Paul Krugman - Explodes The Popular Myth That Blue Dogs Are Fiscally Conservative

[TomCADem]

Here is an excellent article by Paul Krugman that undermines the popular media characterization of blue dogs as fiscally conservative. Of course, the status quo is hardly fiscally conservative, since 16% of GDP goes to healthcare costs, and the U.S. pays close $7,000 per capita annually in healthcare costs, which is far greater than the next closest nation.

However, Krugman really nails the blue dogs on their demands, which would seriously explode the deficit and increase healthcare costs. Where's the fiscal conservatism?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1

###

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

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.

###

[rurallib]

1. better called Blue Cross Dems

[TheCoxwain]

2. Rec.

[Meshuga]

4. I wish that name stuck n/t

[BigBearJohn]

8. OH MY GOD...!!! I hope that name sticks. PHEW It's a winner.

BLUE CROSS DEMOCRATS


ha!!!!! I LOVE IT.

[democracy1st]

3. K & R

[AzDar]

5. K & R

:kick:

[AllentownJake]

6. I love Paul

:loveya:

[TomCADem]

7. Every Story In The Media Calls The Bluedogs "Fiscal Conservatives"

When they are not lifting a finger to change the status quo, which has 16% of our GDP going to healthcare costs and close to $7,000 per capita being devoted to healthcare costs. Worse, as Paul Krugman notes, the blue dogs complaints are incoherent and are liable to increase healthcare costs.

[depakid]

9. They also call these corrupt, right wing ideologues "moderates" or "centrists"

which they surely are not.

[TomCADem]

10. Moving The Goal Posts - If Blue Dogs Are Centrists/Moderates, Than President Obama is Radical Left..

You just have to love the way the "liberal" media frames the debate.

:sarcasm:

[depakid]

12. Obama actually is center right on many issues- but that's a objective description

based on rational views of political leanings. To the reactionary elements (who are catered to by the corporate media in the states) that makes him a dangerous radical.

[Vidar]

11. K&R.