Blue Dogs Acting Like Lap Dogs on Spending

How are the Blue Dogs doing in Congress in terms of trimming spending and making sure that huge liberal/progressive majorities do not run roughshod over personal liberty?

There are 51 congressmen who identify themselves as Blue Dogs, including Oklahoma Second District Rep. Dan Boren. (How do I know this? They have a website. ) They claim they've “been particularly active on fiscal issues, relentlessly pursuing a balanced budget and then protecting that achievement from politically popular ‘raids’ on the budget.” This "relentless pursuit" sounds more like Don Quixote than Lexus, don't you think, considering we've had the Porkulus, Son of Porkulus and Obama's $3.7 trillion budget since the new term began in January.

Since many of these Blue Dogs asked for our votes in 2006 and 2008 based on the claim that they could more effectively represent our values by working within the Democratic Party majority than the Republican incumbents they replaced, it only makes sense that we should hold them accountable for their votes.

Michael G. Franc, vice-president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, examined the nine major votes in the House that dealt with the release of the second half of the TARP funds, the expansion of SCHIP, the economic-stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill, the expansion of government funding for volunteer activities, and the FY2010 budget. He used Rep. Barney Frank as the big spending measuring stick; each one of Frank's votes was for greater spending. (Frank missed one vote, so Rep. Barbara Lee of California was the substitute vote for big spending.)

Using this Big Government Scale of Spending, how did the Blue Dogs stack up?

-- 11 Blue Dogs voted 100 percent with Barney.

-- 10 voted with Barney 8 out of 9 times.

-- 11 voted with Barney 7 out of 9 times.

-- 6 voted with Barney 6 out of 9 times.

If you're keeping score, a whopping 38 of 51 of these "fiscally conservative" Blue Dogs voted with the big spenders on 67 percent or more of these bills. That's 75 percent of the Blue Dogs.

That's not Blue Dog fiscal conservatism. That's pathetic yellow lap-dog behavior.

It gets worse. Only six Blue Dogs voted against the spending on more than half of the 9 bills, and four of those were freshmen congressmen, which means they will probably cave in to pressure from the liberal establishment in another year or so. Who are the true Blue Dogs? They are Bobby Bright (Ala.), Parker Griffith (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho), Colin Peterson (Minn.), and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

Okay, you've been waiting for it: How did fearless Dan Boren fare?

Our intrepid budget battler voted with Barney Frank on six of the nine spending bills. Yes, indeedy! He claims to be one of us, but he's sure looking like one of them!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you should always trust a Republican over a Democrat, or that Blue Dogs can't do good work. Big spending is as big spending does. A politician who won't put principle over party is valuable to the party but not to the American republic.

It's time We the People (WTP) quit voting by party and starting really quizzing candidates about what they really believe. Any candidate who merely claims that "I'm with you fellers" isn't worth a spit, and flag-waving allegiance to the Second Amendment alone isn't going to be much help when the government takes control of major portions of our economy because we spent the dollar into oblivion.

There are big votes coming up this year, earth-shattering pieces of legislation that effect energy, health care, farming, transportation, and without exception they are all designed to decrease our freedom and increase our cost of living. Even if the Blue Dogs rally in opposition it is not likely they can stop the Progressive Express from radically changing our nation.

At this point, given their performance so far, I'm not sure they should even save their jobs.