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.