Democrats may be risking a backlash at the polls in November by pushing hard to use taxpayer money to rescue homeowners who can no longer afford their mortgages in the face of stiff resistance from President Bush and many other Republicans.

The Democrats in Congress and the party's presidential candidates frame the issue as doing at least as much for beleaguered homeowners as the government is doing for Wall Street. The White house and most House Republicans counter this amounts to using taxpayer money to reward bad behavior.

The Republican protests are striking a chord with some Americans who are paying their mortgages on time or who didn't buy more house than they can afford.

That last point is exactly what's resonating with voters. Voters like me, who played it safe, didn't overextend ourselves, and lived well because of it, don't feel the need to pay for those that didn't.

I get a lot of hate mail because of it, but think of it this way; If it wasn't a home, would you feel the same way? If your neighbor was tolling around in a brand new Mercedes and you were driving an 89 Toyota, would you want him to be bailed out? It's the same thing. Both provide a crucial service, getting you to and from work, but one does it in better style and comfort. Your home protects you from the elements, that's it. There's no difference between a $500 a month apartment, and a $600,000 home. They both protect you from the elements, but one does it in better style and comfort.

So, if you can get by with an 89 Toyota, you can sell your house and move into an apartment.

A Gallup Poll in late March found that 56% of Americans favor government intervention to prevent people from losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages, while 42% oppose it. The partisan divide was sharp: 58% of Republicans opposed intervention; 71% of Democrats and 55% of independents supported the idea.

And how many of those do you suppose is having mortgage problems? And doesn't it strike you that 71% of Democrats, the party of big government handouts, support the idea?

Even some voters who support a government rescue are uneasy about haste. "I don't think we can just stay hands-off," says Walt King, a mechanical engineer from Downers Grove, Ill. "The people who got sucked into this are not capable of making calculations about whether they could afford this." But Mr. King, 62, who says he is likely to vote for Sen. Barack Obama, is wary of a rushed political response. "I don't know what the answer is," he said. "The election year is not a year to pray for objectivity."

Mr. King shouldn't be buying a home. But, I'll gladly give you a tip. Take your current gross income, including your spouses, multiply it by 3, and that's roughly what you can afford for a home. Make $60k a year? You can afford roughly a $180-$200k home. THAT'S IT. You go for $250-$300k home, you're in trouble.

Democrats are tapping into the widespread belief that the banks are being treated better than ordinary Americans. Lucy Anguino-Perez, 76, interviewed at a rally at which Sen. Hillary Clinton reiterated her call to suspend foreclosures for a time, says, "Give the people a break." The Griffith, Ind., retiree adds, "We're the ones that are paying the taxes, and all these guys who are sitting up there on the first floor, the top floor, they're the ones who are getting the benefit."

I got a great idea, how about we help none of them and let the mortgage companies eat it, go out of business if necessary, and homeowners sell their homes and declare bankruptcy? It's called a free market for a reason and it's able to correct itself when people get greedy.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com