07-25-2008, 03:34 PM
|
 |
Commentator
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Age: 52
Posts: 1,452
|
|
I guess you could look at this two different ways. One is maintaining certain ideologies or you can vote for something that helps your voters in your district. You can bet that both Republican and Democratic voters had to struggle with foreclosures. Here's an analysis from the AP.
Quote:
Analysis: GOP chose base, not Bush in housing vote By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 25, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush pulled the rug out from under Republicans this week when he abruptly dropped his opposition to a massive housing rescue.
Their reaction? Good riddance.
Three-quarters of House Republicans defied Bush and voted against the package, designed to help 400,000 homeowners stave off foreclosure and inject a dose of stability into jittery housing and financial markets.
The split reflected an every-man-for-himself mentality that has taken hold in GOP circles in a challenging political environment in which Bush, with record-low approval ratings, is seen as an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans.
"For these members — particularly those on the bubble — there's no percentage in being seen as a Bush lackey," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va. The president's decision to drop this threat to veto the bill "probably made it easier to vote against it, because then you don't get beat up for siding with Bush."
Only 45 House Republicans — most from areas ravaged by foreclosures and some facing tough re-election fights — backed the bill. Many of them did so holding their noses.
"There were a lot of things I didn't like about the bill, but this was the last train leaving the station. ... This was take it or leave it," said Rep. Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, one of 21 Republicans who originally opposed the housing measure when it was approved in May, but backed the final version on Wednesday.
Tiberi, whose district has experienced high rates of foreclosures, said he supported the measure because he thought, "The impact on the markets if we did nothing would be a far greater risk than the bad policies."
Most Senate Republicans made the same call on Friday, when all but 13 — all staunch conservatives — joined Democrats in endorsing the bill, putting it on track to clear Congress on Saturday.
But the vast majority of House Republicans made the opposite choice. Party leaders argued that even in the midst of a housing crisis that's dragging down the overall economy and threatening wider financial consequences, party members shouldn't put aside their principles of limited government and personal responsibility to back a popular relief package.
"To ask the 94 percent of people who are paying their mortgages on time to pay additional funds so they can bail out scam artists and speculators and, frankly, banks who may have made bad loans is not fair," Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, told reporters Thursday.
"Getting our party to stand on principle is a critical part of what we have to do in order to earn our way back."
At a closed-door party meeting before the vote, former Speaker Newt Gingrich had encouraged Republicans to get some distance from Bush by rejecting the bill.
The measure, which passed 272-152 on Wednesday, included a Federal Housing Administration rescue Republicans denounced as a bailout; a new affordable housing fund they deride as a slush fund for left-wing groups; and $3.9 billion in what they call wasteful grants to help neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures.
But it also offered a federal lifeline for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the Bush administration argued was crucial to stabilizing markets, plus measures long sought by Republicans to rein in the firms and overhaul the FHA.
Since House Republicans lacked the votes to block the measure, party strategists argued they should seize the opportunity to send a message to conservative groups and their constituents that they were holding firm to GOP doctrine. It was what lawmakers quietly refer to as a "free vote" — one without consequences.
"Just because Bush pivots doesn't mean every single Republican has to pivot, lemming-like, and jump off the cliff too," said Michael Franc of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"It is a step in the right direction for the Republicans who are trying to reposition the Republican Party as the party of limited government to tell their base that has been frustrated with them for so long that, 'Hey, we actually do stand for something here.'"
It also was a curious choice for Republicans looking for an opportunity to draw a stark distinction with the president.
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson argued forcefully that the federal backup for Fannie and Freddie was vital. Boehner and many others acknowledged the markets needed the bill. And at a time when economic worries are foremost in voters' minds, helping homeowners avoid foreclosure would seem to be a political slam-dunk.
In fact, Franc said, voters make a distinction between housing woes — which many see as a crisis of people's own making — and other economic concerns like rising health care costs and gas prices that are out of their control.
"Everyone has a neighbor who they know overdid it at some point ... who put nothing down on a house and then went out and bought a Hummer," Franc said. "There's a major element of, 'You did it to yourself.'"
"Some of these people are struggling to make their own payments, and now we're going to transfer their neighbor's house payment — who got in over his head — on them too?" Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, said.
On Thursday, he and other Financial Services Committee Republicans wrote Bush asking him to reconsider and veto the bill after all.
Saying no to the measure, Neugebauer said, "was a good conservative vote."
___
|
|
So not only do my taxes go to bail these people out I also have to pay for counseling?? Give me a break!
How does one change a child's ways?
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
