A "Conservadem" Budget. Say Goodbye to Middle Class Tax Cuts, Health and Energy Reforms.

[TheBigotBasher]

Why elect a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency, if Democratic Senators will not stick to the programme that they were elected on? They were elected to help change America, on the back of Barack Obama. Get to it.

From the New York Times

WASHINGTON — Alarmed by rising deficit predictions, Congressional Democrats prepared Tuesday to pare spending in President Obama’s budget and limit some middle-class tax cuts even as Republicans stepped up their criticism of the plan as irresponsible.

The draft unveiled Tuesday by Senate Democrats reflected significant changes to Mr. Obama’s proposal. It drops his appeal to set aside money for future bank bailouts, provides only a temporary fix for a mandatory income tax increasingly hitting the middle class and leaves open-ended the handling of major health care and energy initiatives. Administration officials sought to play down any differences, saying they were satisfied with the emerging plans.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said the base proposal he would present saved $608 billion over five years compared with the president’s plan.

The difference comes mainly from scaling back efforts to rein in a mandatory minimum income tax that is creeping up on the middle class, dropping $250 billion for a new round of bank bailouts, and increasing spending on nonmilitary federal programs by 7 percent rather than the 10 percent proposed by the president for a savings of $160 billion.

The Democrats’ budget does not provide for Mr. Obama’s signature middle-class tax cut, called Making Work Pay, of $400 for individuals earning $75,000 and $800 for couples with incomes up to $150,000 after 2010.

“We show what our numbers would accommodate, and they would not accommodate Making Work Pay,” said Mr. Conrad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/politics/25budget.html?_r=1&sq=budget&st=Search&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1238001537-cz27sDoOAkNqsoMjEyvGqg

Grrr.

[DebbieCDC]

1. Fucking bastards

Kick them to the curb -- DINOs every one. I'm getting very close to picking up a pitchfork.....

[ejpoeta]

2. i really don't understand how NOW we are concerned about spending and the deficit.

where was that concern when we went into iraq? bush didn't even put the war spending for either afghanistan or iraq in the budget. i am curious as to the amount of bush's budgets with the missing war spending in it compared to what obama wants his budget to be. i think it's ridiculous. we need to deal with all these things obama wants to be dealing with. NOT kicking it down the road. it's bullshit!!!

[TheBigotBasher]

3. Contrast that with Nancy Pelosi.

Who is helping to deliver the agenda that the Democratic Party was elected for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8291543

I have increasing levels of respect for Nancy and much reduced levels of respect for the Senate.

[LSparkle]

4. Agreed ... The House is standing with us ... the Senate? Not so much so

I'm REALLY sick of Kent Conrad and his sudden "concern"
about the deficit. He and Evan Bayh and these other
turncoats had no problem with war spending and all of
RatBastard's other programs ... yet now that we have
the levers of power, they hesitate to spend for the
WORKING PEOPLE of this country! Taking out "Making
Work Pay" and eliminating the AMT fix ... yet what are
they doing about Bush's tax cuts? "Allowing them to
expire"???? WHY NOT CANCEL THOSE FUCKING CUTS NOW
IF YOU'RE SO WORRIED ABOUT RUNNING DEFICITS????

The AIG bonuses were just the spark ... Once you've
uncorked populist rage, it's not that easy to put
it back in the bottle. These "Conservadems" ought to
worry a little less about the deficit and a little
more about the working people of this country who are
getting tired of getting the shaft, EVEN FROM THOSE
OF THEIR OWN PARTY.

[Midwestern Democrat]

23. Many of the deficit hawks in the party have total tunnel vision when it

comes to deficit reduction - it's the end all/be all with them.

[Zodiak]

31. I second this

Pelosi was a major disappointment from 2006-2008, but these days she is doing a much better job.

I always knew the Senate had a den of DLCers who will ALWAYS ruin Democratic plans during critical moments. It is always the same 20 or so Democrats that trade-off their betrayals, and still we tolerate them because frankly, not many people are familiar with individual Senators and their voting records; they only see the D or R and vote accordingly.

That is changing, though...especially when people are needing help so badly and have to listen to "no" "no" "no" from the same assholes that enabled Bush at every turn. Fuck these conservadems!

[terisan]

19. You spent the money when you agreed to borrow to cover the Banks' Debt.

If the adminstration had presented the Budget first Congress would have been inclined to scale down the all the Bank Bailout plans and the PPIP.

I think Obama knows there will be significant compromises. There are already reports that we are having trouble raising money through borrowing.

Maybe it will all spark a true revolution.

[butterfly77]

43. Your right..

[kctim]

5. Just curious, but what

"programme" do you think moderate Democrats elected their "conservadems" on?

[TheBigotBasher]

7. The programme of Barack Obama.

Do you think that the American electorate gave the Democratic Party the House and Senate to work against the Democratic President?

[kctim]

12. Thats not how it works

A majority of the American electorate gave the Democratic party the House and Senate in 2006 because they believed their Democratic candidate would represent them better than one from another party. That majority grew a little in 2008, but still, it was based on being represented, which is the "programme" of the voters.

This American electorate gave the Democratic party the House and Senate to work for them by working WITH the Democratic President, President Obama. Representing the views of their constinuents is NOT working against President Obama, it is working with him.

You want to pass a totally "progressive" agenda? Get the voters who voted for moderate Democrats to vote for progressive Democrats. Until that happens, all must work together or risk putting the Republicans back in control.

[TheBigotBasher]

16. Better yet

Why don't the ConservaDems who want to dictate the Party agenda and who are already attempting to do the dirty work of the Republican Party run to lead the Party?

Simple. They will lose.

The Conservadems were elected to implement the programme of Barack Obama. Republican Senators were elected to block it.

If a Democratic House, Senate and President cannot deliver the reforms promised, because Representatives who were elected on a Party ticket decide to vote against it - then there is only one outcome.

Republicans will be re-elected.

Furthermore, if expansion of education, health care and "make work pay" is blocked or even further watered down, why should the poor vote in a Democratic ticket?

[kctim]

24. They must work with President Obama

But that does not mean they stop representing those who voted for them. What's the point in electing somebody to represent your views if they ignore your views once in Washington? Look at what happened when Republican reps stopped representing their constituents in order to implement the "programme" of Bush.

Why can't they work together and deliver the reforms promised in a way that respects the views of all Democrats? Treating it as an all or nothing game is why Republicans were given all the control in the first place.
I know it's impossible to please everyone, but the less pissed off moderates get, the less likely they are to re-elect Republicans.

Face it, progressives need moderates if they wish to stay in control.

[genna]

27. What does the demographic who voted for them look like?

Are they appreciably different those same voters who went for Obama?

I don't think most of these Senators are putting the interests of their districts first. I think they are looking to 1994 and trying to cover their ass out of fear.

If it is the right thing to do, they need to figure out how to sell it. Fear won't lead us away from the last 40 years of Republican control. The intervening years of Carter or Clinton did not take away the general Republican philosophy. They are buying into the b.s.

Because the left is criticizing the ConservaDems, now we all have to understand what a precarious position they are in. Well, the inaction of Congress has pushed our health care system in the wrong direction. The lack of will has allowed the environment to be a back burner issue for far too long. The desire for bigger contributions allowed deregulation to take our country to the brink of disaster.


Where was their courage when Bush ran us aground in these wars? They engage in 'friendly' fire when they have a Democratic President.

[kctim]

28. I would hope they learned from 1994

IF, those Senators are not putting the interests of their districts first, then their voters will let them know it by electing somebody who WILL represent their views. Not out of fear, but common sense.

The only way to "sell it," is to look at history. Hard left turns have caused moderate Dems to jerk back to the right, hard.

Judging by friends and the comments on here, progressives have no desire to understand or respect the moderates position and I firmly believe that is a mistake.

Where was their courage? They showed it on election day by voting for a Democrat to be President and that gives them the right to engage in so-called "friendly fire" to ensure their views are represented. The Republicans paid the price for ignoring moderates in 06 and 08, do Democrats wish to follow the same path?

[genna]

35. Tell me if I understand your perspective correctly:

Neither the left or the right matters as much as the moderate center.

The problem I have in what you are saying is the history I see is: Obama ran on this platform. He won election based on the ideas he's currently putting forward to Congress.


I guess I don't know what this means: "Judging by friends and the comments on here, progressives have no desire to understand or respect the moderates position and I firmly believe that is a mistake."


What does respect have to do with disagreeing firmly with the position ConservaDems put forward? Bayh has been asking for a 'moderate' label for conservative actions.

If his district sought to elect a conservative Democrat and he is keeping in line with that district's faith in conservative principles, more power to him. I don't think Bayh is cow towing to his district in forming a coalition of 8 to 15 Senators to oppose Obama. I believe Obama won his state on Obama's agenda. If Bayh is in opposition to the plank Obama won on, why did Bayh's district support Obama?

AS far as this: "They showed it on election day by voting for a Democrat to be President and that gives them the right to engage in so-called "friendly fire" to ensure their views are represented."

Who is they?

If we are talking about Bayh, Obama won his district.

[kctim]

37. Poor wording on my part

I'm not saying the left and right do not matter, but rather that they both need the moderate center to win at this point in time.

Yes, Obama ran on a platform and he won with that platform, but not all voters like everything about a candidates platform. Especially if actions to implement that platform go too far.

There is nothing wrong with firmly disagreeing with their position, in fact, such disagreement is vital to our form of govt. Respect comes in understanding that moderates will also firmly disagree with some progressive positions and working together is paramount to the Democratic partys success in staying in power.

Why did moderate Dems win districts that voted for Obama? Because Obama ran as a centrist and moderates were tired of Republicans.
In order to avoid a repeat of what happened to the Dems in 94 and the Republicans in 06, I believe Democrats should let the voters tell these "conservadems" that they need to get on board with President Obama.

By 'they," I mean the voters. The "conservadem" representitives speak for them and the voters control their actions.

[genna]

39. I read back through our back and forth to try to distill what we are actually disputing.

How do we measure voter support? How do we measure what issues the voters in Bayh's or the rest's districts used to vote?


In this democracy, don't we just use the results of that actual vote? I understand the polls are a stop gap measure for strategists to know where the American public is going since the last vote.



As for your moderate perspective, what unifying issues bring this moderate center together? Ideological outlines for the NEW DEMOCRAT perhaps? We can go back to the blueprint laid out by the DLC if we need those principles.

There is no coalition of NEW REPUBLICANS to work with, is there? Pennsylvania Arlen Specter was punked right after the bailout vote. For Republicans, he is TOO moderate. The Maine Senators are not going for the budget at all.

Who does the center right Democrats have to work with? Didn't Snowe cut out Education funding in the bailout vote because she thought it was too much? Didn't they force Pelosi's hand in the House because they didn't like these moderate Democratic parts? ...so who is this ideological center these voters are working with?

[kctim]

42. I'm not sure we can measure voter support simply by who they voted for

In a two-party system, we have to also look at where they stand on individual issues and who they ran against and where they stood.

I admit my "moderate perspective" may not be the case at all. I hold very extreme views and I have butted heads with moderates my entire political life. But, I am now 42 and have watched how ignoring moderates has cost both parties alot and we the people even more. I have watched my own family, die-hard Democrat farmers, switch and now vote Republican on the national stage and outright reject any local Democrat who was not moderate. They do this because their views are not as extreme as mine or as far left as Democrats in more urban areas.

There is no need for the Democratic party to go back to the DLC principles, they only have to understand that a large part of the party agrees with those principles. When moderate Democrats work with progressives, and vice versa, they can show how things are supposed to be done and the new Republicans you mention, will be the ones the voters elect to work with Democrats.

Wishful thinking on my part? Maybe. But I am old and tired of bouncing back and forth.

[genna]

41. Outlined Bayh's agenda

I think these principled stances are things that make me say Bayh what is your alternative?


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/26/bayhs-agenda/

Bayh’s claim that his group has no agenda is hard to believe. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal explained yesterday, the group’s “stated goal is to…protect business interests.” Even before the group was officially formed, their efforts dampened a number of progressive policy proposals and they clearly have aspirations to expand their portfolio:

– Shrinking Economic Recovery: The group’s first significant “success” was “paring down the more than $900 billion economic stimulus bill to $787 billion,” reducing the government’s ability to spur economic recovery quickly.

– Preserving The Bush Tax Cuts: Regarding Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.”

– Delaying Cap-and-Trade: Bayh coaltion member, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), explained that the group might “push for a more lenient phase-in period for a cap-and-trade system and revenue-raising offsets to pay for expensive mandates.”


All these stances remind me of the Congressional Republicans.

[kctim]

45. Those positions are right in line with moderate Dems I know

That is why I believe President Obama knows what he is doing and is going about this in such an intelligent way.
Do you fish? When you hook a fish, you take your time and you eventually end up with the desired outcome, but if you rush it, and start yanking and pulling, the desired outcome gets away.

[genna]

48. OK I get it

By accepting conservative Democrat's principled stances, Obama gives up his agenda. When he is hooked by these pragmatic plans, he writes off changing health care, jump starting our reliance on energy other than fossil fuels, and hands away the keys to banking regulation.

Everyone is bipartisan when they give away what is most important to them. Republicans stand to lose every gain they've made in 30 years because Obama is bold enough to push forward in a multi-layered agenda, so they say we'll create our own alternatives and appear to work with him. ConservaDems step in where Republicans left off because they believe the country has been going in the right direction too. Obama sits still biding his time and creating the opportunity to act?

By moving forward with their agenda, ConservaDems are slowing Obama down. Obama wants to be stymied? Those of us who voted for him don't really want a social safety net. We really want to spend more and get as little as we possibly can from the shrinking economy.

It makes perfect sense now. I don't know why it took me so long to put it together.

[kctim]

52. Gives up his agenda?

That is what he must do if one believes its all or nothing, now or never, which you apparently do.
So have at it and good luck. I mean, whats the worse that could happen by President Obama forcing his entire agenda on millions and millions of moderate voters? There is absolutely no way those voters could ever reject progressive policy and if they do, so what? Better for the President to fight against Republicans than to work with moderate Dems?

Yes, good luck with giving millions of voters a reason NOT to vote Democrat.
I'm sure it will all work out just fine.

[genna]

26. People look to the U.S. President to lead the government

It is for him to coral the herd of Congressional cats forward to pass his agenda. I understand the argument that each Congressional member gains office by representing their individual constituents' interest. It is the oversight of the President looking out for what is best for ALL the country that curbs excesses favorable to one district or one region.


If the Conservadems came out with a whole new bag of tricks, then this one man-one vote argument would hold water. If Obama didn't win alot of their districts FOR THEM, it would be fair game to say they know best. On the other hand, the agenda for the country changed when red states voted blue and new Senators came from those areas who would not have stood a chance BUT FOR OBAMA.


The program is what Obama ran on. He has not substantially deviated from what he campaigned on. If they have a problem with his program, why wait until he is reaching for that program to call foul? They had more than enough time during those 2 years when Obama was asking for support to tell him and the Democrats in their districts that Obama and the Democratic platform was not REALLY their cup of tea.


It seems to me they are trying to twist his arm because he does not owe them something in particular. If they would have lent him financial backers and did all they could to put him in office, they would have more to hold over his head. Since he did not use their formula in winning, the only way they can gain influence is highjack his agenda.


Maybe it is the way it works, but to say the game will change if we elect Progressive Senators and Representatives misses the game being played.

[kctim]

33. Valid points

But I believe local Democrats won because they were Democrats, not because Obama was running for President. The "Conservadems" are the ones who came from the red states which voted blue and they won or were going to win no matter which Democrat was going to be President.
That doesn't mean moderate Dems don't want Obama's platform, it just means they don't like parts of it and it will take time.

The only way to change the game being played is too change the players and the only way to change those players is by votes.

[genna]

36. Some DUers brought the breakdown for individual districts during the general campaign

If we look in the archives, I'm sure we can match up these ConservaDems you think won on their own versus the ones I think won because Obama tipped the scales.

Here in Georgia (one of the reddest of red states), Senator Chambliss almost lost his seat because of the massive Obama turnout. If Obama was not on the top of the ticket, there would have been NO run off election. If that happened in this red state, I know Indiana, Alaska, Missouri, and a few other states were won because of Obama.

[kctim]

38. You may be completely right

I cannot guess about Indiana or Alaska, but I am in Missouri and I can tell you without a doubt that Claire Mc. did not win because of Obama. She won because she was seen as the more moderate candidate, which is the better candidate here. I know a lot of people who voted for Claire and McCain. I also know many people who voted for Talent and Obama.

That's not to say Obama wasn't a factor in turnout either. I just don't believe 100%, unconditional support of his platform was the reason.

[genna]

40. I know something about Kansas City politics. While Claire McCaskill was Senator

Kansas City and St. Louis remained a great deal more liberal than Jefferson City or the Ozarks.

There is a great deal more of an outward display of religion and core self reliant principles in Kansas City than in Chicago or Indianapolis (maybe some local people there will say I'm wrong on that one).

McCaskill didn't have to hold her seat this time. I think she would have had less of a problem with Obama than her most recent in 2006.

For these people who would embrace Jim Talent's identification with the conservative wing of the Republican party---being particularly outspoken on judicial appointments, abortion, flag burning, and defense issues---how does Obama fill in those gaps?

St. Louis and Kansas City still have a problem with the number of voting machines in their districts, don't they?

[kctim]

44. Yes, the urban areas are more liberal

but that does not mean the less urban areas are Republican strongholds.

As an atheist, I don't notice an obscene outward display of religion in too many places. I know its there in places though.
Yes, we hold VERY self reliant principles :)

Claire may have had less of a problem with Obama also running, but I also don't believe she veered to far left to have gotten the moderates in a big enough tizzy to have voted against her. Voters will soon let her know if they think she is working with Obama in the way they desire.

RE Obama and Talent, I believe Obama filled those gaps by NOT running as a die-hard progressive and by also being a change of pace. I asked a good friend of mine how he could vote for Talent and then vote for Obama and he said, "what do I have to lose?"

I heard about long lines and some places not having enough voting machines, but can't recall anything major playing out in KC.

[nykym]

6. I guess our response

should be "Making Conservadems Pay" you want to get re-elected stop the bullshit.

[high density]

8. Who are all these idiots who are suddenly against tax cuts?

This is bizzaro world. In addition this article goes in the face of earlier AP reporting that said the Congressional budget had "marginal changes" but "largely mirror" Obama's goals.

[TheBigotBasher]

10. The House will deliver the goods.

The Senate; not so much.

[FormerDittoHead]

30. If they're not for the RICH, they won't generate JOBS!

Or some fucking bullshit like that.



.

[acmavm]

46. They're against MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN tax cuts.

The wealthy, why we can't shovel money their way fast enough.

[mvd]

51. Where..

were they when Bush was pResident? Forming groups in opposition? No. Leading the charge against his policies? No. In fact, they'd give Bush some victories he should have never had.

[redqueen]

9. It's the other golden rule at work...

he who has the gold makes the rules.

There's a nice link in my sig file about these kinds of Democrats... provides names, contact info and everything.

[Thrill]

11. This is why they don't stay in power long

[Thrill]

13. Just saw Bernie Sanders at the Budget meeting on CSPAN. Going to bat for Obama

Saying Obama is only doing what he promised. And people better get behind it

[Cha]

21. That's nice 'cause Obama is the one who

got elected Prez not some two bit blue nosed dog from Indiana.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. if only we had 60 people like Bernie Sanders in the Senate

And not treasonous bastards like Evan W. Bayh. :puke:

[Jennicut]

14. Their asses better get in line or they are gone.

[Undercurrent]

15. Veto.

.

[mvd]

50. Yes

That would show he can also say no to these "Dems."

[terisan]

17. People, if you give the Bankers !00 cents on the Dollar before you present the Budget, you had to

have known that your priorities are going to have to,- as they now say in government,- take a haircut' on account of "we all have some skin in this game"--except for the Bankers.

So my question to those who are angry is "why did you agree to borrow the money to support the Bankers in style?" and why did you agree to present the case for the Bankers first and present the People's case second (after such big sums were committed) ?

[terisan]

18. Did you not understand that when you applauded the Bank giveaway your programs would be cut to

keep down the borrowing.

We are having trouble selling our paper already.

Also there is a third world that is hurting and scared that the US will suck up all the investment money out there , leaving them even more impoverished.

[ShortnFiery]

20. I was against the bank bail-out from day one. The BANKS received our Middle Class Tax Cuts

We can thank the rulers on Wall Street and in The Pentagon for keeping the populace DIRT POOR.

[terisan]

22. Glad you mentioned the Pentagon--hard to believe I had forgotten what they suck up.

[Zodiak]

34. It's mentioned in the article

Only non-military spending will be frozen by these DINOs. Apparently imperialism can still have its adjustment for inflation.

[uponit7771]

25. What does "...leaves open-ended the handling of major health care ..." mean?!

...does that mean they've taken it out?!!?!

[Zodiak]

32. Yup...punting it

In other words, doing absolutely nothing.

And that is a real problem, because it will need 60 votes if it is not included in the budget (only a reconciliation can be forced to a simply majority in the Senate). They know that if we "punt" these issues down the road, they will NEVER get fixed due to Republican filibustering and Obama's Presidency will be deemed a failure.

Then Bayh can run for President and the corporations can continue raping the American people.

Trust me, the betrayal of these Senators is timed perfectly to do the most damage to Obama and to progressives in general (and by extension, the American people). They are foul traitors, and we need to stop excusing the presence of moles in our party.

[depakid]

47. Pretty much the same set of folks who voted for Bush's tax cuts for the uber wealthy

or would have voted for them had they been there.

[mvd]

49. The only thing I agree with is the bank bailout reduction

Obama should challenge these "Dems" more on the other stuff. And Reid is totally in with these "Dems" IMO.

[espritjoie]

53. Sign this petition to get the Conservadems removed!!!

I have a petition that I started after learning about the Conservadems goals to thwart President Obama and those of us who support him and his goals! Has there been an uprising? A rush to the streets? No this isn't France! Millions of phone calls or petitions? No we aren't there yet! I have 380 signatures .... We have millions and millions of people suffering and we have yet to get desperate enough to see the light as a country! How do we inspire our country to move? Does it take a complete collapse?

[Abq_Sarah]

56. I don't think the so-called moderate democrats

Give a flying leap what a bunch of people who don't live in their districts think about their voting choices.

[espritjoie]

54. Sign this petition to try to remove the Conservadems!

I have a petition that I started after learning about the Conservadems goals to thwart President Obama and those of us who support him and his goals! Has there been an uprising? A rush to the streets? No this isn't France! Millions of phone calls or petitions? No we aren't there yet! I have 380 signatures .... We have millions and millions of people suffering and we have yet to get desperate enough to see the light as a country! How do we inspire our country to move? Does it take a complete collapse?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/conservadems-you-should-be-replaced

[Abq_Sarah]

55. Welcome to the world of politics

First, only 35 Senators were elected last year. That kind of puts a crimp in the "They were elected to serve President Obama" theory. 36 Senators will be up for election in 2010. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure they aren't all from solidly blue states. They, like their fellow senators are interested in one thing. Getting reelected. They've all got their fingers in the wind gauging public reaction to the bills coming out of the congress. None of them are going to fall on their sword to support legislation that is not expected to be extremely popular in their states.

Believe it or not, many of us are concerned with huge out of control deficits just like we were when Bush was in office. These programs MUST be paid for and we can't keep printing money and pretending that's the solution to all our problems. President Obama will get some of what he wants but not all. That again, is the reality of politics. He may have to wait until 2010, 2012, or 2014 to advance his agenda, depending on how the political winds are blowing and I know he realizes this.