Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — a member of the Blue Dog coalition — is reportedly upset about the health care bill that’s come out of the House, and is banding with seven other Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to vote down the bill if some changes aren’t made.

Among other things, Ross reportedly objects to the surtaxes included in the bill. “I don’t like the idea of raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War II,” he said.

First, the surtax wouldn’t kick in until 2011, and at that point, if we are still “in the worst economic crisis since World War II,” we’ll have far bigger problems to worry about than a tax increase. But more importantly, the Blue Dogs are waxing poetic about the horrors of the surtax, after having voted for the budget busting Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that constituted a huge gift to the very wealthiest Americans.

Of the seven Blue Dogs on from Energy and Commerce who are causing a fuss, four were around to vote on Bush’s tax cuts. Here’s how that went:

Remember, the surtax would constitute a 1 percent tax on households making between $350,000 and $500,000 per year, a 1.5 percent tax on those making $500,000 to $1 million, and a 5.4 percent tax on those making more than $1 million. It would have no impact on 98.7 percent of Americans.

But there is that one percent that would be affected, so let’s make some comparisons. Over the ten year window from 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts gave the richest one percent of Americans about $715 billion in tax breaks. This comes out to about $518,000 per household over ten years or about $51,800 per year.

The House bill, meanwhile, would raise $544 billion from those same households over ten years, which is decidedly less than the $715 billion. So we’re not even talking about a level of taxation that would make up for the breaks that Bush handed out. There’s a legitimate debate to have regarding the surtax, but a simple knee-jerk reaction — particularly to an increase only affecting a group that’s done very well in terms of tax policy for eight years — is unproductive.

In what’s becoming a monthly ritual, today’s housing data report from RealtyTrac revealed that foreclosures continue to pile up. According to the report, foreclosures in June were up 4.57 percent from the previous month and 33 percent compared with the same period last year. During the first six months of 2009, “a record 1.53 million properties were in the foreclosure process.” One in 84 homes received a foreclosure notice in that period.

It’s no secret that the Obama administration’s plan to spur mortgage modifications is sputtering, with lenders either reluctant or simply unable to keep up with the modification demand. As the Wall Street Journal reported today, some servicers have ramped up their modification programs, but others are lagging behind, and even those that are doing the most can’t keep up with the flood of borrowers facing financial difficulties. “The Obama plan doesn’t seem to be having a significant effect,” said Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com. “Foreclosures will continue to rise through the end of the year.”

So what can be done? In recent days, a variety of plans have been floated — both by the administration and Congress — for slowing the rate of foreclosures. They are detailed below:

None of these plans will be a panacea for the housing problem, and they all have their respective strengths and weaknesses, but it’s absolutely critical that a fix for the foreclosure problem be found.