|
Friday, May 09, 2008
Housing Debate: Real(i)ty Trumps Ideology
Most of the reasons offered up by President Bush and congressional opponents of the housing crisis plan sponsored by House Financial Services Committee chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) have a yellow, off-tone ring to them. You hear that it's a bailout, that it rewards the miscreants who bamboozled homeowners into predatory loans, that it tosses the burden of foreclosure risk onto innocent taxpayers, that the administration has already tried it, that it is already working, that it won't work, that it will work and cost us -- enough reasons to suggest that unreasoned ideological skeevies are at play.
All well and good. But while President Bush has the luxury of ideology -- his name will never be on a ballot again -- this is not true of his GOP colleagues in the House and Senate, where election-year concessions to reality regarding the survival of the realty market (see this must-read story in today's NY Times) and of members of Congress themsleves trump adherence to a stubborn, shop-worn, incoherent set of empty shibboleths.
But Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) wasn't making any quiet concessions yesterday, as he defended his vote, one of 39 from GOP House members, in support of the Frank bill:
What's offensive is some of the rhetoric. They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion. Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore... People are expecting us to do something.
A growing number of GOP congressional incumbents doubt that another veto threat by the president would qualify as "something."
Posted by Dana Chasin
|