Budget cuts have become the new fashion inside the Beltway after the midterm elections.  The Hill reports that even the Blue Dogs in the House want to get in on the act … those still left after the electoral catastrophe, that is.  But should anyone care?

Blue Dog Democrats might support a plan from House Republicans to cut $32 billion in discretionary spending this year, a spokesman for the fiscally conservative bloc said Monday.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said the Blue Dogs are waiting to see the details of the proposed GOP cuts before taking a position. The draft legislation from the House Appropriations Committee is due on Thursday.

But the comments from Ross and other Blue Dogs suggest at least some of the coalition’s members are willing to defect from their party and vote for the plan despite the vocal opposition of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Last week Pelosi rejected the GOP plan and said that $32 billion in proposed cuts “will come at the expense of economic growth and American jobs.”

The rejection of Pelosi’s leadership by the small group of Democratic moderates is mildly interesting, at best.  The two wings of the Democratic caucus repudiated each other before and after the election.  Blue Dogs wanted Pelosi retired from caucus leadership, but thanks to their big losses in the election, didn’t have the pull to force another selection.  The Blue Dogs find themselves even more marginalized now than Pelosi had them in the last session of Congress.

Their support for the modest cuts to the FY2011 budget is an unsurprising as Pelosi’s opposition to it.  Even though they survived one cycle of angry voters who are fed up with massive spending in Washington, they could easily fall victim to Round 2 in 2012 if they don’t demonstrate some fiscal responsibility now. This move comes more from self-preservation than from commitment; who can recall any of their objections when Democrats jacked up annual federal spending by 38% in four years of Democratic control?

Their support for the bill, though, serves little purpose to its passage beyond the symbolic bipartisanship it will represent.  That will allow Republicans in the Senate to lean a little harder on Democrats, especially those running for re-election in 2012, such as Jon Tester, Ben Nelson, and (perhaps) Jim Webb.  If those “Blue Dogs” keep from barking at the cuts, then it will mean something a little more significant than a handful of House Democrats belatedly cheerleading the majority Republicans and their budget cuts (via Instapundit).