The Myth of the Blue Dogs
President Bush: Beware

By Michael Catanzaro, a reporter for Robert Novak
March 30, 2001 9:30 a.m.

fter wrapping up his inaugural address, President Bush wondered which Democrats in the closely divided Congress would support his economic program. How about the House Blue Dogs, a coalition of 33 self-described "moderate to conservative Democrats?" Sure thing, he figured. They are independent and "fiscally conservative," and thus would easily back a modest $1.6 trillion tax cut.

Oh, how wrong Bush was. The Blue Dogs, with few exceptions, derided the tax cut as imprudent and irresponsible. They mostly predicated their opposition on procedural grounds. Passing a tax cut before completing a budget was "risky," even to energize an ailing economy.

This curious little position helped obscure an underlying Blue Dog reality: They are not fiscal conservatives. A fiscal conservative is someone who consistently supports reducing the overall size of government, principally by cutting taxes. The Blue Dogs, however, vote against that principle as a matter of course. In truth, these dogs are more pink than blue.

Blue Dogs began as Southern Democrats who, according to their cochairman Charlie Stenholm (D., Tex.), have been "choked nigh unto death from the right and from the left." They happily regard themselves as "bridge-builders" and "common-sense" politicians. Yet over time they have morphed into something indistinguishable from the Progressive Caucus. Since 1994, the Blue Dogs have expanded their ranks to include such vaunted economic conservatives as Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), Jane Harman (Calif.), and Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.). "We look more like the country, and that's good," said Blue Dog Ellen Tauscher (Calif.).

The fatuousness of their claim to fiscal conservatism was manifest in the recent vote overturning Clinton's midnight ergonomics rule. Private analysts estimated its cost to American businesses at nearly $100 billion. Voting to rescind it was a cinch for fiscal conservatives. Yet only 11 out of 33 Blue Dogs voted the right way. The supposedly pro-business Tauscher voted against it, as did "moderates" Jane Harman, Mike Ross (Ark.) and Jim Matheson (Utah.).

Blue Dogs also value their independence. But they sounded like leadership attack dogs in opposing Bush's marginal tax-rate cuts. True to form, their rhetoric nearly mirrored Dick Gephardt's. "I lived through that experience [the 1980s] where we allowed ourselves to believe words that sounded too good to be true," Stenholm warned. In his response with Tom Daschle to Bush's State of the Union address, Gephardt said, "If what the president said tonight sounded too good to be true, it probably is."

"We need to make sure there will be resources to address other priorities," said a Blue Dog statement, "particularly strengthening Social Security and Medicare, before a tax cut." Now Gephardt: "His [Bush's] plan fails to set aside the resources Social Security and Medicare will need in the future and uses them instead to pay for a tax cut."

The Blue Dog image and ethic is reinforced by the media. The newspaper The Hill described them as a group of "fiscally conservative Democrats." The Blue Dogs, according to the New York Times, are "a group that takes pride in their fiscal conservatism." Gannett News called them "33 House members who often vote with the GOP on budget issues" and referred to Stenholm as "someone who frequently crosses the aisle and votes with Republicans."

Stenholm's independent streak wasn't manifest in 1993 when he voted for Clinton's $300 billion tax increase, the largest in American history. In fact, not much has changed since. That goes for his fellow pups who vote like old-fashioned liberals rather than economic conservatives.

According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union, 27 Blue Dogs received a "D" grade or worse for 2000. Harold Ford, Allen Boyd (Fla.), Jim Turner (Tex.), Mike Thompson (Calif.), Baron Hill (Ind.), and Tim Holden (Pa.) all got "Fs." Overall, according to NTU's Pete Sepp, the group's voting average hovered in the low 40s. An average of 79 or better is generally considered the cutoff between fiscal conservatives and everyone else.

On the nonpartisan Americans for Tax Reform index, only three members scored 60 or better in 2000: Ralph Hall (Tex.) with 85, Ken Lucas (Ky.) with 70, and Ronnie Shows (Miss.) with 60. An acceptable voting average, i.e. one getting a member of Congress a "Friend of the Taxpayer Award," is 85 percent.

Some notable lows include Tauscher with an abysmal 35, Stenholm and Ford with 20, and Holden achieving a whopping 5. Even Gene Taylor (Miss.), who voted for all four articles of impeachment against Clinton, scored a 42.5.

It could be that Blue Dogs are confused about what fiscal conservatism is. "We were fiscally conservative before it was trendy," boasted a spokesman for Blue Dog co-chairman Allen Boyd. Yet according to Boyd himself, his priority is austerity economics. "Debt reduction is at the top of our list," he said.

But the contradiction between their rhetoric and votes is deliberate, said Grover Norquist, president of ATR. Blue Dogs "are not conservative or moderate Democrats. They are Democrats in conservative and moderate districts."

Blue Dogs have outsized influence in a narrowly divided Congress. "If [White House officials] want anything to get done, they're going to have to deal with us," said Max Sandlin of Texas (NTU rating: D, ATR rating: 45). But Bush should beware of the Blue Dogs. With the exception of Ralph Hall and a few others, he should commit them to the pound.