So even after the Democratic leadership in the Senate trimmed the final budget by $211 billion, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who had been on the President’s veep shortlist, still voted against the final budget. And for what? Some favorable press as being that Democrat who cares so much about deficits that he just can’t stomach anymore and will vote against his party and President to demonstrate his convictions; the Democrat that, despite proclaiming to support all the key priorities in the budget – such as health care reform and energy independence, just can’t support a budget that actually seeks to bring these goals to fruition.
Here from Bayh’s self-serving statement as one of two Democratic votes against the Budget in the Senate.
Throughout my career, I have supported fiscal responsibility as a cornerstone of good government and a prerequisite for sustainable progressive policies. As governor of Indiana, this meant I kept spending reasonable and taxes in check. I vetoed a state budget passed by my own party in 1993 and left Indiana a large surplus when my tenure was complete.
As a United States senator, I have tried to continue this approach and be a voice for responsible spending in the nation’s capital. However, my views are in the minority in Washington
What a guy? Standing up for responsibility when no one else would. But the question is, what would Bayh have changed to make the budget better? He doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say how he would pay for all the policies he says he supports.
This is what he said instead:
The spending blueprint voted on by the Senate today represents an improvement from years past because it is more transparent and honest than the budgets to which we’ve grown accustomed. The money we will borrow will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent.
However, under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014. As a percentage of our gross domestic product, it reaches a precarious 66.5 percent. The deficit remains larger than our projected economic growth, an unsustainable state of affairs. This budget will increase our borrowing from and dependence upon foreign nations.
I cannot support such results. We can do better, and for the sake of our nation and our children’s future, we must.
So, as he says, he supports all the things in the budget just not how much it will cost. He acts like the deficits we face were in some way caused by this budget instead of by the Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts, unreformed and growing entitlement spending and the brutal revenue-killing economic recession the Bush era left us. He just plays it like its another Washington-as-usual budget when there is nothing usual about it and the priorities it identifies.
So again, if Bayh really wanted a better budget, the natural solution would be to propose ways to pay for those things he says he supports. Did Bayh do that? Did he get out there and say that if we want these things we need to pay for them and here is plan for how to do that? Not that I’m aware of. Is he going to? Doubtful.
No, the truth is, he is likely to just play it safe for a few years, voting tactically against the tough bits of the Obama agenda so he can portray himself as a man of principle. Funny that. I always thought principle required some level of guts to go with it – otherwise what are they for. But Bayh’s budget vote was less a profile in courage than a profile in self-promotion. It did nothing but get him a slot on Meet the Press this morning.
Didn’t Senator Bob Kerrey treat President Clinton’s first budget in a similar fashion (though if I recall Kerrey ultimately held his nose and voted for it)?
I don’t know that there is a personal dimension to what Bayh is doing. Kerrey though seemed to have it out for Clinton a bit. Bayh is trying to craft himself an independent political identity. Some see it as positioning himself for another presidential run (he did briefly join the 08 race before realizing he had no shot keeping up with Clinton or Obama in the fundraising stakes). But can’t see many Democrats rewarding his fiscal policy.
<
p>
The Miller/Lieberman of 2012 in the making?
Perhaps he saw that in the presidential election for his state, Republican votes + Libertarian votes > Democratic votes (by a wafer-thin margin.) Presenting an appearance of fiscal moderation seems a smart bet to pull the teeth of a fiscally conservative challenger.
<
p>Of course, I’m cynical enough to think the vast majority of politics is bent on people in charge maintaining their own power, so I don’t think any worse of Sen. Bayh for positioning himself for his Senate re-election.