EconomistMom.com

When my son strikes out swinging in his Little League games, I say, “Oh!  Nice swing, Johnny!”   It’s the only thing I can come up with to say I’m proud of him for his good try.  Yes, he struck out, but he struck out swinging.

Today, the House passed the conference report on the FY2009 budget resolution, and it felt like the Blue Dog Democrats had struck out (again), but swinging.  It’s that darned Senate that keeps pitching those fiscally irresponsible fast balls right past the Blue Dogs’ paygo-faithful bats.  (See my previous cheer for the Blue Dogs here.)

Here’s an excerpt from a CQ story that highlights that old, big banana peel problem I’ve talked about before:

Much of the debate focused on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, most of which expire at the end of 2010.

Congress will not directly address that issue this year. The Democrats’ budget assumes that many of those tax cuts will be allowed to expire or that their cost will be offset with revenue raisers elsewhere, a difficult task. Republicans seized on this point as evidence Democrats want to raise taxes.

“As American families and small businesses face increasing food prices, rising health care costs, and gas prices that are nearly $4 per gallon, the very last thing they need is a higher tax bill,” declared Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio. “But that is exactly what this Democratic budget would deliver: a $683 billion tax hike that will impact every taxpayer – from single filers and families to small business owners and seniors. No one is immune from the Democrats’ largest tax hike in American history.”

The budget does, however, carve out room to extend tax cuts geared at the lower and middle income taxpayers, such as the 10 percent tax bracket and enhanced child tax credit, at a cost of $340.6 billion over five years.

Perhaps you will notice a bit of a disconnect between the $683 billion tax hike ($683 billion being the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2010, just through fiscal year 2013, which House Democrats, led by the Blue Dogs, have wanted to fully offset), and the $340.6 billion that is “carved out” for certain parts of those tax cuts (that’s the cost of the amendment that Senator Baucus added, for tax cuts that are deficit-financed).  That’s because the conference agreement is completely schizophrenic on this issue, slipped up on that big banana peel.  If you go to this House Budget Committee document, you’ll witness the same schizophrenia; it both criticizes the Bush Administration for their fiscally-irresponsible tax policy (correctly pointing out that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, future taxpayers do), while at the same time highlights the $340 billion in (deficit-financed) tax cuts included in the conference agreement.

But I’m still proud of them.  I know the House Democrats have been doing their best, trying their hardest.  They could have given up months ago and just forfeited the game, but they kept on and struck out swinging.  The Concord Coalition just issued a more official “nice swing” statement as well.