Blue Dogs Brag To Anyone Who Will Listen That They Have The Votes To Stop Any Progressive Legislation, Including The Green New Deal

Do you think I've been a little harsh on the Blue Dogs (and New Dems) this week/month/year/decade? Glad you noticed... no reason to stop now either. A couple of Blue Dogs celebrators at Agri-Pulse, seems to think a stronger Blue Dog Coalition gives rural America clout. It doesn't-- unless by rural America you mean corporate agri-business. Ben Nuelle and Philip Brasher wrote this week that "There are plenty of Blue Dogs now to prevent a Democratic bill from passing the House, if they want to stop or revise the measure. Democrats currently control the House 235-198, and it takes 217 votes to pass a bill with the two vacancies currently. That means Speaker Nancy Pelosi can only lose 18 Democratic votes and still pass a bill if no Republicans support it." That's what the Blue Dogs did to ObamaCare when they wanted to make sure there would be no public option. How has that worked out for everyone? These are the freshmen who joined the Blue Dogs this year and are already working furiously to undermine the progressive agenda:

• Anthony Brindisi (NY)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Joe Cunningham (SC)
• Kendra Horn (OK)
• Ben McAdams (UT)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Xochitl Torres Scall (NM)
• Jeff Van Drew (NJ)

Nuelle and Brasher reported that there are 27 of them in this Congress, "up from 18 in the 115th Congress. That’s still only half the number they had in 2008 when membership peaked at 54, but the coalition is on an 'upward projection, and we have enough members to have a voice now,' said the Blue Dogs’ policy chairman, Tom O’Halleran of Arizona."

The big question is whether the Blue Dogs have the numbers and the attitude to pull the caucus to the center at a time when media-savvy progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are tugging the party to the left. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 98 members plus one: U.S. Sen., Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Peterson doesn’t think the Blue Dogs will have the bite they did when Democrats last controlled the House from 2007-2011.

“People were different and more willing to take on the establishment. That’s the big difference. Now you have the New Democrats and the Problem Solvers (two other coalitions of moderates). It remains to be seen what niche we have if any,” Peterson said.

He doesn’t foresee any members “rocking the boat” with leadership.

But Blue Dog Rep. Kurt Schrader, a veterinarian from Oregon, thinks 27 is the sweet spot needed to influence leadership. “It’s actually better, we had some members that maybe weren’t real Blue Dogs when we were at 54. Now we’re at 26 with a couple of new ones and will be a tight-knit group and encourage leadership to move in a more bipartisan way,” Schrader said.

Schrader said in 2010, the group was a loose coalition and surprised each other which ultimately allowed them to be picked off one by one. He said the new members understand their future in Congress lies with working in a bipartisan manner.

The group also has done well at getting coveted committee assignments. “From Energy and Commerce, to Ways and Means, to Appropriations, that all bodes well for the Blue Dogs,” said California Rep. Jim Costa, who begins his 15th year as a member.

Peterson controls House Ag and has several fellow Blue Dogs on the committee, with two chairing subcommittees.

Spanberger chairs Conservation and Forestry and Costa chairs Livestock and Foreign Agriculture. Other House Ag members include: David Scott of Georgia, Brindisi, and Van Drew. Three of the members-- Peterson, Costa and Schrader-- are farmers. Although Schrader does not currently sit on the Ag committee, he helped write the 2014 farm bill during the conference committee.

The group plans to meet once a week to discuss legislative priorities. O’Halleran said they would likely continue to have a rural task force, as well as a labor task force. With the government now reopened, Schrader hopes to see some sort of deal reached with the president regarding border security, perhaps comprehensive immigration reform in return for money for the wall. Ag labor is a major concern among farmers in his district.

“For a lot of farming communities, that is absolutely the number-one issue I hear all the time. Why don’t we just fix that and take care of families at the border. I would be willing to make that trade,” Schrader said.

Some sort of physical barrier is not unpopular in his district, along with other Blue Dogs. “A lot of Republicans represent farming and ag communities, why the hell wouldn’t they be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform? I think they would, and it would be a huge win-win,” Schrader said.

On Jan. 25, the coalition sent a letter to Republican and Democratic leadership regarding border security and the government shutdown. The letter asked both parties to come together to open the government and provide a long-term solution to strengthen border security.

O'Halleran said they are going to be more proactive on policy and be more organized.

Remember, it was Blue Dogs (and New Dems)-- not Republicans-- who used their clout to get the public option taken out of Obamacare, making Obamacare much less effective-- and much less defensible-- and part iff the reason Trump is sitting in the White House now. The Blue Dogs have every intention of using their clout against the Green New Deal, which is being formally unveiled next week by Ed Markey in the Senate and AOC in the House. So far these are the House members who have signed on:

None of them are Blue Dogs. Reporting for The Hill, Ben Lilliston noted that "rural America has much at stake when it comes to climate change. The National Climate Assessment outlined a series of daunting challenges for our farmers, including 'increased rates of crop failure, reduced livestock productivity, and altered rates of pressure from pests, weeds, and diseases.' The report also identified a rural 'climate gap,' where natural resource-based economies are particularly exposed to future climate disruptions... The boldness and urgency of a proposed Green New Deal has shaken Washington’s longstanding inside the beltway climate change inertia. The Green New Deal sets an ambitious course to make the U.S. economy greenhouse gas-emission neutral, while prioritizing a just transition for workers and communities by 2030. Its emphasis on equity and locally-driven climate change responses echo principles that more than 20 rural-based climate policy organizations identified in 2015. Those groups agreed that to meet the urgency of the climate challenge, new U.S. policy must be:

• Resilient: “Policy solutions need to focus on increasing the resiliency of our communities, economy, and the natural systems they depend on. We must prioritize climate responses that minimize emissions and community risk.”
• Equitable: “Policies must be constructed and delivered in ways that recognize historical and ongoing discrimination, and work to reduce-- not increase-- current and long-standing economic, racial, cultural, gender and other forms of inequality.”
• Diverse, democratic and locally determined: “Policies should encompass diverse solutions, utilize locally produced ideas, and respect the unique characteristics, culture and knowledge of each rural community. Local and community ownership of renewable energy and other key resources should be prioritized based on the benefits that accrue to rural economies.”
• Transformative and long term: “Climate policy must support approaches that are economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in the long-term, and provide assistance and risk mitigation in making that transition, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged rural communities and residents.”

This isn't the kind of help Peterson and the conservative corporate whores in the Blue Dog Coalition are taking about. As Lilliston explaoined, "while only 19 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, more than 90 percent of our geography is rural. Rural communities can provide climate answers, including renewable energy production, forests, farms and rangelands that capture carbon when managed appropriately and the people and ingenuity to implement these solutions.

While rural communities will be key in the transition to a low carbon economy, they also face challenges that make a just transition critical. Rural areas have lower employment levels, lower incomes, higher childhood poverty, worse housing, and worse access to health care than urban or suburban communities. Rural areas are more reliant on food assistance and face a crippling digital divide.

Within this context, rural-based groups identified a set of Rural Climate Policy Priorities in agriculture, conservation, education, energy, fisheries, forestry, health, infrastructure, recreation and tourism. As the Green New Deal develops, these rural-focused policies should inform the plan.

Unfortunately, the ambition and urgency of the Green New Deal is not an approach Washington does well. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected the call for a special Green New Deal Committee, instead reinstating a weaker Select Committee on Climate Change. Nevertheless, this committee could still play an important role. It should start with field hearings in communities that have recently experienced extreme damage associated with climate change, such as Paradise, California, devastated by recent wildfires, rural North Carolina hit by successive hurricanes, and tribal communities in Louisiana and the Inupiaq community in Alaska forced to relocate because of rising sea levels.

Rural areas forgotten by a dying coal industry are leading important conversations about a just transition, and Midwest farmers are increasingly adopting climate-resilient soil health practices that any climate committee should consider.

Washington is painfully behind the curve in responding to climate change. Earlier this month, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) downplayed climate concerns on his list of priorities. While his Senate counterpart Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) did list climate change, he oversaw the recently passed farm bill, which neglected to even mention climate change. Despite efforts in Washington to temper expectations on climate action, polling shows there is strong support for a Green New Deal.

As guideposts for a way forward, the Climate Justice Alliance has called for a Green New Deal rooted in “a just transition for workers and communities impacted by climate change” and as a tool to empower the grassroots. This approach is consistent with the principles outlined by rural-based organizations. As the Green New Deal takes shape, the transformative policies we need are unlikely to emerge from Washington, but will instead come from state and local governments, communities and leaders who have already started the movement.