Bush Dogs: "Conservative," Or Just Plain Corrupt?

by: David Sirota

Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:27


As the housing/mortgage crisis intensifies, some courageous Democrats like Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) are trying to let judges help people stay in their home and stop foreclosures. Unfortunately, as my new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today shows, Miller is facing serious opposition not just from Republicans, but from "conservative" Democrats.

Miller's bill, HR 3609 (which you can find out about here), would improve the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill by simply giving regular homeowners a few of the same protections that millionaire mansion owners and Enron executives have. Yet, the Blue Dog Democrats, citing their supposed "conservatism," are trying to stop the legislation dead in its tracks. Somehow, we are expected to believe that the social/cultural conservatism of their rural and exurban districts mean their constituents want Congress to help banks throw people out of their houses.

David Sirota :: Bush Dogs: "Conservative," Or Just Plain Corrupt?
Overall, Miller's bill could help keep 600,000 households in their homes. As the Denver Post reports, that's almost 6,000 throughout Colorado. And the problem is just as pronounced in many Blue Dog Democrats' districts. For example, the Kansas City Kansan reports that the district of Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) - who was cited by National Journal for his efforts to stop Miller's bill - could face almost 800 foreclosures. In Rep. Jim Marshall's (D-GA) district, Miller's bill would save more than 1,400 families from being foreclosed on. Incredibly (or, predictably) both signed the letter demanding Miller's bill be quashed.

Give Rep. Miller a lot of credit on this one. His state houses the headquarters of some of the biggest banks in the world, and yet he is pushing a super-populist proposal to start dealing with the mortgage meltdown. Help him by using this website to contact your Member of Congress today. Tell them to resist the corruption that the Blue Dog Democrats are trying to ram down America's throat and support HR 3609.

As I note in the column, this is yet another example of how the term "conservatism" has become a synonym for "corrruption" - in this case, to defend predatory lenders. Unfortunately, this kind of corruption is not limited just to the housing issue.

These same "conservative" Democrats are now gearing up to help protect the tax loopholes that let billionaire private equity players pay a lower effective tax rate than the janitors who clean their offices. This tax fight is going to be heating up over the next weeks and months - especially with my buddy Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films zeroing in on the issue with its new project at www.warongreed.org. Greenwald, who has rattled cages with his previous films on Fox News and Wal-Mart, will be releasing the first of his videos on Monday - you should go sign up to get on the campaign's email list for updates.

As you can see, these "conservative" Democrats have happily joined the Money Party's vicious campaign against the People Party. Their behavior explains a lot about how Congress really works. The only silver lining is that the more they sell out, the more the conservative label is shown for what it really is: a veneer for corruption.

Read the full column here. And if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I've thought about this (4.00 / 1)
for sometime and I've come to the conclusion that Bush/Cheney politics have nothing to do with "conservatism" and everything to do with being high-powered crooks.  They should be tried as criminals.  The sentence will be severe.

I never understood this either (4.00 / 1)
If we're stuck with Dems beholden to culturally conservative constituents (and we are, at least for the forseeable future),  then they should "vote their district" on those issues.  OK, fair enough.

But "centrist" or "conservative" when applied to Dems seems to have morphed into "corporatist", and I have a hard time imagining that the constituencies in most of those culturally conservative districts are concerned about subsidizing the massive bonuses of New York financial industry executives.


Long term (4.00 / 2)
There are a lot fewer Blue Dogs around now than in the past.  Hey, a bunch of the originals like Billy Tauzin, simply converted from faux Democrats to real life Republicans.

After the election of 1992, Democrats contolled 259 seats (258 seats plus Independent Bernie Sanders) in the House.  After the election of 2006 the figure was 233.  The difference of 26 seats can be explained by a drop of 26 Democratic seats in the south from 84 to 58 (includes West Virginia, Kentucky, and the 11 states of the Confederacy).  Even better, the Republican tactic of packing minority voters into a few "minority majority" districts means that many of the 58 southern Democrats are pretty decent votes.  Think Steve Cohen, Hank Johnson, or even Brad Miller himself.

Within the rest of the country, we have picked up seats in the Northeast and (to a much lesser extent) the Pacific Coast and lost seats in more conservative areas like Oklahoma and Indiana compared to 1992.

Blue Dogs and Bush Dogs need considerable subsidies not just from their corporate masters but from the national coffers of the Democratic Party.  If the money that was spent to shore up Leonard Boswell and Jim Marshall went into other districts we'd have more solid votes.  Part of that is the "natural" tendency of the club to support its own but part is sheer financial stupidity.  Why in God's name would Steny Hoyer's lousy $900 K in contributions count when the millions from MoveOn were spit upon?  Ask David Broder and his cronies.

We need to elect more progressives to the House and Senate instead of just Democrats.  That means more focus on districts in the Northeast like NJ-3, NJ-7, PA-6, PA-15, and CT-4.  It means actually targeting some Bush Dogs in primaries and scaring the remainder by hauling in a few scalps (Costa, Lipinski, and Wynn would look good on the wall, thank you).  It may mean taking the worst of the bunch like Marshall down even if the district does turn Republican.  Do we need his vote for Speaker that much or does he weaken our brand a lot more than one stinking vote for Speaker).

And quite frankly, we need to reinvigorate the Democratic Party in California so Republican Rule By Referenda is no longer a viable option.  I don't live there but outlawing paid petition gatherers would be a start and at least modifying term limits so the legislature gets some teeth would be another start.  We don't want 50 safe seats or 51 out of 53 where the members of Congress feel emboldened to try just about anything.  Is there a more crooked delegation on earth than California's House Republicans?  Is any of them other than Doolittle even vaguely threatened?  What is wrong with this picture?


Frank is a Bush Dog on predatory lending! (4.00 / 1)
I've not got the time right now to tie stuff down.

But, before the Thanksgiving vacation, we had one predatory lending bill, HR 3915, pass the house.

As it seems, - burrow into this - this bill was introduced by Miller, but taken over and reshaped by Barney Frank to include a provision preempting state regulations of predatory lending.

HR 3915 passed the House 291-127.

How HR 3609 meshes with HR 3915 (as introduced or as passed), I don't know yet.

But HR 3915 was passed with no Dem votes against. So - we're not just talking about Bush Dogs...


the Aught's will go down in history (4.00 / 1)
as the greatest taxpayer heist in American history.  From no bid contracts, to legal loan-sharking through the housing bubble, the American taxpayer has been robbed blind.

hmmmm (0.00 / 0)
This drives me nuts.  You have a few good deeds in terms of votes and then you get this massive corruption vote.

There is someone on the list that I know is doing great things for Science and Technology and most assuredly from a Progressive/Populist/in the national interest view...
yet there he is.  I'll like to run down the halls of congress right now and demand a straight answer as to why any of them would have voted for the Bankruptcy bill and now try to block inclusion of mortgages when the stats are coming in thick and heavy (and please just ignore the stock market jump, that lower interest rate buzz is going to wear off) that this is a major economic crisis and they literally do not know how much it will spread into other areas including our lovely "global" economy.

This is clearly odious as hell and I need to find out why he would oppose this inclusion before I blast.  I just don't do "blue dog" to mean corrupt off the top, for to me the real corruption is in Dem leadership.

Chris Dodd on Bankruptcy reform has some very good positions. 
Dodd also tried to get the corporate tax code changed to stop giving financial incentives to offshore outsource jobs in '03 and he was slimed in the Senate on it (defeated).

One of the best experts in this entire arena is Elizabeth Warren.  She has proposed policy change.

To me, one of the #1 bills to tell if your representative is corrupt or not is the 2005 Bankruptcy bill vote.

Another good blog Credit Slips.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox