Michelle Malkin » Blue Dogs will roll over on cramdown bill; will GOP stand united against it?

Blue Dogs will roll over on cramdown bill; will GOP stand united against it?

By Michelle Malkin • March 5, 2009 10:59 AM

GOP leader John Boehner wonders if the Blue Dog Democrats, who’ve been making fledgling noises about reckless spending in Washington, will yield on the unscrupulous borrower Chris Dodd-backed bill to empower bankruptcy judges to meddle in private loan contracts (noted here yesterday).

Of course they will:

“Taxpayer tea parties” have been occurring across America in recent weeks – a phenomenon that reflects the fact that a growing number of Americans are simply fed up with policies in Washington that reward irresponsible behavior and spend tax dollars on bigger, more costly government programs. Later today, the House will vote on legislation that is a textbook example of why responsible taxpayers – and more specifically, homeowners – have had enough.

Disingenuously called the “Helping Families Save their Homes Act,” the measure forces those who have acted responsibly to subsidize scam artists, speculators, and those who knowingly made bad decisions. And it repeals a century-old rule that prohibits what is commonly called “cramdown.” Cramdown allows bankruptcy judges to rewrite the mortgage terms on an individual’s primary residence, and lifting the prohibition is expected to add even more uncertainty to a housing market already in turmoil and will increase mortgage costs at a time when homeowners can afford it least.

It didn’t have to be this way. Last week, Democratic leaders tried to force a vote on the bill, but “Blue Dog” Democrats balked, refusing to support the bill because of the cramdown provisions. However, as is often the case, Democratic leaders made a few cosmetic changes to bill, and the Blue Dogs heeled, proving once again that they are all bark and no bite.

…We’ve seen this all too often from the Blue Dogs. From “pay-as-you-go” budget rules to votes on the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the Blue Dogs have made a habit of momentarily opposing their leadership, only to back down after they secured purely cosmetic changes or promises that “things will be different” the next time the House faces a similar vote.

Only this time, the stakes seem higher than they have been previously. With the economy in recession and Americans’ anxiety rising, taxpayers are tired of subsidizing more Washington spending that we know we cannot afford – and tired of bailing out those who have acted irresponsibly. That’s just what the legislation on the House floor today would do. Are Blue Dogs prepared to face their constituents – including those participating in “taxpayer tea parties” – and explain their change of heart on this bill?

On the flip side, where will all the House Republicans stand? Will they unite and unanimously reject this mortgage entitlement program, as they did with the porkulus bill? Will they show, down to the last man, that the party is willing to stand against the housing-as-a-civil-right agenda?

Ask: 202-224-3121.

Posted in: Subprime crisis, Tea Party

Printer Friendly

comments (31)

trackbacks (3)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am, Socky said:

CBS News Shocked at Public Resistance to Bailing Out Mortgage Deadbeats

“There seems to be real bitterness about the idea of forcing people to subsidize the imprudent housing choices of their neighbors.”

No… ya think?
#2

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am, tarpon said:

What is Steele doing ? Shouldn’t this be his prime stalking ground for getting back the House? If not, what was he hired to do?
#3

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:07 am, 7thson said:

the Blue Dogs have made a habit of momentarily opposing their leadership, only to back down

The Blue Dogs are all bark and no bite when it comes to standing up to their masters.
#4

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:07 am, old trooper said:

Specter, Snowe & Collins will roll over like they have a habit of doing do so far.

I would expect a few Democrats to stand up to the Socialists but only a handful.

The generation theft will probably pass and the future generations will despise us for it. The Obama Agenda…the destruction of America.
#5

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:09 am, MNUSMCDavid said:

Never, never, never forget Blue Dog democrats are still democrats, Lieberman is still a democrat, Spector, Snowe and Collins are Rino’s with democrat hats on. Forgive me for saying this but, ” You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” Ok, but at least I used the phrase against liberals…..
#6

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:13 am, jt3151 said:

I don’t want anyone to be out on the street, but why can’t the housing deck be shuffled a bit? The banks now own(or should own)a lot of properties. Why can’t the non-payers be moved into lesser homes? Then the people who have been paying their mortgages, or renters, would have a shot at buying the foreclosed homes at a discount?

If they want a smaller mortgage they can have a smaller home.
#7

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:14 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

You do realize that ‘The Blue Dog Democrats’ are a myth. There is no such thing anymore as a ‘moderate Democrat’.

11 out of 49 voted against Porkulus. Heath Shuler was one, because he is running for the Senate in 2010 and didn’t want his opponent to use Porkulus against him.

The myth is useful, because not every Democrat comes from Barney Frank’s district, or Nancy Pelosi’s Castro district, where public daytime gay sex and urination orgies are celebrated.

Loretta Sanchez claims to be a ‘Blue Dog’.

Enough said.

As the mid-terms come closer, more and more ‘Blue Dogs’ will be allowed by their whips to vote ‘against’ Obama, secure in the knowledge their votes aren’t needed. This to help them perpetuate the myth that they aren’t full bore supporters of Marxism and unlimited abortion rights.

Like supposedly “pro-life’ Bob Casey, son of the Pennsylvania governor shut out of the DNC 1992 convention that nominated Bill Clinton, because he took his Catholic faith seriously and really was pro-life.

Junior ran against Santorum claiming to be opposed to abortion, but voted to support Obama’s use of our tax money to kill Brown and Black babies overseas.
#8

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

BTW, once Al Franken takes his Senate seat, and only one Republican defector is needed to invoke cloture, look for the Treason Trio to take turns stabbing the party in the back, while one or two pretend to be standing with the caucus and opposing the Obamanation.

Specter is a particularly slimy individual. On the amendment to block Obama’s taxpayer support of overseas abortion, he voted to support Obama, then changed his vote for the official roll call when he realized his vote wasn’t needed.
#9

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am, sonofdy said:

Blue Dogs will roll over on cramdown bill; will GOP stand united against it?

No.

Next question???

Why yes I do know, the soup and bread line is located at 100 west, 100 north.
#10

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:21 am, sonofdy said:

“YOUR MORTGAGE IS NOT MY PROBLEM”

It is now.
#12

On March 5th, 2009 at 11:35 am, mike.musculus said:

#7
On March 5th, 2009 at 11:14 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:
You do realize that The Blue Dog Democrats are a myth. There is no such thing anymore as a moderate Democrat.

dittos.
#13

On March 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, thirteen28 said:

GOP leader John Boehner wonders if the Blue Dog Democrats, who’ve been making fledgling noises about reckless spending in Washington, will yield on the unscrupulous borrower Chris Dodd-backed bill to empower bankruptcy judges to meddle in private loan contracts (noted here yesterday).

Of course they will:

I smell pickups in 2010!
#14

On March 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm, DesertLover said:

It’s easy for a “Dog” to bark while lying on the porch …
the bravado disappears when they have to get off the porch …
#15

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

A zebra doesn’t change it’s stripes. A democrats will always vote for entitlements. It’s how they stay in power. Bribe their constituents.
#16

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, cheapseat said:

entitled to break contracts and have some black robed god give you absolution. the socialist way. how dare those rich mean previous owners and banks expect to recoup the money they entrusted to these fraudsters. VOTE DEMOCRAT! IT’S CHANGE THAT WILL LEAVE EVERYONE BROKE AND CORRUPT.
#17

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, Hannibal said:

#7 Ed

Loretta Sanchez claims to be a ‘Blue Dog’.

Maybe that would be better phrased as:

Loretta Sanchez claims to be a ‘~~Blue~~ Dog’.

Something we can all believe in!
#18

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm, tarpon said:

Blue dogs should be the main target of 2010.
#19

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm, rightisright said:

If they want a smaller mortgage they can have a smaller home.

Makes way to much sense for gubermint work…common sense does not apply to government work.
#20

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm, rightisright said:

sonofdy, is Pioneer Park still the drug dispensing center for S.L.City, ironic The Salvation Army is located next to the druggies home ground, it was, when I left S.L.City ‘96.
#21

On March 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, usa_usa said:

If we criminalize delinquency, all these credit problems will be solved. If these deadbeats have the threat of serious prison time, most will pay their bills.
#22

On March 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, emjem24 said:

Did any of us think that many of these fake “blue dogs” would oppose The One? Ever? I’m sure they got some delicious tid-bit offered to them, their district, or their families in return for their support of this bill.

If many of these spineless Republicans know what’s good for ‘em, they won’t go along with this travesty. Don’t tinker with the housing market like the Dems. Let the Dems own this sorry mess.
#23

On March 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm, By Choice said:

My Rep Gabrielle Giffords(D-AZ) also claims to be a “Blue Dog” moderate but so far she has done nothing but “roll over” when SanFranNan snaps her fingers. She’s gone in 2010. Lt. Andy Goss, who is currently serving in Iraq, has already put his hat in the ring from Iraq. Says he can’t believe what is happening here–worse than in Iraq and that is saying something!!!
#24

On March 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, obama_fail said:

Republicans are not much better than democrats. This socialization was started by a Bush/Paulson with the help of republicans in congress.

Republicans = Democrats Lite
#25

On March 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, Ilovemycountry said:

What kind of God do you people pray to?

What would Jesus do if he saw people losing their homes?

Is there any person on MM who thinks helping fellow Americans during a recession is a good thing or are all of you the same?
#26

On March 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, obama_fail said:

What kind of God do you people pray to?

What would Jesus do if he saw people losing their homes?

Is there any person on MM who thinks helping fellow Americans during a recession is a good thing or are all of you the same?

Jesus wouldn’t tax hardworking folks to pay loser’s mortgage.
#27

On March 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, Room 237 said:

This one actually does not bother me as much as some of the other ideas kicked around out there and in fact I support it. Basically, both sides to the mortgage are getting a kick in the pants for their bad decisions. All other debt may be written down in bankruptcy. And that is what we are talking about here.

The borrower will have a bankruptcy on their credit report. Rightfully, that will make it more difficult to get credit later. The bank (or whomever is holding the mortgage) will lose part of their principal and they deserve to, given that they made a stupid loan. But maybe THE borrower gets to keep their home and the bank is not forced to foreclose, further screwing up the market and sell the house at firesale rates.

So I am not so pessimistic about this.
#28

On March 5th, 2009 at 5:51 pm, zorro said:

The blue dog democraps will back down for sure. They will not risk the wrath of the ballerina, Rahm Emanuel, and his Chicago Thug boss.
#29

On March 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, RobM1981 said:

According to John McCain, just this afternoon on Hannity, the $410B Omnibus bill is essentially 100% pork.

AND 40% OF IT IS FROM THE GOP.

Never mind the Blue Dogs, there are Red PIGS in the GOP that have to be dealt with, mercilessly.

Michael Steele, are you listening? If these people aren’t cut off from funding and strongly run against, “your party” isn’t the GOP, it’s the DOA. We’ve had MORE than enough, thanks.
#30

On March 5th, 2009 at 8:24 pm, Khyris said:

And the answer to the question is no, 7 Republicans voted for it:

RINO Rollcall:
Castle
Diaz-Balart L.
Diaz-Balart M.
Ros-Lehtinen
McHugh
Jones
Turner

At least 24 Dems voted against it.
#31

On March 6th, 2009 at 6:36 am, AuntiEm said:

Michelle Bachman on c-span last night was pointing out the loopholes in this bill that would allow buyers to make a profit if they sat in their homes for five years after the judges lower their debt.
#32

On March 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am, corona said:

Other than this blog, no one mentions that many of those poor (boo friggin’ hoo) “homeowners” who are in upside-down mortgages are actually flippers.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.