Kroog Versus The Blue Dogs

Paul Krugman's column today attempts to make sense of conservative House Democrats screaming about fiscal responsibility while trying to make sure health care reform is more expensive.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

So what do the Blue Dogs want?

Maybe they’re just being complete hypocrites. It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby.

One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr. Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers.

But I guess I’m not quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent. So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown some commitment to their party and its values.

Now, however, they face their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take the Obama presidency down with it.

Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find out.

And I for one don't understand the logic of why the Blue Dogs are going after the President. The base of the Democratic Party overwhelmingly wants serious health care reform. If the Blue Dogs scuttle the plan, people are going to remember. If your major claim to fame over the 111th Congress is "I stopped my constitents from getting health care reform" exactly who in the congressional district is gong to reward the Blue Dogs? Republican voters? Don't you think they're going to be voting for the Republican candidate? No matter how far a Democrat in a conservative leaning purple district tries to distance themselves from Obama, they're still going to be attacked for being a Democrat in 2010. And Democratic voters aren't going to be too forgiving, I think.

I however am far more cynical than Krugman. There's a segment of the Democratic party, both House and Senate, that do want to see Obama's agenda handcuffed. Some have no intention of losing their big post-Congressional lobbying gigs by burning their bridges on Big Pharma with millions of baby boomers hitting Medicare age. Some of the Blue Dogs probably do feel betrayed on cap-and-trade votes right now, and have no intention of going to bat for the President on health care. And some object on ideological/free market reasons.

We'll see, certainly. How much hardball is the White House willing to play?