Only fiscal conservatives would say we can't afford to reduce the deficit

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15876/only-fiscal-conservatives-would-say-that-we-cant-afford-to-reduce-the-deficit

Only fiscal conservatives would say we can't afford to reduce the deficit
by: Chris Bowers
Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 12:30


Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives. In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website. That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority.

Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:

CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period. (CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the legislation's potential impact on spending that is subject to future appropriation action.) In the decade after 2019, the bill would probably result in slight reductions in federal budget deficits.

Great! Reducing the deficit is what Blue Dogs are all about, right? This should be a slam dunk for them!

Not so much. More than half of the 52 Blue dogs are going to vote against the bill:

The number of Blue Dogs leaning toward or committed to "no" votes could be in the 30s, according to members, although Blue Dog leaders stress that they've done no whip count.

Why are they going to vote against the bill? Blue Dog Gene Taylor sums it up nicely:

"I've been spending a lot of time with my members who are kind of going from pillar to post saying, 'Look, we don't need this; we can't afford this,' " Taylor explained.

Truly, only fiscal conservatives like the Blue Dogs would argue that we can't afford to reduce the deficit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Don't you mean we can't afford to probably slightly reduce the deficit in 10 years.

[babylonsister]

2. $129B ain't chicken scratch. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. I was just clarifying what was actually in your post.

[The Magistrate]

4. Do You Want The Bill To Pass, Sir?

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Which version?

[The Magistrate]

6. Cute Will Get You Nowhere, Sir....

Do you want the Bill coming to the floor of the House today to pass?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Last I heard they weren't bringing anything to the floor today. I've been on the golf course.

Did something change?

[The Magistrate]

8. So That Is A No, Sir?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. How did you possibly come to that conclusion?

[The Magistrate]

14. The Refusal To Give A Straight Answer, Sir

The sort of pussy-footing about you have engaged in suggests you have a position but fear to disclose it explicitly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Heaven forbid someone get the facts before answering.

I personally don't think the house bill goes far enough but if this is the compromise that it takes to get passed then I support its passing. Is that explicit enough for you?

[The Magistrate]

16. You See, Sir? That Did Not Hurt At All, Did It? And You Could Have Said It Half An Hour Ago

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. No I couldn't I just got off the golf course and hadn't read anything.

[HughMoran]

9. There is a post that states otherwise

...at least it says we have 218 now - I'd assume that means we want to vote for it ASAP.

[The Magistrate]

10. Indeed, Sir: Giving These Wretches One Extra Second To Think Is A Bad Mistake

[HughMoran]

11. You know it

Got 218? VOTE NOW!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. There is a post that states what otherwise? The last I heard was last night.