Time reports on the machinations behind tonight's vote on the bailout bill, which has been shoehorned into a Senate tax vote in order to let the upper chamber go first, and provide some more incentive for the House GOP to sign on to the deal. But it looks like the move could cost some Democratic votes:
The add-ons should help with Republican votes, but the tax extenders are unpopular with moderate, or so-called Blue Dog, Democrats, who are deficit hawks and have never liked that the estimated $100 billion extenders are only half paid for. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that she wants to see the GOP make up the shortfall of 12 votes by sending, in conjunction with her Senate colleague Harry Reid, a letter to President Bush outlining their intention to keep working to craft a truly bipartisan solution, in spite of the bitter feelings left over from Monday's debacle. Still, she may lose some Blue Dog votes by attaching the tax bill. And while House Majority Leader John Boehner green-lighted this newest legislation, his credibility on Capitol Hill isn't great after only 37% of his party conference followed his lead in supporting the bill Monday.
In related news, my piece from the latest print issue is now up on the Web site, and among other things it deals specifically with the Blue Dogs, who grew disproportionately in the ranks of the Democratic House in 2006 and are likely to do so again this year. While the bailout bill is a very different proposition than the kind of major legislative agenda we could expect from either Obama or McCain next year, and is complicated by election-year politics, it's a preview of some of the infighting we could see next year. Facing recession economics, it's going to be key for progressives to push Blue Dogs onto the larger Democratic agenda:
With a new president in office in January, expensive issues will be on the table, from health care to the crumbling economy. There will likely be debates reminiscent of the old 1990s fights between Blue Dogs and liberals as the party in power tries to set its agenda. Social issues may present the starkest contrast, but the biggest rifts in a future Democratic majority are likely to be over the budget.
...
Typically, conservative Democrats are budget hawks, demanding lower deficits and spending cuts; their signature rule, Pay-Go, demands that any new spending be paid for with cuts elsewhere. But deeper tension comes from the fact that many conservative Dems were inspired to run because of the economic hardship of their constituents -- [Blue Dog Representative] Shuler talks about aiding laid-off factory workers and paying down the deficit without noting the tension implicit in the two goals. This rhetoric is at odds with that of more left-leaning Democrats searching for a post-Bush economic consensus that large investment is needed to kick-start the economy and create universal health care while deficit reduction remains a long-term goal. It is possible that Blue Dogs will not fight against spending programs, or that Congress may find itself passing legislation that attempts to address these problems but doesn't go far enough. It is clear, though, that future conflicts could be more complicated than anachronistic battles between "tax and spend" liberals and conservative Democrats.
By most accounts, the increasing number of conservatives in the Democratic caucus is simply the price paid for the ability to set the agenda--they've made a big bed and now they have to lie in it together. But some on the left expect a more full-throated progressive party.
Read the whole thing!
-- Tim Fernholz
