By Robert Novak
April 18, 2007
Washington, DC
'Blue Dogs': A piece of accepted wisdom from Election 2006 is that dramatic Democratic success stemmed partly from their openness to running moderate and conservative candidates wherever it made sense. During the campaign, the party's leaders and primary voters evinced a willingness to abandon ideological purity, leading to Senate pickups in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Montana, and a governor's mansion in Arkansas.
- Nowhere was the non-ideological Democratic strategy more successful than in last year's House races, which saw Democrats
add 30 members to their caucus and elect Rep. Nancy Pelosi to
the post of House speaker. But a closer look at what has happened in
the first three and one-half months of this year's congressional
session shows Republicans can rarely expect help from these moderate
freshmen on
important votes. There are exceptions, but most of the Blue Dogs are
proving to be the same kind of "rubber stamps" that they criticized
their Republican opponents for being during the 2006 election.
- All of the freshman Democrats -- the supposed moderates, conservatives and liberals -- voted for the Iraq supplemental
that sets a timetable for withdrawal. Even Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.),
who went to the House floor and expressed
"disappointment" in his party leadership, bowed and voted "aye" when
pressed. Most of them voted for the $400-billion tax hike in
the Democratic budget blueprint, and several supported federal funding
on scientific experiments that kill "unwanted" human embryos from
fertility clinics.
- All of the "moderate" freshmen came to the aid of Democratic union allies on the two significant labor votes
this Congress. All opposed an amendment by Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.)
intended to speed up the stalled reconstruction of the Gulf
Coast after Hurricane Katrina by exempting federal contractors from
"prevailing wage" laws. They also all backed the "Employee Free
Choice Act," which would allow union lobbyists to take over workplaces
through a system known as "card check."
Congress
Earmark Reform: After claiming the moral high ground on ethics and passing a bill almost unanimously that requires transparency in earmarks, the Senate's Democratic leaders have a political problem. How can they abide by their promises of earmark reform without having to abide by them?
- Ever since the
infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska captured the public's
imagination last year, Democrats have been on record
against legislators' stealthily slipping in their favorite spending
projects. But most senators, from both parties, really want to keep
earmarks. An
ingenious effort to reconcile those conflicting political desires
created a remarkable tableau Tuesday in the U.S. Senate.
- First-term Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)
rose on the Senate floor shortly before noon to ask unanimous consent
for immediate
enactment of a rule requiring full disclosure of earmarks. But the
Democratic leadership was forewarned. Eleven minutes before DeMint took
the floor,
Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) Appropriations Committee
tried to pre-empt DeMint by announcing "an unprecedented policy of
transparency
and accountability." Byrd's reform would have no teeth, no enforcement
mechanism to prevent earmarks from slipping through. Moreover, it would
not affect any earmarks on direct spending bills, such as water and
transportation bills. It would not have prevented the "Bridge to
Nowhere."
- The fact is, no one had anything except earmarks to lose by adopting DeMint's rule change. Majority Whip Dick Durbin
(D-Ill.) objected to passage of the DeMint rule, offering the
excuse that the ethics bill would somehow be slowed down if an
important item
like the DeMint rule were implemented on a piecemeal basis. In fact,
senators covet their earmarks and fear passage of a rule change.
-
DeMint's insertion of the earmark rules into that bill was significant,
but it remains useless until a bill actually passes both Houses.
The ethics bill passed the Senate with the DeMint rule on January 16.
DeMint rejoiced at "the intent on both sides of the aisle to make sure
there is more disclosure." But the bill won't reach the House floor
until this summer, and there is no guarantee that the earmark provision
will
survive conference. Meanwhile, a water bill is already moving, and hit
has more then 800 earmark projects.
-
Senators of both parties like to be on record against earmarks while
still enjoying them. The problem is that DeMint and his fellow
Republican first-termer, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.),
just won't let the issue rest. Amid thundering silence from the GOP
leadership
after Durbin's objection, Coburn reminded the Senate that Congress does
not have a higher favorable rating than the President. "The reason we
don't," he added, "is the very reason we just saw."
-
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) heard a new
message from the new masters of Capitol Hill. CRS on February 22 issued
a directive that it "will no longer identify earmarks for individual
programs, activities, entities, or individuals." That deprives DeMint,
Coburn, and other reformers of their primary source of intelligence on
earmarks.
- DeMint first attempted to bring up his rule change on April 12 under unanimous consent. Freshman Sen. Bob Menendez
(D-N.J.), on duty for the Democratic leadership, objected. Menendez claimed, reporter John Stanton wrote in the
Roll Call newspaper, "that despite numerous news
stories and notifications from DeMint that he intended to seek the UC
[unanimous consent], Democrats had not been given adequate time to
review the proposed amendment." DeMint announced he would try again
Tuesday,
and he was not alone. Besides Coburn, he was joined by Republican
Senators Michael Enzi (Wyo.), Saxby Chambliss
(Ga.) and John Cornyn (Tex.). That gang of five might be called the Senate Republican reform caucus.
- That leaves the door open for earmarks on authorization bills, like the "Bridge to Nowhere." "So," Coburn told the
Senate after Durbin's objection, "we will play the same game but one step further back."
- This is no Democrat-vs.-Republican partisan struggle. The word in the Republican cloakroom was that a GOP senator would derail the DeMint rule if the Democrats did not. The Republican leadership is not enthralled with DeMint and Coburn, and would like them to go away. They won't. They are determined to reveal who sponsors and who benefits from earmarks.
Comments