such a large number that, if the legislation does not pass, it would be pretty easy for organizations like ACORN to find multiple families from all 86 of these congressional districts whose homes could have been saved by cramdown, but which instead were foreclosed upon. Once people find these local families, it would be pretty easy for organizations like Brave New Films could get them on camera, and get them to say something like this:
Last year, I lost my home. President Obama supported legislation that would have let hundreds of thousands of families like mine save their homes in bankruptcy court. Sadly, Congressman X voted with Wall Street banks instead. We lost our home, even though Congressman X could have saved it. So, in this year's Democratic primary, I am voting to kick Congressman X out of office.
Once these films are ready, it would be pretty easy for PACs like Accountability Now to turn them into ads, and to make sure those ads are seen on television. I'm sure that voting to foreclose on local families, at the behest of Wall Street and against the wishes of President Obama, would go over really well with Democratic primary voters around the country.
Just sayin'. Maybe this is something Democratic members of Congress should think about before voting against HR 1106 next week.
Still unclear as to who is pushing the delay: The culprit behind the delay can still be best described as "centrist Democrats" and "the financial services industry." As of this time, there are still few other specifics. I have heard second hand rumors that the New Democrats coordinated the delay in order to "flex some muscle." This would make sense, since the New Democrats have been public about feeling left out of the state of play in the House recently, and have indicated that they are going to target financial services regulations as a means of regaining influence. However, trying to get even more specific than "New Democrats" has been difficult, as the individual names I have heard behind the delay and water down effort are contradicted by my different sources.
On Ellen Tauscher: Two days ago, I asked Open Left readers to contact Representative Ellen Tauscher's office, urging her to stop listening to the financial services industry, and start listening to threatened homeowners. Her communications director contacted me today to point out that she voted in favor of the rule on HR 1106, which implies support. Also, I was told that Tauscher has not met with one member or representative of the financial services industry on this bill, but did work closely with the Judiciary committee which sent the bill to the House floor. In the extended entry, I provide a list of ways that her office indicated she was working to "strengthen" the bill, rather than "water it down."
A more complicated relationship: This week, on a couple of occasions, I have implied a crude, quid pro quo relationship between centrist Democrats and corporate PACs. The actual relationship, of course, is a bit more complicated. In particular, many centrist Dems simply see eye to eye with the corporate lobbyists who funnel PAC money their way, and no real arm twisting is needed. The corporate PACs are simply supporting like-minded individuals, many of whom have a background in the industry (such as Representative Tauscher, who worked on Wall Street). These Representatives are rarely working at the behest of the industries in question, and are instead simply working toward shared, usually pro-corporate goals on their own.
Durbin's slip-up: Yesterday, Senator Durbin , the sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, told a reporter that he was willing to water down the legislation so that it would only apply to sub-prime loans. While he might have been taken out of context, or simply been speaking in error, given the 60 vote threshold in the Senate it is likely that is what will happen to the legislation by the time it is delivered to President Obama's desk. Because of the current political climate, the goal of centrist Democrats and the banking industry is not actually to defeat the bill as they did in the past, but simply to narrow it and water it down. Depressingly, that effort is likely to succeed.
Obama administration to the rescue?: The best chance for keeping the legislation strong and applicable to as wide a range of homeowners as possible comes from the Obama administration itself. On Monday, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan will speak to House Democrats, and make a direct appeal for not narrowing or otherwise watering down the cram-down legislation. The administration does hold a lot of sway with congressional Democrats right now, and is riding high in the polls, so this appeal might just work. Let's hope so.
This bill is another test of the Obama administration's ability to sway center-right Democrats and Republicans. Unlike the stimulus, let's hope that no concessions are made without an actual promise of votes. Also, this vote should be a great test of whether or not members are voting with corporate interests, or with the interests of their constituents.
One of the key policies needed to solve the housing crisis will be mortgage "cram down" legislation. "Cram down," which is probably poorly named, will allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage payments to match current home values, rather than the inflated values of the housing bubble era (read more on "cram down" here). This legislation, introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI) in the House (HR 200), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Senate (S 61), will allow hundreds of thousands of people to stay in their homes at this critical juncture in our economy. It is supported by President Obama, andincluded as a principle in the administration's housing plan (see page 4).
Tomorrow, the House will vote on Representative Conyer's bankruptcy cram down. The whip count is unclear right now, but some Blue Dogs and New Democrats, including Melissa Bean (D-IL), Dennis Moore (D-KS), and New Democratic chair Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), are working on behalf of the financial services industry to water down the legislation. Tauscher in particular is problematic, both because of her leadership role in one of the ideological caucuses, and also because rumors are that she has organized up to two dozen members thus far. It is about time that Tauscher, and the Representatives she is organizing, stop listening to industry lobbyists who do not have the public interest in mind.
So, let's make Representative Tauscher listen to someone else right now. Contact Ellen Tauscher, and urge her to stop organizing other Democrats to water down HR 200. She needs to listen to honewoners, not to the financial industry that got us into this economic disaster:
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Not only is helping struggling homeowners the right thing to do, but if we don't turn the corner on the mortgage and economic crisis, then Democrats will find themselves in the same bad electoral position Republicans currently face.
Tauscher is key to this vote, and she can be influenced. After she was threatened by a primary challenge during much of 2007, her voting habits distinctly changed for the better. As such, if you are feeling cheeky enough, it might not hurt to mention that when you call.
Contact Representative Ellen Tauscher on HR 200!
Email form (California residents only)
D.C. office: 202.225.1880
Occupying a place roughly equidistant between the Blue Dogs and the Progressives, but slightly to the right of the House Democratic caucus as a whole, the New Democrats are an often overlooked third (and now fourth) ideological group within the House Democratic caucus as a whole. Ideologically speaking, the New Democrats are closely aligned with 1990's Clintonian policies, and the Democratic Leadership Council. Generally speaking, it is a corporatist group that is left-wing on cultural issues. Of any ideological group in either major political party, the New Democrats were consistently the staunchest supporters of the Wall Street bailout, for example.
Arguing against David Sirota, Nate Silver argues that voting in favor of the bailout was progressive, and opposing it was conservative:
Nevertheless, the vote may be interesting from the standpoint of figuring out where the different coalitions in the Congress stood. There is a notion, which I think is a misguided notion, that the proper "progressive" stance is to oppose the bailout. Occasionally, you'll come across an issue that splits the political spectrum literally down the middle, with the most progressive members and the most conservative members of the House uniting on one direction on a measure, and moderates in both parties taking the other stance. Is the bailout one such issue?
No, it isn't. On the contrary, this was a fairly conventional vote in which the more a Congressman tends to define themselves as liberal or progressive, the more likely they were to vote to extend the bailout. The Congressional Progressive Caucus voted in favor of continuing the bailout by a 49-15 margin; by contrast, the more conservative Blue Dog Democratic Caucus voted 27-17 to block the bailout. And nearly every Republican voted against the bailout.
The problem with these claims is that Nate only looks at one of the three bailout votes in the House, and the one that he admits was "entirely symbolic" at that. Further, he leaves out one of the three ideological caucuses: the moderate New Democrats who are affiliated with the DLC. Looking at all three votes and all three ideological caucuses, the picture becomes a lot more complicated.
STATE BLOGS
