Nineteen ninety-three was a bad year to be a Democrat.

Bill Clinton had won not just the White House in 1992, but had met up in Washington with a Democratic Congress (both houses).  He had big plans, having just completed a campaign that was based around the idea of putting people first -- in fact, he and his running mate had published a book, Putting People First, that held their economic plans for the future.  Clinton unveiled the economic plan in June of 1992:

"My strategy puts people first by investing more than $50 billion dollars each year over the next four years to put America back to work -- the most dramatic economic growth program since World War II," Clinton said.

"These investments will create millions of high-wage jobs and provide tax relief to working families," he added.

You may remember how this story ends: the budget that Clinton was able to pass in 1993 was not the happy-go-lucky investments budget he had proposed on the campaign trail, but one that placed an emphasis on deficit reduction over investment, advocated by his Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen (turns out you're no Jack Kennedy either, Mr. Secretary).  In addition, Clinton was thwarted by budget caps that the majority party Democrats were unwilling to raise, so that his proposed budget, calling for $30 billion in new investments, instead passed the House -- the Democrat-controlled House -- with an approved $1 billion.  Eventually, the bill passed the Senate when Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.

The Democrats who voted for this did it out of habit formed in the 1980s, when one had to be a "budget hawk," willing to go to war over the deficit, to get elected.  They fought Clinton to save their own jobs, and ended up looking like the least powerful party in the country.  Not even while in power could they accomplish their stated goals; not even a president with a friendly Congress could get people put first.  Clinton was trapped -- he couldn't make good on his campaign promises.

If 1993 was a bad year to be a Democrat, then 1994 was way, way worse.  Remember the Contract With America?  I still have nightmares.

So why are we seeing this political history repeat itself?  Why is President Obama having to fight to get his budget bill passed through a Democratic Senate and House?

My guess is fear: Fear, from Evan Bayh's "centrist" Democrats, that the coming campaigns will be too difficult if they have to go home and fight charges that they've added billions or trillions or whatever made-up number people can put in TV ads to "the debts of our grandchildren."  I understand fighting those ads is an uphill battle, but I don't understand why we aren't attacking this issue head on.  I don't understand why more party leaders aren't out front saying, no, the investments in the budget aren't just spending for spending's sake, they aren't worthless debts that will burden our children and grandchildren, they are instead the steps we must take to make sure that there's still a solvent, sophisticated country around for those children and grandchildren to enjoy.

When you cut investments in education, you reduce the knowledge base of the economy and the likelihood of innovation.  When you cut investments in health care, you reduce not just the health of the populace -- which is pretty important if we want to tell our grandchildren anything -- but also the size, power, and durability of the workforce, which hurts economic growth (and this is with no mention of the burden that health care costs place on economic growth overall).  When you cut investments in energy innovation aimed at reducing climate change, well, you're passing on a cost to our children and grandchildren that can't even be quantified in dollars.  You are literally taking the world away from them.

If Democrats are dealing down on the budget because of election concerns, I'd like to suggest we take $10,000 from TALF or TARP or CRAP or whatever and pay some college kids to march outside of the Senate and House office buildings with Remember Newt! placards.  Voting out of deficit fears is the same as saying the conservatives are right and have been right all along; it doesn't help anyone in the next election, least of all your constituents.

^{Sidenote: the NYTimes piece on the president's meeting today with the Democratic Caucus lists the menu as vegetable soup, macaroni and cheese, finger sandwiches, and sugar-free Jell-O.  I have nothing against any of these foods, but I must wonder: Was the meeting held in a nursing home cafeteria?}