I remember quite clearly a very honest discussion I had with a Member of Congress at an event about six months before the 2008 mid-term elections. I’ve known this person for a few years and I remarked that it looked like the Democratic Party was poised to make significant gains in the House in the 2008 elections. I thought this person would be thrilled. But, this person was not because s/he worried that the new Democratic members would be far more conservative–hailing from "swing districts"–and would keep pushing the very policies of the so-called "free market" that have done so much damaged to people.

   I thought about that conversation reading through the press today. First, The Wall Street Journal which had a piece about the stranglehold that the so-called "Blue Dogs" had on health care reform:

So-called Blue Dog Democrats continued to resist key aspects of their party’s health-care overhaul Sunday, despite pressure from party leaders who fear they will endanger President Barack Obama’s most ambitious legislative effort.

A leader of the fiscally conservative group of representatives said he expects any vote on the House’s health proposal would have to wait, likely until after Labor Day. "I think the American people want to take a closer look at this legislation. They want to feel more comfortable with it," Rep. Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog from Tennessee, said on CBS’s "Face the Nation."

   And…

Blue Dogs have emerged as pivotal players in the national health-care debate, a swing group that the White House is wooing more intensely to keep its initiative on track. The group, which accounts for about one-fifth of House Democrats, wants to make sure the health-care plan isn’t too expensive for small businesses and hopes to keep the government’s costs down. They don’t want private health insurers to compete with a federally funded plan, and seek to reduce the share of lower-income Americans who would receive health-care subsidies. [emphasis added]

   The article does articulate the fear of my friend the Congressmember:

Hungry to retake Congress, Democrats actively recruited moderate candidates in conservative districts. The strategy was strikingly successful in recapturing the majority. But now the Democrats are learning the price as they try to enact their agenda.

   Well, you can be outraged about caving into the Blue Dogs. But, they also don’t make sense on the merits, as Paul Krugman correctly points out:

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

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.

   In other words, if this is about saving money, the Blue Dogs position is like a pile of crap (being from New York City "dogs" and "pile of crap" seem to have a natural connection). Putting aside for the moment that single-payer is the only solution that makes economic sense, the position of the Blue Dogs, as Krugman points out, is the most irresponsible fiscal solution.

   So, why are they taking that position. Krugman ventures a guess:

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. [emphasis added]

   Nicely said. Elected representatives working in the interests of corporate special interests. What a surprise.