Topic: Government and Politics

Whatever Happened to the Blue Dog Democrats?

Remember the Blue Dog Democrats? They were the fiscally conservative Democrats from Southern and Western and rural districts who weren’t going to go along with the big-spending leadership of their party. They’ve gotten a lot of attention, especially after a lot of new Blue Dogs were elected in 2006, helping to give the Democrats a majority in the House.

But where are they now? After eight years of unprecedented profligacy, with a trillion-dollar increase in federal spending, and in the face of both trillion-dollar deficits and unimaginably large long-term fiscal imbalances, the House is just about to vote to spend $825 billion that the government doesn’t have. Will any Blue Dogs vote no? Will any Blue Dogs live up to their campaign rhetoric about fiscal conservatism?

Don’t bet on it.

Their record isn’t as good as they’d like you to believe. John Fund pointed out back in 2005 that they were not supporting any Republican efforts to limit spending. But maybe that was just because the Republicans didn’t try to work with them. Fair enough. Now they’re part of the Democratic majority. And apparently they’re satisfied with vague promises from the Obama administration that after we spend all this money, we’ll get back to fiscal responsibility. (Lord, make me chaste, but not just yet.)

Blue Dogs supported fiscal responsibility at some vague point in the misty past, and they will strongly support fiscal responsibility at some vague point in the future, but right now they’re going to vote to put their constituents another $825 billion in debt.

Their members range from Rep. Mike Arcuri of New York to Rep. Charlie Wilson of Ohio, and include the newly promoted Kirsten Gillibrand. If you seek their monument, look around you.

UPDATE: By my colleague Tad DeHaven’s count, 37 out of 43 “Blue Dogs” voted for the spending bill that will probably end up costing about $900 billion. Congratulations to actual Blue Dogs Allen Boyd, Jim Cooper, Brad Ellsworth, Collin Peterson, Heath Shuler, and Gene Taylor.

Economists against the Stimulus

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” – contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package. Of course, many economists don’t like to sign joint statements, so this is only a fraction of stimulus opponents in the profession. Greg Mankiw pointed to a few noted skeptics last week:

In a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following:

Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.

That statement is clearly false. As I have documented on this blog in recent weeks, skeptics about a spending stimulus include quite a few well-known economists, such as (in alphabetical order) Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales–and I am sure there many others as well. Regardless of whether one agrees with them on the merits of the case, it is hard to dispute that this list is pretty impressive, as judged by the standard objective criteria by which economists evaluate one another. If any university managed to hire all of them, it would immediately have a top ranked economics department.

And of course Mankiw’s list isn’t comprehensive. There’s also former Treasury economist Bruce Bartlett, former Yale professor Philip Levy, former Ohio State and Federal Reserve economist Alan Viard, Russell Roberts of George Mason, and many more. Under the current circumstances, plenty of economists are endorsing large fiscal stimulus programs. But it’s just not correct to claim that there’s any consensus or that “every economist … from conservative to liberal” supports the kind of massive spending program that the Obama-Biden administration has proposed.

UPDATE: Martin Feldstein, whose support last October for a fiscal stimulus is the reed upon which journalists justify their claims about “economists across the political spectrum,” now calls this stimulus bill “an $800 billion mistake.”

Obama’s So-Called Stimulus Scheme: Good for Government, Bad for the Economy

After eight years of higher spending and more intervention, some of us were hoping for change. Unfortunately, President Obama apparently wants to be George Bush on steroids. I explained in a previous video (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/12/15/are-we-all-keynesians-now/) why Keynesian economics was misguided. The much-anticipated sequel is now available for your viewing pleasure.

This new video looks at the details of Obama’s $825 billion plan to make America more like France. At the risk of spoiling the conclusion, there is no reason to think that big government will work any better for Obama than it did for Bush.

Obama’s Constitution

At the beginning of his inaugural address, President Obama observed that

“America has carried on, not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.” [my italics]

Although Obama had taught constitutional law for 12 years, the rest of his address raises a question whether he has ever read the Constitution. For he spells out his vision by committing his administration to a wide range of activities for which there is little or no authority in the Constitution.

“We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”

Moreover, he asserts, our government should be judged by “whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified,” not by such “stale political arguments” as whether the policies that might generate these outcomes are constitutional and generate benefits higher than the costs.

Nor are the commitments of his administration to be limited to those of greatest concern to Americans.

“To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow, to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”

“What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world.”

President Obama is intelligent and charming –- but not wise. The Constitution only authorizes the president to be the chief executive of the federal government and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, ample challenges to the most skilled person, but the president is not the sole leader of the federal government, the American nation, or the free world. Based on his inaugural address, President Obama has no apparent sense of the limits of what he can and should do –- and that will reduce his effectiveness in addressing those issues within his clear authority.

Little Hope for Change on Judges Until the Judiciary Stops Legislating

In a recent editorial, the Washington Post issued a “hope for improvements” from the vitriol, partisan rancor, and blocking of qualified candidates that has increasingly dominated nominations to the federal bench.  Don’t hold your breath; this is one hope that will not inspire change during the course of the Obama administration.

No, the poisoning of the judicial appointment process won’t end till courts stop acting as policymakers, finding powers in the Constitution that aren’t there and limiting rights that are.  Thus the problem with judicial nominations has less to do with cynical politicians and embittered ideologues than it does with a ”living Constitution” that has been stretched over the years beyond any Founder’s recognition.  In failing to enforce the constraints on federal powers – and to protect the rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment (along with those covered by the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges or immunities clause, to name but the most maligned) – what Alexander Hamilton called the “least dangerous branch” has devolved into a disfunctional policymaking body that understandably attracts political passions. As various parties wrestle to direct the government’s expanded powers in their favor constituents, as my boss Roger Pilon wrote in 2002, “everything is politics, nothing is law.”

Until we reset the balances of power among the branches and the government again abides by its constitutional parameters, I’m afraid that the partisanship and politics of personal destruction surrounding judicial nominations will continue unabated – to the detriment of the nominees, the judiciary, and the country.  When so much is at stake, it can be no other way.  (You might as well ask elections to be less partisan or otherwise heated.)

But the Post’s editorial is on the right track about one thing: the failure of Republicans to define the word “extremist” when speaking of likely Obama judicial nominees.  Democrats and their hard Left brethren were so unsuccesful in blocking John Roberts and Samuel Alito in large part because they had cried bigot about practically every previous lower-court nominee.  Instead, let’s define what is unacceptable practically and establish an objective standard for judicial nominees from the new administration.  Then it will only be a matter of measuring the degree of support or opposition when analyzing each one’s record.  I suggest the following: “An extremist judge is someone who puts policy views over the text of the law as written, someone whose record shows a propensity for rewriting statutes or the Constitution.”

If you don’t like the result you get when following the law or the Constitution, change the law or amend the Constitution. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said when asked whether he would be doing justice on the Supreme Court, “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”