One of the prices that the Democrats pay for having conservative chairmen of important committees is that it makes it even harder to accomplish progressive reforms. It’s a problem that Max Baucus (D-MT) is the chair of the all-powerful Finance Committee, and it’s a problem that Kent Conrad (D-ND) is the chair of the Budget Committee. Sen. Conrad isn’t interested in passing Obama’s budget.
“Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,” Conrad said…
…Conrad joined Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in criticizing the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal for not doing enough to counterbalance increases in energy costs that will be felt by consumers and companies, especially those in energy states such as North Dakota.
Conrad said that it would be a “distant hope” to expect the climate change plan to pass unless it includes help for industries that would be hit hard by limits on carbon emission production.
The North Dakota Democrat also knocked the Obama administration’s plan to cut subsidies for farmers with incomes of more than $500,000.
In one sense, Sen. Conrad is only talking about reality. He’s assessing the lay of the land in the Senate. But, as a fairly conservative Democrat who represents North Dakota, he’s also reflecting his ideological and parochial biases. He’s not acting like an ally on the budget. An ally would keep his concerns private and work with the White House to come up with compromises that can win over the needed votes to approve the budget. That is not what Conrad is doing.
The administration has said that it could save taxpayers nearly $10 billion over the next decade from stopping direct federal payments to wealthy farmers, but Conrad denied that the farm policies were not fiscally responsible.
“The Farm Bill was paid for. We made a lot of tough choices. We raised money. We made spending reductions,” Conrad said. “Those who suggest that was not fiscally responsible — I don’t think they’re very aware of the history of how we got a Farm Bill passed.”
Conrad said that he hopes the administration understands that “accomplish[ing] big things takes compromise around here.”
Rather than working as an advocate for the president’s budget, Conrad is working as an advocate for greenhouse emissions and Big Agriculture’s government subsidies. This is backwards.
And I feel like we’ve all been . . . here before.
yes, and we never leave. too many powerful interests,
just like with single-payer health care, which is “too radical” for now.
or state secrets: anyone who bought the line that those days were over should be kicking themselves in the ass now.
yeah, good times.
Pretty lame to have the chair running the interference though, no?
Yes. ‘Lame’ is the right word.
Senator Conrad is only one of many Democratic Senators whose only interest in their party is the preservation of their own little personal niche in the Congressional picture. These guys have the attitude of the old English Barons in the days of King Arthur. They are only willing to support the King if and only if all of their own special interests prosper. Currently in the American Congress the interests that these Congressmen seek to protect are not fiefdoms, rather the modern American term is “Chairmanships”. For as much as REAL Party Loyalty is lacking among senate Democrats, REAL Party loyalty is strong and growing stronger among the Republican Senators.
These people like Conrad and Baucus and a majority if the bluedoggies have some severe emotional challenges. They behave like folks with serious low-self-image problems. They seem to be afraid of really standing up for meaningful progressive changes that might actually alter the status quo in a truly positive, effective way. It’s as though they assume, whether consciously or not, that the GOP hacks are the more adept manipulators in the political power games arena and that it’s inevitable they’ll be punished again for their own insufficiencies, (read, support for progressive ideas and policies), when the Repubs attain the upper hand again.
In this context, the idea that their decisions should be organized around the best interests of the country doesn’t even really register in their minds. Sure, they pay lip service to it, but these idiotic and cowardly and destructive positions they take are the result of the fear of being scolded and punished again by the ‘Big Daddies’ of the Repub right, something they see as inevitable and themselves deserving of.
Of course, why the rest of the less emotionally afflicted members of the Democratic Party are not lampooning guys like Conrad relentlessly for, for instance, their opposition to cutting off Fed money to $500,000 a year farmers; well that’s a whole other story. John Adams wrote; “… [N]othing intoxicates the human mind so much as power…” For me, ambition often leaves very little room for principle and this is a monumental and enduring, problem in the political arena.
Yes but North Dakota is the state where the house just passed the “life begins at conception” bill.
Could someone explain to me why we give subsidies to farmers? I mean, besides as a means of buying votes?
the most basic reason to pay subsidies to farmers is to control the price of commodities and assure that there is not a glut of product that makes all farming of that product unprofitable. Another reason is as a form of insurance against massive crop failure. You can learn about FDR’s plan here.
Hm, interesting. Thanks for the link; I confess to not knowing much about government farm policy. Or to understanding the unreasonably high esteem in which farmers are held, as if there was something inherently more admirable in growing corn than, say, being a refrigerator repairman or an accountant.
feeding people is an admirable pursuit. Without food, what’s the point of fixing a refrigerator?