No sooner had the electrons dried on my story about Mike McGinn and Jerry Brown than I read Matt Bai's piece in the New York Times about a Northwest liberal who is a fiscal conservative: Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Portland, Oregon.
Here's Bai's description of Blumenauer:
Mr. Blumenauer, a seven-term congressman from Portland, Ore., is nobody's idea of a centrist. Bow-tied and erudite in the manner of a prep school headmaster, he is known mostly as a champion of bicycle paths and light rail. (He bikes his way around both Washington and Portland and formed the Bicycle Caucus in the House.) The liberal League of Conservation Voters most recently gave him a perfect 100 rating, while the conservative National Taxpayers Union gave him an "F."
But Mr. Blumenauer sides with the White House on the notion that Democrats need to do something now about the federal debt, starting with cuts in wasteful federal spending (like some farm subsidies and military outlays) and with changes to cherished entitlement programs.
While the issues at hand are reforming Social Security and getting a grip on the national debt, it's more than about strict fiscal conservatism. Blumenauer is no almost-a-Republican Blue Dog Democrat, nor the reincarnation of Paul Tsongas. He's one of a relatively few truly progressive, green Dems who see that fiscal responsibility shouldn't be the province of people who don't believe in government, but the folks who believe that a leaner, more effective, more streamlined, more high-tech, government should be the goal. In other words, the people pushing reform and efficiency the hardest ought to be the ones who believe in active government.
Bai's story includes a great quote from the late U.S. Senator from Maine and onetime presidential and vice presidential candidate Edmund Muskie: "What's so damn liberal about wasting money?"
The larger issue Blumenauer raises is that getting reform is essential to moving the Democratic agenda forward:
Mr. Blumenauer argued that if Democrats really want to protect a vast array of federal programs from repeated Republican onslaughts, then they need to bring the costs of the programs in line with reality.
Otherwise, he said, liberals only make it easier for conservative critics of social spending to undermine the entire premise of liberal government. And they make it that much harder to propose new and much-needed investments in, say, infrastructure and education.
This is smart thinking at the state, county, and local level as well as national. The problem is, it takes guts to put into effect because it means bucking entrenched Democratic constituencies like labor. However, Blumenauer's worry is legit: If the people who believe in government can't run it well, it undermines the notion that there is anything such as "good" government, let alone affordable government.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email






Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 25, 11:53 p.m. Inappropriate
I just finished reading a chapter from Matthew Miller's "Tyranny of Dead Ideals" where he discusses the US level of taxation. Miller makes the argument that no matter who is in power that the effective tax rate will need to increase from its current 18.8 percent of GDP (2009) to somewhere between 22% and 27% of GDP. The high values of 27% is conditional upon health care costs remaining out of control.
The reason for this increase is effective due to the rising outlays required for Social Security and Medicare as the baby boomers retire. Miller relays a discussion with Republican David Walker, former comptroller general from 1998 to 2008, where he states that taxes will grow to 20 to 25 percent of GDP within 20 years, depending upon how "radical" we get about spending. Miller believes that the rate will be closer to 25% since we don't seem to be able to make the difficult spending cuts.
The Republicans though refuse to admit to the problem. Instead they passed the Bush tax-cuts and also added the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Miller relates this conversation with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a John McCain advisor:
"So why does tax cutting mania persist among Republicans, I asked Douglas Hotlz-Eakin, the McCain adviser--given that the impact can't be great at today's much lower tax rates, and that, as Holtz-Eakin himself explained to me, taxes will soon have to go up substantially in any event?
"It's the brand," he said. "And you don't dilute the brand."
Posted Thu, Aug 26, 8:24 a.m. Inappropriate
moss seems not to do well under prolonged sunlight. let me water it a bit.
e.g. the "war budget" of 750 billion plus 250 billion of supplementals and the black
holes for the 25 national "security" agencies of which the CIA is the best known one...
that one trillion generates a lot of circulation, it keeps a lot of contractors in business it builds a lot of things also in the u.s.'s 1000 foreign bases, it sops up the able bodied that would otherwise be unemployment
lines, who shop at p.x.s... it is the genius of the u.s. military industrial complex that it is anchoredvia pork and earmarks in every single congressional district 600 or so including
that of "bugdud" jim mcdermott, look closely at what he brings to his district,
in other words, that one trillion is a generator of circulation, and that seem to be
what counts, since unfortunately we do not live in the south seas where your currency
would be Katerina shells... however, the age old dire personalized fear of fisherman and field workers of being
in debt, of losing your nest egg drives the periodic hysteria about deficits...
especially in regions that still retain agricultural destitution in their bones,
e.g. seattle where cheap runs deep...
cheerios.
Posted Thu, Aug 26, 10:33 a.m. Inappropriate
Back in january, state Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) of Seattle addressed this very topic:
"It is time to shatter the myth that somehow the question of government spending, efficiency and reform belongs to conservative, anti-government folks who ideologically want to shrink the role of government in all areas of life without regard to value. But that myth will only be shattered if progressives make stronger cases for spending efficiency and reform.
"It is not anti government or conservative to encourage open, vigorous debate about the appropriate size, scale, scope and role of government. It is our public obligation as elected officials. And it is our responsibility to provide more rigorous oversight of the money spent in our state in the operation, capital, transportation budgets."
http://reuvencarlyle36.com/2010/01/10/a-progressive-approach-to-government-efficiency-and-reform-in-our-time/
Posted Mon, Aug 30, 1:16 p.m. Inappropriate
It's clear from the last administration that the Republicans aren't against big government -- they're against big Democratic government. They're happy sticking their noses into people's bedrooms and women's wombs, and funding defense projects. I think most U.S. citizens don't care whether it's big government or small government, as long as it's EFFECTIVE government. The story earlier this summer about billions being wasted on overlapping, non-transparent post-9/11 intelligence projects made my skin crawl. Blumenauer for President!