Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon's 3rd District in Congress, including Portland, is known as a staunch progressive in the Democratic caucus. A canny, longtime legislator -- Blumenauer has been in office 14 years -- he made waves last week when The New York Times highlighted him as a Democrat who thinks cutting the budget is a good idea.
While the reporter, Matt Bai, was surprised that a progressive might take fiscal responsibility seriously, progressives have long talked about the importance of making sure public money is spent only on what we need. One correction later -- Blumenauer did not, as the Times suggested, refer to the Social Security Trust Fund as "make-believe money" -- the Prospect called the congressman in Oregon to talk about a progressive approach to budgeting and possibilities for the next Congress.
There was a lot of reaction to that article!
I was a bit taken aback by the headline ["One Liberal Voice Dares to Say, Cut the Budget"], which Matt didn't write. The fact is that Democrats have been at the forefront of trying to deal with spending money responsibly: Efforts to reform agricultural spending; trying to make adjustments to military spending; the huge waste that is represented by the Iraq War, which Americans now realize was a mistake. A centerpiece of the health-care reform is the capacity to deal with more value from Medicare and Medicaid spending, rather than just volume. Now, of course, Republicans are lining up against some of the provisions that would improve the value, the quality, and the cost of care. These are things that I have been working on all my career, and I think that is what most of my Democratic colleagues would feel comfortable with.
And yet Democrats are still considered to be the party of spending. Is it easier for Republicans to frame this debate, given their limited government preferences?
It's actually morphing into "no government." I'm serious. The debate used to be with Republicans about big government versus little government. Now, it's much smaller versus no government. These are people that cut away at the capacity of the federal government to oversee and regulate offshore drilling, agricultural inspections, having the capacity of the IRS to make sure that laws are being enforced fairly for everybody, this is stuff going over the edge. They're also protesting taxation with representation. It's breathtaking, and it would be amusing if they weren't serious. It's completely corrupted the discussion about legitimate policy decisions.
So how should Democrats address the budget?
We as Democrats have not spent as much time comprehensively dealing with the big picture, and that was most of what Matt and I were talking about. We are going to have to look at how we spend money differently, in defense and agriculture and infrastructure. I support putting more money in the highway trust fund for roads and transit. I really do think that we can do things to get a lot more value out of federal spending. We ought to avoid lots of little piecemeal decisions on the tax side of the equation. I'm a voice that hopes that as we move forward, we can take a deep breath and look at the range of federal policies that deal with taxation and not have a lot of little rifle shots.
That's a criticism we've heard about the tax report just out from the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. What did you think of that?
There's some stuff there that's a good start. This is an issue the president needs to own sooner rather than later. He's being demonized by the right wing, the people who are against taxation with representation. I just had breakfast this morning with a thoughtful, successful business person who had no clue that there were any tax cuts in the recovery package.
How come the administration has such a hard time telling people about these accomplishments?
They have been dealing with a tidal wave of events, from swine flu to BP to 100 million eggs or billion eggs, it's just one thing after another. In part, there has been a complete collapse of responsible Republican opposition. I'm a big boy, I've been in partisan politics all my life, but ... I've worked across party lines from the time I was a freshman legislator under a Republican governor. My lord! You saw people in the Senate voting against the deficit commission that they co-sponsored. I [proposed] the legislation [on end-of-life care] that Sarah Palin and others lied about, they called it "death panels," it was completely hijacked even though part of the reason I offered it was that it was something that Republicans and Democrats agreed on. I thought it was a building block for health-care reform. The administration has faced something that no president has faced in terms of unyielding, mindless, politically inspired opposition.
As you know, any time Social Security comes to the front of the debate, emotions run high. Do you think there are any politically feasible approaches to that issue?
Establishing a long-term adjustment to protect and strengthen Social Security is one of the easier parts of the equation. There will be a concern of people who do more demanding jobs [if raising the retirement age is on the table]. They're not going to work till they're 70, and we can [work that into the system]. There's recognition that particularly wealthier people should pay more. Why should I pay the same Social Security tax as A-Rod or Warren Buffet? You put those things together and let reasonable people talk about them, and I think you will come up with two or three approaches that not only would be accepted by Congress, they'd be accepted by the American public. And you would make sure that Social Security is there; particularly for most Americans it is the only guaranteed inflation-proof part of their retirement. We can drive a stake through the heart of the notion of privatization; we were right to fight it.
You're more confident than most!
I'd be surprised if this is something that isn't produced by the administration and Congress. What will kill it is that everyone is circling, and they want to hyper-politicize it, and they want to take the worst-case scenario they would imagine, and then they run with it to the extreme. Somehow you can't look at reduction in benefits for wealthy people 30 years from now without threatening retirement security for middle-income people in the next decade. Well, that's nonsense. But if everybody is going to have their worst case -- "if you raise the tax, it's going to be raised to some unacceptable level and shut down commerce and industry" -- everything's off the table and we lose a chance to move forward. Political opportunism and gridlock can win.
Do you think there's a chance that, with Republicans likely to gain more seats in the fall, we'll see them take more responsibility for bipartisan legislating?
I'm hopeful, but I'm not counting on it. One example of how bizarre it's gotten? At the same time that the [American Automobile Association], the truckers [and the Chamber of Commerce] are telling the [Transportation] Committee to raise the gas tax, all the Republican leadership and half the Republicans voted against the extension of the Transportation Act, because they wanted an amendment to make it impossible to raise the gas tax, ever. Looking at the debate and that vote is stunning. This is stuff that passes by unanimous consent. [During the Bush administration], they had to have 12 extensions of the last Surface Transportation Act. ... It passed overwhelmingly every time.
I'm hoping we can get past this election craziness, because it's not just what the public needs, it's what they expect. If my Republican friends make some gains and have a stronger position in the House and Senate and continue to be not playing nice, you look at the polls, the public regards them with more disdain than Democrats. The Republican brand is not helped by not being responsible.
