A TRULY AMAZING EVENT! On July 14, the Washington Post reported some facts about the debt limit crisis
THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011
Kristof brings in the snide/The news page eschews basic facts: This morning, Nicholas Kristof flies away to a lazy man’s retreat. Discussing the ongoing debt limit crisis, he turns to the snark and the snide.
His wonderful paper, the New York Times, continues to avoid reporting the most basic facts about this complex matter (see below). But great men like Kristof don’t stoop to explain. This morning, he brings in the snide:
KRISTOF (7/21/11): The first few times I heard House Republicans talk about our budget mess, I worried that they had plunged off the deep end. But as I kept on listening, a buzzer went off in my mind, and I came to understand how much sense the Tea Party caucus makes.
Why would we impose “job-crushing taxes” on wealthy Americans just to pay for luxuries like federal prisons? Why end the “carried interest” tax loophole for financiers, just to pay for unemployment benefits—especially when those same selfless tycoons are buying yachts and thus creating jobs for all the rest of us?
Hmmm. The truth is that House Republicans don’t actually go far enough. They should follow the logic of their more visionary members with steps like these:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! As he continues, Kristof shares his wonderful sense of humor, amusing those who already think they understand this rolling mess. But what if readers don’t understand? Great men like Kristof don’t stoop to explain. But then, neither does the Times as a whole. It’s instructive to review our greatest newspaper’s overall effort this morning.
Consider the rest of the op-ed page:
Frank Bruni writes his second column (out of seven total) about same-sex marriage. It’s a perfectly valid topic, of course, and Bruni has been widely described as the Times’ “first openly gay columnist.” But the rest of Bruni’s work has been vapid, seeming to extend an extremely strange op-ed page prescription at the Times: Women and gays are basically there to be silly, this strange rule seems to proclaim. Adding to the oddness of today’s op-ed layout, Bruni’s piece lies next to this column, in which Jonathan Turley argues in favor of legalizing polygamy.
The fourth column on today’s op-ed page deals with the space shuttle program. It’s great to see there are no pressing, disaster-level problems staring us all in the face.
That said, is there some problem out in the country concerning this whole “debt limit” matter? Kristof uses the topic today to bring in the snark and the snide. No one else tries to clarify sh*t—but then, almost no one ever does at this, our greatest newspaper.
(People! Krugman explains something twice a week! How much clarity could a great nation need?)
That’s life on the Times op-ed page today. Consider the Times news and editorial pages, where a common role reversal occurs once again today.
To what role reversal do we refer? By normal standards, you review a paper’s news pages to gain access to basic facts. You turn to its editorial page to savor the board’s opinions. But as we have often noted, you’re often more likely to find basic facts on the Times editorial page! This paper’s news pages eschew basic facts. More often, the editors print them.
This morning, the editors opine on the ongoing “debt talks.” More specifically, they discuss the Gang of Six budget plan in a long editorial. And sure enough! The editors include some basic facts about this high-profile new plan—many more facts than have appeared in the Times’ news pages!
Go ahead—search through this paper’s news pages. For the second straight day, you will find virtually no facts about the Gang of Six plan. If you want to review a few meager facts, you have to turn to the editorial. At that location, you will find yourself exposed to some facts, even as the editors do their usual miserable job sifting through them. In this passage, the editors fumble their way through the plan’s apparent or alleged tax provisions:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (7/21/11): The Gang of Six plan calls for at least $1 trillion in new tax revenues by eliminating and reducing tax breaks and deductions. For conservative senators like Saxby Chambliss, Lamar Alexander, Michael Crapo and Tom Coburn to accept this reality shows how willfully blind the House majority has really become.
The senators’ willingness to compromise is commendable, but the agreement they have assembled is really more a collection of talking points than a budget plan, and contains some highly dubious provisions.
The tax sections are slippery, and their size depends on whether the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are finally allowed to expire.
It proposes to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to collect income from the wealthy that had been sheltered in deductions and loopholes. This tax should be changed. Because it has never been adjusted to current economic reality, it has come to ensnare the incomes of Americans who are much farther down the wealth ladder, while failing to capture many of the superrich. Fairness and sound policy would also dictate eliminating tax breaks for the very rich, like the preferential rate for capital gains. But the gang’s plan says nothing specific about that.
Does the Gang of Six plan “propose to eliminate the alternative minimum tax?” Not if you’re reading the Times news pages, which haven’t yet gone into this meager amount of detail. In fact, an array of complex claims are in the air concerning the role the AMT plays in the Gang of Six plan. But if you read the Times news pages, you don’t yet know that the AMT is part of this plan at all.
Perhaps it’s just as well, given the confusing way the editors sift this topic.
Question: Did the editors say the AMT should be eliminated? Or did they say it should simply be “changed” in some way? As is so often case at this paper, there’s really no way to be sure. Meanwhile, the editors’ account of the AMT strikes us as rather confusing (which isn’t to say that it’s “wrong”). For example: The AMT “has never been adjusted to current economic reality?” In fact, the AMT is adjusted pretty much every year, as part of the annual (or semi-annual) “AMT fix” newspapers routinely discuss. (This annual or semi-annual “fix” is specifically designed to stop the AMT from “ensnaring the incomes of Americans who are much farther down the wealth ladder.”) More puzzlement: The editors seem to criticize the AMT because it “fails to capture many of the superrich.” But the AMT was never designed to “capture” all the highest earners. As originally intended, it was supposed to impose a minimum tax on those who have so many deductions that they end up owing no taxes at all, or at most a very small sum.
On balance, we find the editors’ discussion of the AMT rather confusing. But as is so often the case at the Times, this editorial contains more facts about the hot new budget plan than two days’ worth of Times news reporting. On the op-ed page, meanwhile, it’s the standard “what them worry” about onrushing disaster.
Should polygamy be legal? That’s a legitimate question too—although Fox is going to smash the Times for putting the Bruni and Turley columns side-by-side today. (It proves what Mr. O always said! From the one, we go straight to the other!) But is it possible that this question could be resolved after the August 2 potential disaster? In the meantime, could someone possibly help readers understand basic facts about an onrushing crisis?
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Somersby is not yet done with his ranting and raging!
Special report: Never explain!
PART 2—WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE (permalink): Why do fools fall in love with misinformation or foolish ideas?
Given the way our press corps works, it isn’t that hard to do! Consider a recent example:
On Monday, Digby announced that forty percent of the public are fools. They’re fools because they think there would be no huge economic problem if Congress won’t raise the debt limit. (An additional twenty percent didn’t know if this would lead to huge problems, although they weren’t listed as fools.)
As far as we know, these people are totally wrong. But why do fools believe such things? Given the way our “press corps” works, it isn’t that hard to believe foolish notions! Consider what happened when Rep. Steve King, the Iowa Republican, showed up on last Wednesday’s Hardball. To watch the full segment, click here.
Background: One day earlier, Senator McConnell had announced his now-famous plan to raise the debt limit. McConnell’s proposal was quite confusing—but Hardball’s host, Chris Matthews, had had approximately twenty-six hours to get clear on what he’d proposed.
But Matthews is rarely clear on anything. He opened the show with Rep. King. This is how he began:
MATTHEWS (7/13/11): We start with the fight for a debt ceiling deal. U.S. Congressman Steve King’s a Republican from Iowa. Let me ask you—Congressman King, thank you for joining us.
KING: Hi, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Let me go over some highlights of the McConnell plan we’ve been talking about. It essentially frees the debt ceiling from the deficit fight, as you know. If enacted, President Obama would be able to ask for $2.5 trillion over the next year in three installments, as long as he offers up spending cuts. Congress could then vote against raising the debt limit, but Obama would have veto power, of course.
You’re opposed to that. Why, sir?
Say what? Twenty-six hours later, Matthews’ account of the McConnell plan's “highlights” was clear as mud. According to Matthews, Obama would be able to “ask” for $2.5 trillion over the next year—although Matthews didn’t say who Obama would be asking. (And he didn’t specify that this would by a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit.) As Obama asked for this $2.5 trillion, he would have to “offer up spending cuts,” Matthews said—though he didn’t say how large the cuts would have to be, or to whom they would have to be “offered,” or if the spending cuts would actually go into effect. Matthews finished with a bit more gorilla dust: “Congress could then vote against raising the debt limit, but Obama would have veto power, of course.”
This was the very first topic Matthews raised on this program. It wasn’t some random topic which caught the Hardball host by surprise; this was Matthews’ own choice for his program’s starting-point. Despite this, Matthews’ account of McConnell’s proposal was almost completely incoherent. From Matthews’ rat-a-tat account, an average Joe who was watching this program would likely emerge with no real idea of what McConnell had proposed.
Incredibly, that was the best Matthews could do with a topic he himself had selected.
In response, King said he opposed the McConnell plan; he said it “passes the congressional responsibility over to the president and it puts him in the position to veto the objections of Congress about raising the debt ceiling…Right now, it requires a simple majority to say no to debt ceiling, and that is our constitutional obligation. We shouldn`t pass it off to the president.” That statement was much more coherent (and much more accurate) than anything Matthews had said to this point—although it’s still unlikely than an average Joe viewer would have understood, from this exchange, what McConnell had proposed.
Why do fools fall in love with mistaken ideas? Consider where things went from there as this utterly hapless “journalist” continued his grilling of King.
Having muddied McConnell’s proposal, Matthews moved to a new topic. Two days earlier, Obama had made a troubling statement; he said he couldn’t “guarantee” that Social Security checks would still go out after August 2 if the debt limit didn’t get raised. In response, several Republican congressmen had called Obama a liar. Matthews played tape of one such statement, then showed what a nitwit he is:
MATTHEWS: OK. Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, a Tea Partier, went after the president today, calling him a liar in a video message today. Let’s watch what he had to say.
WALSH (videotape): President Obama, quit lying! You know darn well that if August 2nd comes and goes, there’s plenty of money to pay off our debt and cover our, all of our Social Security obligations. And you also know that you and only you have the discretion to make those payments.
But have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country and destroyed job creation. You’re either in over your head, you don’t understand what makes this country great, or you’re hell-bent in turning us into some European big government wasteland.
MATTHEWS: “European big government wasteland.” What does that mean, exactly, that kind of a charge, sir?
KING: Well, I think that’s a bold statement on the part of Joe, and it’s all right for him to play a little hardball with the president.
MATTHEWS: Well, what’s "European wasteland"? What are we talking about, “European wasteland?” And by the way, do you agree with him that the government is not going to go into default in early August if you don’t pass the debt ceiling? Do you agree with him on that?
Good lord! Walsh had made several very serious claims about several serious topics. Most importantly, he had made a statement about those Social Security checks—a statement which was grossly misleading, though it may have been technically accurate. But Matthews chose, as he often does, to focus on an utterly silly semantic offense. He fussed and fumed, through two Q-and-As, about the term “European.”
(This just in from the planet Earth: The contrast between European “social democracies” and the more laissez-faire American system has been a basic analytical framework for several decades now.)
Walsh had called Obama a liar. More narrowly, he had said that Social Security checks could still be sent after August 2, even if the debt limit stays right where it is. That was a very important claim—a claim which needed examination. But Matthews wasted everyone’s time, sputtering through two iterations about an imagined semantic offense. This gave King the chance to ramble, at some length, about the economic devastation in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania—economic devastation he laid at Obama’s door.
An average-Joe viewer could have learned very little from this exchange to this point. But as you can see in the passage above, Matthews had tagged on a relevant question—a question about the debt limit. Did King agree with Walsh? Did he “agree that the government is not going to go into default in early August if you don’t pass the debt ceiling?” Matthews should have said “debt ceiling increase,” of course. But we were finally somewhere near where the rubber meets the road.
And yet, alas! Please note the obvious shortcoming of this question from Matthews. In the tape that Matthews played, Walsh hadn’t said a word about the technical term, “default.” He had made a more recognizable claim—he had said that Obama was lying about those Social Security checks. He said the checks could still be sent even if the debt limit stayed the same. Skipping past that specific claim, Matthews introduced a more nebulous question. And here’s what happened when Rep. King finally started to answer:
KING: I think the president may well, and he did yesterday, implied the threat that senior citizens might not get their Social Security checks. He said, Eat your peas and we can’t guarantee our veterans’ pension payments or our Social Security checks coming in.
I think what I’ve done today, with Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, introducing the Promises Act, it says, it directs this: That we pay our military first. They’re in uniform. Their lives are on the line and their families are living paycheck to military paycheck and they become a political pawn instead. They should be guaranteed to be paid first for all time.
And we need to service our debt. And that needs to also be guaranteed for all time. That consumes right now about 15.2 percent of our revenue stream before you touch the part that we’re borrowing. So we can do this. And Social Security needs to be paid, as does the military. And so that’s what we’re trying to do is to lend some confidence to the markets.
Finally! King seemed to be making this claim: Even after August 2, there would still be enough revenue coming in to pay the troops, to pay debt service, and to send Social Security checks. This, of course, is a factual claim, subject to factual review.
This brings us back to our original question: How do average voters fall in love with mistaken ideas? Let’s understand the context in which King’s claim was made on this program:
All around the country, average Joes were seeing Bachmann and King and Walsh and others making this claim this day. In a rational world, it would be the job of a “journalist” like Matthews to subject such a claim to review. In fact, King’s claim is utterly batty; even if it’s technically accurate (we don’t know if it is), it’s plainly grossly misleading. And guess what? It’s amazingly easy to demonstrate the problem with King’s claim by use of a few simple facts.
But Matthews didn’t have any facts in his head this day; he almost never does. He was unprepared to debate King’s claim, just as he had been unprepared to describe McConnell’s proposal. Tomorrow, we’ll look at his reaction to what King said—and we’ll look at some facts which appeared in the next day’s Washington Post, when that newspaper finally started explaining this very important matter. (The New York Times still hasn’t tried to do so, as near as we can tell.)
Five days after this Hardball session, Digby called eighty million people “fools” because they don’t understand this matter.
Our question: How are average Joes supposed to understand topics like this, surrounded as they are by “journalists’ like Matthews, by newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times? The claim by King was utterly foolish. But Matthews was unprepared, as always. He gave viewers almost nothing to go on.
The claim by King was utterly foolish. But how could a poor fool tell?
Tomorrow: Several months too late, the Post did some real reporting
PART 2—WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE (permalink): Why do fools fall in love with misinformation or foolish ideas?
Given the way our press corps works, it isn’t that hard to do! Consider a recent example:
On Monday, Digby announced that forty percent of the public are fools. They’re fools because they think there would be no huge economic problem if Congress won’t raise the debt limit. (An additional twenty percent didn’t know if this would lead to huge problems, although they weren’t listed as fools.)
As far as we know, these people are totally wrong. But why do fools believe such things? Given the way our “press corps” works, it isn’t that hard to believe foolish notions! Consider what happened when Rep. Steve King, the Iowa Republican, showed up on last Wednesday’s Hardball. To watch the full segment, click here.
Background: One day earlier, Senator McConnell had announced his now-famous plan to raise the debt limit. McConnell’s proposal was quite confusing—but Hardball’s host, Chris Matthews, had had approximately twenty-six hours to get clear on what he’d proposed.
But Matthews is rarely clear on anything. He opened the show with Rep. King. This is how he began:
MATTHEWS (7/13/11): We start with the fight for a debt ceiling deal. U.S. Congressman Steve King’s a Republican from Iowa. Let me ask you—Congressman King, thank you for joining us.
KING: Hi, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Let me go over some highlights of the McConnell plan we’ve been talking about. It essentially frees the debt ceiling from the deficit fight, as you know. If enacted, President Obama would be able to ask for $2.5 trillion over the next year in three installments, as long as he offers up spending cuts. Congress could then vote against raising the debt limit, but Obama would have veto power, of course.
You’re opposed to that. Why, sir?
Say what? Twenty-six hours later, Matthews’ account of the McConnell plan's “highlights” was clear as mud. According to Matthews, Obama would be able to “ask” for $2.5 trillion over the next year—although Matthews didn’t say who Obama would be asking. (And he didn’t specify that this would by a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit.) As Obama asked for this $2.5 trillion, he would have to “offer up spending cuts,” Matthews said—though he didn’t say how large the cuts would have to be, or to whom they would have to be “offered,” or if the spending cuts would actually go into effect. Matthews finished with a bit more gorilla dust: “Congress could then vote against raising the debt limit, but Obama would have veto power, of course.”
This was the very first topic Matthews raised on this program. It wasn’t some random topic which caught the Hardball host by surprise; this was Matthews’ own choice for his program’s starting-point. Despite this, Matthews’ account of McConnell’s proposal was almost completely incoherent. From Matthews’ rat-a-tat account, an average Joe who was watching this program would likely emerge with no real idea of what McConnell had proposed.
Incredibly, that was the best Matthews could do with a topic he himself had selected.
In response, King said he opposed the McConnell plan; he said it “passes the congressional responsibility over to the president and it puts him in the position to veto the objections of Congress about raising the debt ceiling…Right now, it requires a simple majority to say no to debt ceiling, and that is our constitutional obligation. We shouldn`t pass it off to the president.” That statement was much more coherent (and much more accurate) than anything Matthews had said to this point—although it’s still unlikely than an average Joe viewer would have understood, from this exchange, what McConnell had proposed.
Why do fools fall in love with mistaken ideas? Consider where things went from there as this utterly hapless “journalist” continued his grilling of King.
Having muddied McConnell’s proposal, Matthews moved to a new topic. Two days earlier, Obama had made a troubling statement; he said he couldn’t “guarantee” that Social Security checks would still go out after August 2 if the debt limit didn’t get raised. In response, several Republican congressmen had called Obama a liar. Matthews played tape of one such statement, then showed what a nitwit he is:
MATTHEWS: OK. Republican congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois, a Tea Partier, went after the president today, calling him a liar in a video message today. Let’s watch what he had to say.
WALSH (videotape): President Obama, quit lying! You know darn well that if August 2nd comes and goes, there’s plenty of money to pay off our debt and cover our, all of our Social Security obligations. And you also know that you and only you have the discretion to make those payments.
But have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country and destroyed job creation. You’re either in over your head, you don’t understand what makes this country great, or you’re hell-bent in turning us into some European big government wasteland.
MATTHEWS: “European big government wasteland.” What does that mean, exactly, that kind of a charge, sir?
KING: Well, I think that’s a bold statement on the part of Joe, and it’s all right for him to play a little hardball with the president.
MATTHEWS: Well, what’s "European wasteland"? What are we talking about, “European wasteland?” And by the way, do you agree with him that the government is not going to go into default in early August if you don’t pass the debt ceiling? Do you agree with him on that?
Good lord! Walsh had made several very serious claims about several serious topics. Most importantly, he had made a statement about those Social Security checks—a statement which was grossly misleading, though it may have been technically accurate. But Matthews chose, as he often does, to focus on an utterly silly semantic offense. He fussed and fumed, through two Q-and-As, about the term “European.”
(This just in from the planet Earth: The contrast between European “social democracies” and the more laissez-faire American system has been a basic analytical framework for several decades now.)
Walsh had called Obama a liar. More narrowly, he had said that Social Security checks could still be sent after August 2, even if the debt limit stays right where it is. That was a very important claim—a claim which needed examination. But Matthews wasted everyone’s time, sputtering through two iterations about an imagined semantic offense. This gave King the chance to ramble, at some length, about the economic devastation in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania—economic devastation he laid at Obama’s door.
An average-Joe viewer could have learned very little from this exchange to this point. But as you can see in the passage above, Matthews had tagged on a relevant question—a question about the debt limit. Did King agree with Walsh? Did he “agree that the government is not going to go into default in early August if you don’t pass the debt ceiling?” Matthews should have said “debt ceiling increase,” of course. But we were finally somewhere near where the rubber meets the road.
And yet, alas! Please note the obvious shortcoming of this question from Matthews. In the tape that Matthews played, Walsh hadn’t said a word about the technical term, “default.” He had made a more recognizable claim—he had said that Obama was lying about those Social Security checks. He said the checks could still be sent even if the debt limit stayed the same. Skipping past that specific claim, Matthews introduced a more nebulous question. And here’s what happened when Rep. King finally started to answer:
KING: I think the president may well, and he did yesterday, implied the threat that senior citizens might not get their Social Security checks. He said, Eat your peas and we can’t guarantee our veterans’ pension payments or our Social Security checks coming in.
I think what I’ve done today, with Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, introducing the Promises Act, it says, it directs this: That we pay our military first. They’re in uniform. Their lives are on the line and their families are living paycheck to military paycheck and they become a political pawn instead. They should be guaranteed to be paid first for all time.
And we need to service our debt. And that needs to also be guaranteed for all time. That consumes right now about 15.2 percent of our revenue stream before you touch the part that we’re borrowing. So we can do this. And Social Security needs to be paid, as does the military. And so that’s what we’re trying to do is to lend some confidence to the markets.
Finally! King seemed to be making this claim: Even after August 2, there would still be enough revenue coming in to pay the troops, to pay debt service, and to send Social Security checks. This, of course, is a factual claim, subject to factual review.
This brings us back to our original question: How do average voters fall in love with mistaken ideas? Let’s understand the context in which King’s claim was made on this program:
All around the country, average Joes were seeing Bachmann and King and Walsh and others making this claim this day. In a rational world, it would be the job of a “journalist” like Matthews to subject such a claim to review. In fact, King’s claim is utterly batty; even if it’s technically accurate (we don’t know if it is), it’s plainly grossly misleading. And guess what? It’s amazingly easy to demonstrate the problem with King’s claim by use of a few simple facts.
But Matthews didn’t have any facts in his head this day; he almost never does. He was unprepared to debate King’s claim, just as he had been unprepared to describe McConnell’s proposal. Tomorrow, we’ll look at his reaction to what King said—and we’ll look at some facts which appeared in the next day’s Washington Post, when that newspaper finally started explaining this very important matter. (The New York Times still hasn’t tried to do so, as near as we can tell.)
Five days after this Hardball session, Digby called eighty million people “fools” because they don’t understand this matter.
Our question: How are average Joes supposed to understand topics like this, surrounded as they are by “journalists’ like Matthews, by newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times? The claim by King was utterly foolish. But Matthews was unprepared, as always. He gave viewers almost nothing to go on.
The claim by King was utterly foolish. But how could a poor fool tell?
Tomorrow: Several months too late, the Post did some real reporting
Somesby continues hitting it out of the friggin' park!
WHY DO FOOLS FALL IN LOVE! Why do voters believe foolish claims? Let’s review last Wednesday’s Hardball:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
Establishment values and logic/Why your side can’t win: Michelle Cottle is a major establishment player. Rather clearly, she has been in training for several years to be the establishment press corps’ replacement for Cokie Roberts.
She’s is training to be the New Cokie—a clucking southern woman who states the establishment view on all troubling moral affairs.
Beyond that, Cottle has become a large bottom-feeder over the past dozen years. Yesterday, at the Daily Beast, she showed how low the establishment is going to go in these brave new years.
Are Murdoch’s newspapers “bottom-feeders?” This was the Daily Beast headline: “Bachmann Rumor Grows Louder.” No, it isn’t always wrong to report on a political rumor. But as she starts, Cottle shows that rumor and “whispers” are now assumed to be a basic part of the process:
COTTLE (7/20/11): Hear that snickering? That’s the sound of the 2012 mudslinging starting in earnest.
If you aren’t yet familiar with the growing whispers about Michele Bachmann’s campaign—the uncorroborated speculation that the candidate’s profoundly antigay hubby, Marcus, is a closeted gay man—you will be. The chatter has already made its way from the blogs and Twitter (Cher tweeted that Marcus has tripped her exquisitely tuned gaydar) to the alternative press to The Daily Show, where Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld left each other in stitches this week taking shots at Marcus Bachmann’s effeminate manner and “center-square gay” voice. (Anyone out there old enough to remember Paul Lynde?) As Stewart joked, the guy is “an Izod shirt away from being the gay character on Modern Family.” Clips of the comedians’ faux “comedy repression” session promptly popped up on the websites of such stodgy outlets as The Washington Post and The Atlantic.
The wringing of hands about whether it’s fair for the respectable media to promote this sort of salacious chatter is as inevitable as the chatter itself.
To a bottom-feeder like Cottle, concern about what Stewart (and some major journalists) have done is batted aside as “the wringing of hands.” Darlings! “Salacious chatter” is now inevitable! Why not lie back and enjoy it?
Why not repeat the very best jokes? Why not help your readers recall the comically mincing Paul Lynde?
Cottle has been a nightmare-in-training for years. Her new piece helps us see how low the establishment is going to go in this new tribalized era.
Cottle shows us establishment values. For a look at establishment logic, we recommend this pitiful news report from this morning’s New York Times—a news report which will likely send thrills up pseudo-liberal legs.
We’re not familiar with Ron Nixon’s work, though much of it may be quite good. He worked his way up from the Roanoke Times, where he was conceivably held to tighter standards of logic. This morning, many lines are smudged in his opening paragraphs, as he defines a troubling problem—a troubling problem which, in all honesty, doesn’t quite seem to make sense.
In our hard-copy Times, Nixon’s report sits atop the first page of the “National” section. Fudging and smudging as he goes, Nixon seeks an “hypocrisy” hook concerning those freshman Republicans:
NIXON (7/20/11): Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.
They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.
Politicians have long advocated for projects on behalf of individuals and businesses back home, even without earmarks. Several lawmakers said they were merely providing a constituent service. But since many of the freshman Republicans campaigned on a pledge to cut spending and to change Washington’s time-honored ways, their support of spending projects suggests that in many cases ideology can go only so far in serving the needs of people back home.
That last sentence is really pathetic. But Nixon has to fudge many points to drive his hypocrisy hook.
“Nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.” But alas! Unless a call for less spending is actually a call for no spending, it’s hard to see the obvious conflict in the facts Nixon reports. (Do any of the projects he cites represent “out-of-control spending?”) Meanwhile, note the way Nixon marbles the word “earmark” through his report—even though, as you can see, these troubling projects aren’t earmarks.
Liberals have lost for many years because we can’t reason more clearly than this. Your side can’t win in a world like this—though thrills up the leg can feel grand.
This morning, the New York Times makes no real attempt to report what’s in the new Gang of Six plan. Given the way this famous newspaper reasons/explains, maybe it’s just as well.
Regarding the Gang of Six plan: We’re working from our hard-copy Times, which reports that the plan “calls for both deep spending cuts and new revenues through an overhaul of the income-tax code.” The explanation stops there.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
Establishment values and logic/Why your side can’t win: Michelle Cottle is a major establishment player. Rather clearly, she has been in training for several years to be the establishment press corps’ replacement for Cokie Roberts.
She’s is training to be the New Cokie—a clucking southern woman who states the establishment view on all troubling moral affairs.
Beyond that, Cottle has become a large bottom-feeder over the past dozen years. Yesterday, at the Daily Beast, she showed how low the establishment is going to go in these brave new years.
Are Murdoch’s newspapers “bottom-feeders?” This was the Daily Beast headline: “Bachmann Rumor Grows Louder.” No, it isn’t always wrong to report on a political rumor. But as she starts, Cottle shows that rumor and “whispers” are now assumed to be a basic part of the process:
COTTLE (7/20/11): Hear that snickering? That’s the sound of the 2012 mudslinging starting in earnest.
If you aren’t yet familiar with the growing whispers about Michele Bachmann’s campaign—the uncorroborated speculation that the candidate’s profoundly antigay hubby, Marcus, is a closeted gay man—you will be. The chatter has already made its way from the blogs and Twitter (Cher tweeted that Marcus has tripped her exquisitely tuned gaydar) to the alternative press to The Daily Show, where Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld left each other in stitches this week taking shots at Marcus Bachmann’s effeminate manner and “center-square gay” voice. (Anyone out there old enough to remember Paul Lynde?) As Stewart joked, the guy is “an Izod shirt away from being the gay character on Modern Family.” Clips of the comedians’ faux “comedy repression” session promptly popped up on the websites of such stodgy outlets as The Washington Post and The Atlantic.
The wringing of hands about whether it’s fair for the respectable media to promote this sort of salacious chatter is as inevitable as the chatter itself.
To a bottom-feeder like Cottle, concern about what Stewart (and some major journalists) have done is batted aside as “the wringing of hands.” Darlings! “Salacious chatter” is now inevitable! Why not lie back and enjoy it?
Why not repeat the very best jokes? Why not help your readers recall the comically mincing Paul Lynde?
Cottle has been a nightmare-in-training for years. Her new piece helps us see how low the establishment is going to go in this new tribalized era.
Cottle shows us establishment values. For a look at establishment logic, we recommend this pitiful news report from this morning’s New York Times—a news report which will likely send thrills up pseudo-liberal legs.
We’re not familiar with Ron Nixon’s work, though much of it may be quite good. He worked his way up from the Roanoke Times, where he was conceivably held to tighter standards of logic. This morning, many lines are smudged in his opening paragraphs, as he defines a troubling problem—a troubling problem which, in all honesty, doesn’t quite seem to make sense.
In our hard-copy Times, Nixon’s report sits atop the first page of the “National” section. Fudging and smudging as he goes, Nixon seeks an “hypocrisy” hook concerning those freshman Republicans:
NIXON (7/20/11): Freshman House Republicans who rode a wave of voter discontent into office last year vowed to stop out-of-control spending, but that has not stopped several of them from quietly trying to funnel millions of federal dollars into projects back home.
They have pushed for dozens of projects in their districts, including military programs opposed by the president, replenishing beach sand lost to erosion, a $700 million bridge in Minnesota and a harbor dredging project in Charleston, S.C. Some of their projects were once earmarks, political shorthand for pet projects penciled into spending bills, which Republicans banned when they took over the House.
An examination of spending bills, news releases and communications with federal agencies obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.
Politicians have long advocated for projects on behalf of individuals and businesses back home, even without earmarks. Several lawmakers said they were merely providing a constituent service. But since many of the freshman Republicans campaigned on a pledge to cut spending and to change Washington’s time-honored ways, their support of spending projects suggests that in many cases ideology can go only so far in serving the needs of people back home.
That last sentence is really pathetic. But Nixon has to fudge many points to drive his hypocrisy hook.
“Nearly two dozen freshmen have sought money for projects that could ultimately cost billions of dollars, while calling for less spending and banning pork projects.” But alas! Unless a call for less spending is actually a call for no spending, it’s hard to see the obvious conflict in the facts Nixon reports. (Do any of the projects he cites represent “out-of-control spending?”) Meanwhile, note the way Nixon marbles the word “earmark” through his report—even though, as you can see, these troubling projects aren’t earmarks.
Liberals have lost for many years because we can’t reason more clearly than this. Your side can’t win in a world like this—though thrills up the leg can feel grand.
This morning, the New York Times makes no real attempt to report what’s in the new Gang of Six plan. Given the way this famous newspaper reasons/explains, maybe it’s just as well.
Regarding the Gang of Six plan: We’re working from our hard-copy Times, which reports that the plan “calls for both deep spending cuts and new revenues through an overhaul of the income-tax code.” The explanation stops there.
Somersby poses a damn fine question!
Special report: Never explain!
PART 1—IN SEARCH OF THE FOOLS (permalink): What will happen if President Obama and the Congress don’t raise the debt limit by August 2?
Last week, the Pew Research Center decided to take this question to us, the people. In a survey about this matter, they gave respondents two basic choices. This is the question the Pew people asked, although they rotated the order of the two basic choices:
PEW SURVEY QUESTION (7/15-7/17): From what you’ve read and heard, do you think it is absolutely essential that the federal debt limit be raised by August 2 to avoid an economic crisis?
Or do you think the country can go past the August 2 date for when the government reaches its debt limit without major economic problems?
Can the country go past the August 2 date without major economic problems? Or is it absolutely essential that the debt limit be raised by that date? For ourselves, we would have voted for “absolutely essential.” But we the people are split on this question, according to Pew’s report:
PEW RESEARCH CENTER (7/18/11): While administration officials project an economic catastrophe if the debt limit is not raised by Aug. 2, many Americans do not see this deadline as a major problem. Four-in-ten (40%) say that, from what they’ve read and heard, it is absolutely essential that the federal debt limit be raised by Aug. 2 to avoid an economic crisis, while about as many (39%) say the country can go past this date without major economic problems.
We the people are split down the middle! In the Pew survey, forty percent said it’s essential to raise the debt limit by August 2. Thirty-nine percent said there would be no major problems if we didn’t raise the limit. (Twenty-one percent said they don’t know.)
We the people are evenly split. That said, responses differ by party affiliation, though independents tend to favor the “no major problems” side:
PEW RESEARCH CENTER (continuing directly): By a 53% to 30% margin, most Republicans say that it will not be a major problem if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2. The balance of opinion is the reverse among Democrats: 56% say it is absolutely essential to meet that deadline to avoid an economic crisis, 28% say it is not. Independents are more divided, though a slim 43% plurality say the country can go past Aug. 2 without major economic problems, while 32% say it is essential to raise the debt limit by this date.
Nothing here was super surprising. For good or for ill, this is pretty much the way this question has polled for some time.
At any rate, we the people are deeply split about the need for a debt limit hike. Yesterday, Digby offered her views about the results of this survey. We thought her reaction provides a good framework for our new special report.
Digby was unimpressed with the views of us the people. She linked to Greg Sargent’s post about this Pew survey—a report which made some sensible judgments about that survey result. “Much of the blame for this should be pinned on Michele Bachmann and others who continue to feed the fantasy that the debt ceiling doesn’t matter,” Sargent wrote. We’d be inclined to agree, although such questions are heard to test.
Sargent put major blame on Bachmann. But as she started her own post, Digby thundered about the nation’s fools, a group of which, as things turned out, she herself isn’t a part:
DIGBY (7/18/11): The Public's Cynical Assumption
Greg Sargent reports that the Republican rank and file are fools. And, by the way, so are nearly 30% of Democrats.
According to Digby, at least thirty-nine percent of the public are “fools.” Of course, if we add in the people who said they don’t know, that would take us to sixty percent. For some reason, those people were spared.
At any rate, before she was done, Digby let us know what most of those people are thinking. Why did people say “no problem?” In this passage, Carnac explains:
DIGBY: And as far as the public is concerned, the truth is that this "debt ceiling" argument is a mystifying nonsensical beltway argument that most of the people who gave an opinion on it don't understand and don't really care about. They are in a cynical and despairing mood and when you ask them if not raising the debt ceiling will make any difference, they say no because they don't believe anything that politicians and other authority figures say anymore, not because they think the government's got a secret stash of cash they can dispatch. Think of it as a protest vote—a statement of disbelief and disregard in the whole process. The particulars of this issue don't matter… [Digby’s emphasis]
Digby is skilled at knowing what tens of millions of people are thinking. Just for the sake of argument, let’s work those numbers out:
If we assume there are two hundred million American adults, then roughly eighty million adults think there would be no “major economic problems” if the debt limit stays where it is. (Another forty million don’t know.) Digby knows what most of those eighty million are thinking, why they would offer such views. Most of those people “don't really care about” this matter, she says. They are in a cynical and despairing mood. They would say no to Pew’s question “because they don't believe anything that politicians and other authority figures say anymore.”
We can think of their statement as a protest vote. “The particulars of this issue don't matter.”
We’re always amazed when people can mind-read tens of millions of people this way. But how about it—is Digby right? Is that why so many respondents told Pew that there would no major problems? Here at THE HOWLER, we simply don’t know—though we would guess that variuous people would explain their view in various ways. But we’ll note that Sargent offered a massively different explanation for that survey result. As noted above, Sargent pinned “much of the blame” for that result on Republican pols like Bachmann—on authority figures who are telling these voters that there won’t be a problem.
According to Sargent, many respondents said “no problem” because they do believe something “politicians and other authority figures” have said. This reverses the view Digby expressed.
For ourselves, we’re always amazed when fiery liberals dismiss so many people as fools. (This strikes us as very bad politics.) Just for the record, we’re all fairly clueless: Just last Friday, a major liberal blogger offered a post in which she disputed a claim about the way American corporate tax rates compare to those in Europe. To dispute the claim in question, she posted two graphs—neither of which shows the way American corporate tax rates compare to those in Europe. We wouldn’t call that blogger a fool because she failed to post the right graphs. More diplomatically, we’d say that none of us ever gets everything right—even those of us who spend all day puzzling over these matters.
For ourselves, we’d say the people who said “no problem” were almost surely wrong in their view. And we’d be inclined to agree with Sargent; we’d assume that many people are expressing that view because they’ve heard public figures they trust say there would be no problem. But we’d take the analysis one step further, bringing the press into play.
Yes, it’s partly Bachmann’s fault for saying there would be no problem. But how has the mainstream press corps reacted to claims like hers? How has the press corps handled this topic? We’ve been stunned by the press corps’ failure to address and explain this matter—by its refusal to function in accord with the traditional norms of its craft.
It’s fun to call them the people fools, although we think it’s bad politics and semi-dumb on the merits. But what about the multimillionaires who pretend to explain these matters? Why do pseudo-liberals sometimes blame the average Joe while skipping past these fools?
Does anyone ever explain major issues? We’ll be asking that question all week with respect to the debt limit issue. And by the way: If no one explains, how can we fools decide?
Tomorrow—part 2: What happened when King said no problem
PART 1—IN SEARCH OF THE FOOLS (permalink): What will happen if President Obama and the Congress don’t raise the debt limit by August 2?
Last week, the Pew Research Center decided to take this question to us, the people. In a survey about this matter, they gave respondents two basic choices. This is the question the Pew people asked, although they rotated the order of the two basic choices:
PEW SURVEY QUESTION (7/15-7/17): From what you’ve read and heard, do you think it is absolutely essential that the federal debt limit be raised by August 2 to avoid an economic crisis?
Or do you think the country can go past the August 2 date for when the government reaches its debt limit without major economic problems?
Can the country go past the August 2 date without major economic problems? Or is it absolutely essential that the debt limit be raised by that date? For ourselves, we would have voted for “absolutely essential.” But we the people are split on this question, according to Pew’s report:
PEW RESEARCH CENTER (7/18/11): While administration officials project an economic catastrophe if the debt limit is not raised by Aug. 2, many Americans do not see this deadline as a major problem. Four-in-ten (40%) say that, from what they’ve read and heard, it is absolutely essential that the federal debt limit be raised by Aug. 2 to avoid an economic crisis, while about as many (39%) say the country can go past this date without major economic problems.
We the people are split down the middle! In the Pew survey, forty percent said it’s essential to raise the debt limit by August 2. Thirty-nine percent said there would be no major problems if we didn’t raise the limit. (Twenty-one percent said they don’t know.)
We the people are evenly split. That said, responses differ by party affiliation, though independents tend to favor the “no major problems” side:
PEW RESEARCH CENTER (continuing directly): By a 53% to 30% margin, most Republicans say that it will not be a major problem if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug. 2. The balance of opinion is the reverse among Democrats: 56% say it is absolutely essential to meet that deadline to avoid an economic crisis, 28% say it is not. Independents are more divided, though a slim 43% plurality say the country can go past Aug. 2 without major economic problems, while 32% say it is essential to raise the debt limit by this date.
Nothing here was super surprising. For good or for ill, this is pretty much the way this question has polled for some time.
At any rate, we the people are deeply split about the need for a debt limit hike. Yesterday, Digby offered her views about the results of this survey. We thought her reaction provides a good framework for our new special report.
Digby was unimpressed with the views of us the people. She linked to Greg Sargent’s post about this Pew survey—a report which made some sensible judgments about that survey result. “Much of the blame for this should be pinned on Michele Bachmann and others who continue to feed the fantasy that the debt ceiling doesn’t matter,” Sargent wrote. We’d be inclined to agree, although such questions are heard to test.
Sargent put major blame on Bachmann. But as she started her own post, Digby thundered about the nation’s fools, a group of which, as things turned out, she herself isn’t a part:
DIGBY (7/18/11): The Public's Cynical Assumption
Greg Sargent reports that the Republican rank and file are fools. And, by the way, so are nearly 30% of Democrats.
According to Digby, at least thirty-nine percent of the public are “fools.” Of course, if we add in the people who said they don’t know, that would take us to sixty percent. For some reason, those people were spared.
At any rate, before she was done, Digby let us know what most of those people are thinking. Why did people say “no problem?” In this passage, Carnac explains:
DIGBY: And as far as the public is concerned, the truth is that this "debt ceiling" argument is a mystifying nonsensical beltway argument that most of the people who gave an opinion on it don't understand and don't really care about. They are in a cynical and despairing mood and when you ask them if not raising the debt ceiling will make any difference, they say no because they don't believe anything that politicians and other authority figures say anymore, not because they think the government's got a secret stash of cash they can dispatch. Think of it as a protest vote—a statement of disbelief and disregard in the whole process. The particulars of this issue don't matter… [Digby’s emphasis]
Digby is skilled at knowing what tens of millions of people are thinking. Just for the sake of argument, let’s work those numbers out:
If we assume there are two hundred million American adults, then roughly eighty million adults think there would be no “major economic problems” if the debt limit stays where it is. (Another forty million don’t know.) Digby knows what most of those eighty million are thinking, why they would offer such views. Most of those people “don't really care about” this matter, she says. They are in a cynical and despairing mood. They would say no to Pew’s question “because they don't believe anything that politicians and other authority figures say anymore.”
We can think of their statement as a protest vote. “The particulars of this issue don't matter.”
We’re always amazed when people can mind-read tens of millions of people this way. But how about it—is Digby right? Is that why so many respondents told Pew that there would no major problems? Here at THE HOWLER, we simply don’t know—though we would guess that variuous people would explain their view in various ways. But we’ll note that Sargent offered a massively different explanation for that survey result. As noted above, Sargent pinned “much of the blame” for that result on Republican pols like Bachmann—on authority figures who are telling these voters that there won’t be a problem.
According to Sargent, many respondents said “no problem” because they do believe something “politicians and other authority figures” have said. This reverses the view Digby expressed.
For ourselves, we’re always amazed when fiery liberals dismiss so many people as fools. (This strikes us as very bad politics.) Just for the record, we’re all fairly clueless: Just last Friday, a major liberal blogger offered a post in which she disputed a claim about the way American corporate tax rates compare to those in Europe. To dispute the claim in question, she posted two graphs—neither of which shows the way American corporate tax rates compare to those in Europe. We wouldn’t call that blogger a fool because she failed to post the right graphs. More diplomatically, we’d say that none of us ever gets everything right—even those of us who spend all day puzzling over these matters.
For ourselves, we’d say the people who said “no problem” were almost surely wrong in their view. And we’d be inclined to agree with Sargent; we’d assume that many people are expressing that view because they’ve heard public figures they trust say there would be no problem. But we’d take the analysis one step further, bringing the press into play.
Yes, it’s partly Bachmann’s fault for saying there would be no problem. But how has the mainstream press corps reacted to claims like hers? How has the press corps handled this topic? We’ve been stunned by the press corps’ failure to address and explain this matter—by its refusal to function in accord with the traditional norms of its craft.
It’s fun to call them the people fools, although we think it’s bad politics and semi-dumb on the merits. But what about the multimillionaires who pretend to explain these matters? Why do pseudo-liberals sometimes blame the average Joe while skipping past these fools?
Does anyone ever explain major issues? We’ll be asking that question all week with respect to the debt limit issue. And by the way: If no one explains, how can we fools decide?
Tomorrow—part 2: What happened when King said no problem
ALL CREDIT FOR THIS SERIES OF POSTS BELONGS TO BOB SOMERSBY OF THE DAILY HOWLER!
NEVER EXPLAIN! Digby spotted a ship of fools when Pew asked a basic question
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011
Christopher’s latest vast fail: Wow. To observe the latest epic fail, take a look at Chris Matthews’ attempt to debate Grover Norquist on last evening’s Hardball.
To watch the full segment, just click this. Who is Grover Norquist? Click here.
Can we talk? Matthews is stunningly unprepared to discuss any policy topic. Regarding his debate with Norquist, a college sophomore could have done better after three weeks of Government 1.
Frank Bruni could have done better last night! Gail Collins could have put up a better fight, in between obsessive references to Mitt Romney’s poor abused dog. (Eighteen columns and counting, although she’s now “on book leave.”)
Here at THE HOWLER, we happen to know Grover Norquist a small tiny tad. (For several years, we worked with him on the board of a DC charity event. You might say he’s our own Bill Ayers.) We know Grover a small tiny tad—and on a personal basis, we like him, for several reasons, although we think his “no new taxes ever” stance is utterly, transparently foolish. Showing the problems with Norquist’s stance must be the easiest task on the planet. Until the task is handed to Matthews, who responds with his latest vast fail.
In this week’s award-winning special report (see below), we plan to discuss the press corps’ failure to explain an array of topics surrounding the ongoing debt limit fight. But if you want to watch someone who can’t explain a damn thing, we suggest you watch Matthews last night. For example, watch the way he wastes your time getting mad at a minor matter of language. (How dare Norquist say “hissy fit?”) Watch the way he wastes your time arguing another meaningless point: Is the GOP “no new taxes” pledge made to Norquist himself or to the American people?
Norquist has been a powerful player for years. During that era, there has been no bigger fraud than Hardball’s hapless host.
We liberals are getting our schadenfreude on concerning Rupert Murdoch this week. Fair enough, but here again we note a small problem—it sometimes seems we have to wait for the other side to commit a crime before we can hope to defeat them. When we tolerate world-class clowns like Matthews, we ensure our side’s long-term defeat.
We may do a series on Norquist next week. He has been a very determined player. For that reason, you can feel certain of one thing:
Inside DC power circles, there is no “liberal” equivalent.
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011
Christopher’s latest vast fail: Wow. To observe the latest epic fail, take a look at Chris Matthews’ attempt to debate Grover Norquist on last evening’s Hardball.
To watch the full segment, just click this. Who is Grover Norquist? Click here.
Can we talk? Matthews is stunningly unprepared to discuss any policy topic. Regarding his debate with Norquist, a college sophomore could have done better after three weeks of Government 1.
Frank Bruni could have done better last night! Gail Collins could have put up a better fight, in between obsessive references to Mitt Romney’s poor abused dog. (Eighteen columns and counting, although she’s now “on book leave.”)
Here at THE HOWLER, we happen to know Grover Norquist a small tiny tad. (For several years, we worked with him on the board of a DC charity event. You might say he’s our own Bill Ayers.) We know Grover a small tiny tad—and on a personal basis, we like him, for several reasons, although we think his “no new taxes ever” stance is utterly, transparently foolish. Showing the problems with Norquist’s stance must be the easiest task on the planet. Until the task is handed to Matthews, who responds with his latest vast fail.
In this week’s award-winning special report (see below), we plan to discuss the press corps’ failure to explain an array of topics surrounding the ongoing debt limit fight. But if you want to watch someone who can’t explain a damn thing, we suggest you watch Matthews last night. For example, watch the way he wastes your time getting mad at a minor matter of language. (How dare Norquist say “hissy fit?”) Watch the way he wastes your time arguing another meaningless point: Is the GOP “no new taxes” pledge made to Norquist himself or to the American people?
Norquist has been a powerful player for years. During that era, there has been no bigger fraud than Hardball’s hapless host.
We liberals are getting our schadenfreude on concerning Rupert Murdoch this week. Fair enough, but here again we note a small problem—it sometimes seems we have to wait for the other side to commit a crime before we can hope to defeat them. When we tolerate world-class clowns like Matthews, we ensure our side’s long-term defeat.
We may do a series on Norquist next week. He has been a very determined player. For that reason, you can feel certain of one thing:
Inside DC power circles, there is no “liberal” equivalent.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
LETE'S TRY TO DO SOME REAL GOOD IN THE WORLD AND HELP CURE CANCER!!!
Dear Mark Ganzer,
Michelle Hupfer
PGA Member
Biltmore CC
815-761-1277
It was nice speaking with you on the phone the other day. I'm glad that you are interested in participating in the golf outing I started held in memory of my father.Sincerely,
So far we have raised over $100,000 for Prostate Cancer Research and the event has been a huge success year after year. This year will be the 5th Annual Bruce Alan Hupfer (BAHUP) Memorial Golf Outing and will be held on Monday, August 15th at "McHenry Country Club." Format will be a four person scramble, 9AM shotgun with lunch, silent auction, live auction, and raffle following. There will be a Mercedes hole in one car, 50/50 raffle, long drive contest, closest to the pin, and lots of great prizes. Entry Fee $150 and includes golf, cart, prizes, and lunch. Please visit the website at www.BAHUPMemorial.com
I am also excited to have ProCure as our main sponsor. ProCure specializes in Proton Therapy which is an effective form of radiation therapy for many types of tumors. Proton Therapy destroys cancer cells by preventing them from dividing and growing and can more precisely target the tumor. Feel free to read more about it at www.Procure.com
Attached is the flyer/registration form. If you could also please spread the word about this event I would greatly appreciate it. I am looking for golfers, sponsors, volunteers, and raffle prizes. Hole sponsors are $150, cart sponsor $350, food sponsor $500, and corporate and event sponsorships are also available.
I hope you can attend. Thanks for your support!
Michelle Hupfer
PGA Member
Biltmore CC
815-761-1277
Sunday, July 17, 2011
I'll be performing tomorrow, July 18, 2011 in Crystal Lake, IL
At the Williams Street Public House
83 N. Williams Street
Crystal Lake, IL
Starting at 11:15 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
This will become a regular gig for me, whoop dee doop!
Will play the oldest songs I know (Introduction to The Epic of Gilgamesh), The Myth of Er (from Plato's Republic) and a Gregorian chant, which, written circa 700 AD is almost contemporary! ... ROFLMAO!!
Will play the "Welcome to My World" set (while my folks aren't in, they're not overtly fond of Umbilical Detonation) with my two newest songs:
Steve Kunkel - Bar Fightin' Street Fightin' Man
Claire (instrumental)
And then will astound the audience with a cornucopia of tunes from the 60's.
83 N. Williams Street
Crystal Lake, IL
Starting at 11:15 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
This will become a regular gig for me, whoop dee doop!
Will play the oldest songs I know (Introduction to The Epic of Gilgamesh), The Myth of Er (from Plato's Republic) and a Gregorian chant, which, written circa 700 AD is almost contemporary! ... ROFLMAO!!
Will play the "Welcome to My World" set (while my folks aren't in, they're not overtly fond of Umbilical Detonation) with my two newest songs:
Steve Kunkel - Bar Fightin' Street Fightin' Man
Claire (instrumental)
And then will astound the audience with a cornucopia of tunes from the 60's.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
FROM: Mark Ganzer
TO: Doc Brown
Message flagged Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:22 AM
Hi Doc - just to try once again to convince you how much fun I had the other night, I'm forwarding to you a letter I sent to Rachael, the ukelele player for H.O.T. Fox (Heart of the Fox), an astonishingly gifted duet which performs their own original work ... featuring the Uke (of course), a Flamenco acoustic guitar underpinning, and a lead female vocalist who makes sounds that can be heard only in mosques -- a not to be missed experience!
Again, thanks for being such a wonderful host, avid listener, and all round good person.
Mark Raymond Ganzer
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mark Ganzer
To: Rachael, vocalist and ukelele player with Heart Of The Fox
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: An extraordinary open mic venue
TO: Doc Brown
Message flagged Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:22 AM
Hi Doc - just to try once again to convince you how much fun I had the other night, I'm forwarding to you a letter I sent to Rachael, the ukelele player for H.O.T. Fox (Heart of the Fox), an astonishingly gifted duet which performs their own original work ... featuring the Uke (of course), a Flamenco acoustic guitar underpinning, and a lead female vocalist who makes sounds that can be heard only in mosques -- a not to be missed experience!
Again, thanks for being such a wonderful host, avid listener, and all round good person.
Mark Raymond Ganzer
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mark Ganzer
To: Rachael, vocalist and ukelele player with Heart Of The Fox
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:17 AM
Subject: An extraordinary open mic venue
Greetings Rachael,
It was such a treat to get to hear you two jamming with the players after the cut you off so early.
Thursday nights, you simply CANNOT MISS the open mic (starting at 7:00 p.m.) hosted by Doc Brown at Corkscrew Pointe. Doc is such a talent, but, as the man in charge of the open mic, he
(a) starts on time
(b) let's every one play
(c) works new folks showing up late into the rotation
(d) follows up with a thank you e-mail the next day
The venue is this incredible dimly lit back room, the martini room, which last Thursday seemed almost as if the assembled (Robin, the acoustic guitar soloist and her two lady friends, Doc, me, and the bar tender) group had been treated to a night at Xanadu hosted by Orson Welles and featuring the three finest musical players no one has ever heard of.
We later were joined by two young high-school aged ladies who sang an original duet, then each sang a solo. The father and mother of the one girl (who also plays the fiddle and has been commanded to bring the fiddle this Thursday upcoming, 14 July, 2011) own the music store in McHenry, and their eldest son runs it.
Later still, a retired postal worker came in and just delighted us with such levity and uplifting songs as "Love Begins with a Tube of Tooth Paste" (and ends the same way).
And even later still, we were joined by a dramatic reader, also named Mark - who read from Jimmy Durante's "Yes, We Have No Banannas," until he dropped his book, lost his place, and couldn't finish the last line! He then proceeded to read two actual letters, on from Ben Franklin, and the other, I believe from George Washington. Quite appropriate so near 4 July.
Hope to see you there this Thursday (they also hold an open mic on Tuesdays, same time, but I do not know the host). lThe owner of the bar uses the open mic to determine who to hire to play to the lunch and dinner crowds. Have I at least piqued your curiousity, darlin'?
Mark Raymond Ganzer
Perpetual War, Corporate Greed, & Austerity for the Masses Keeping it Real By Larry Pinkney
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
-Frederick Douglass
“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience...Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves...[and] the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
-Howard Zinn
As the corporate/military U.S. Empire, headed by the nominally black Barack Obama, with the complicity of his Democrat[ic] and Republican party political pimps, rumbles along, crushing the economic needs, human rights, and aspirations of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people in this nation and around the world, conditions for just plain ordinary people are worsening and deteriorating at lightning speed. Only the avaricious, blood-sucking, bloated rich are financially benefiting from the increasing misery of the masses of ordinary people.
Meanwhile, the propaganda arm of the U.S. Government, i.e. the corporate-stream media, continues incessantly to peddle and parrot the distractions, distortions, omissions, and outright lies of its corporate masters to the enormous detriment of everyday people. At all costs, this corporate-stream media seeks to ignore, marginalize, or discredit those persons who are critical thinkers and who see the need for real systemic change.
The first casualties in this corporate/military government’s persistent war against everyday people are critical thought and political dissent. This nation has a president and other politicians whose de facto contempt for the pain and the common sense of everyday people is surpassed only by their arrogance, wars abroad, double-speak, and lies. Their actions repeatedly belie their phony and misleading rhetoric. They, like their corporate masters, are nothing more than political pimps and economic blood-suckers of the people, whom they treat as perpetual ping-pong balls and caged hamsters endlessly running on the spinning wheel to oblivion.
The U.S. corporate/military government is generally feared by the people of this nation, not held accountable by them. Until this fear is replaced by a collective, actualized, and unflinching demand on the part of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people for transparency in government, full accountability, and economic parity, real change will not be forthcoming. Everyday people will remain as helpless, hapless pawns only as long as they/we allow ourselves to be.
Notwithstanding the odious genocide of indigenous people and the slavery of Black people that accompanied the founding of this nation, the U.S. Declaration of Independence pulled no punches when it correctly and explicitly stated that governments must derive “...their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government...” Undeniably implicit in the requirement that the “power[s]” of government be derived “from the consent of the governed” is the right of political dissent. Moreover, it is the explicit “right” of the people to “alter or abolish” any “form of government” that is not what the Declaration of Independence refers to as “just.”
The cynical and callous manipulation and domination of everyday people by the 1 or 2 percent corporate/military elite of this nation is by no means “just,” and it is an utter mockery and subversion of anything even near to deriving its powers to govern “from the consent of the governed.” Additionally, this corporate-government’s perpetual wars of empire, the ‘Patriot Act,’ ‘Extraordinary Rendition,’ trillion dollar give-aways to the multi-national Wall Street robber barons, the shredding of any meaningful constitutional rights, attacks on Medicare and Social Security, and other increasing economic austerity measures against everyday people, are further examples of precisely how the “consent of the governed” has been brazenly subverted by the corporate/military elite of this nation.
Inevitably, an increasing collective loathing for the dishonest and hypocritical internal and external policies and practices of this U.S. corporate-government may yet very well come to replace lethargy and the fear of said government. For the moment however, this corporate-government is relying upon its formidable ability to manipulate the masses of everyday people by using fear, lies, and constant subterfuge. Also. for the moment, so many people of all colors in this nation remain, in actual terms, the economic slaves, pawns, and cannon fodder of the U.S. Empire.
Whether it is the police throughout this country the FBI, CIA, NSA, TSA, etc., this nation’s corporate-government uses fear, subterfuge, and the suppression of political dissent as a means to perpetuate this political theatre of the absurd in order to manipulate, quash, and subvert the “consent” and will of everyday people. As a long time reader of The Black Commentator recently wrote concerning the present overwhelmingly insane and lethargic state of affairs in this nation: “The police have now niggerized any and everybody through fear! This may explain the theatre of the absurd that we are witnessing.”
In due course however, even fear must take a back seat to the increasing joblessness, homelessness, despair, and hunger, etc. of everyday people in this nation. And even the double-speak rhetoric of the wily Barack Obama and his Republicrat [i.e. Democrat and Republican] cohorts will prove to be of no avail in soothing the legitimate rage of the people. For in the words of Langston Hughes: “What happens to a dream deferred?”
Clearly, the entire U.S. government, its corporate-stream “news” media, and most other institutions of the United States of America are inextricably beholden to the dictates of the tiny, blood-sucking corporate elite of this nation. U.S. wars and military occupations and/or interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with the championing of so-called ‘democracy;’ and they invariably mean more pain and more death to everyday people both at home and abroad, while serving to enrich the bottomless, blood-drenched coffers of the corporate elite. The United States is a corporate plutocracy whose alleged political ‘leaders’ are the conscienceless bane of this nation and of humanity as a whole.
Hypocrisy, lies, and subterfuge continue to be the mainstays of this U.S. Empire, but only for as long as we, the people, allow it. Despite constant acts of subversion, distortion and subterfuge by the world-wide octopus-like tentacles of the U.S. corporate/military Empire to manipulate and subvert the legitimate needs and aspirations of everyday people around the world, our sisters and brothers in Haiti, Palestine, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Mexico, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and so many other places on Mother Earth are resisting corporate and/or military hegemony in ‘body and soul,’ and they are rising up as a part of the human family.
Perpetual wars, corporate hegemony & greed, and austerity for the masses of everyday people are absolutely unacceptable. The pillage of our precious planet Mother Earth is also totally unacceptable. It is time to make the people’s history. It is time to reclaim the narrative of everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people collectively. Whether we like it or not our futures on this planet are irreversibly bound together. The people’s struggle for freedom, justice, and systemic change, irrespective of color, whether it in this nation or anywhere else in the world, is a protracted one and cannot successfully exist and grow in a vacuum.
In the words of Malcolm X [el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz], “Any kind of movement for freedom of Black people based solely within the confines of America is absolutely doomed to fail.” Ours must be an international struggle for justice and human rights. Nevertheless, we must begin it right here in this nation, and link it to our sisters and brothers planet-wide. It’s certainly not easy nor is it short, but then, no serious and effective struggle ever is. As Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
Onward then my sisters and brothers! Onward!
BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board Member, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In connection with his political organizing activities in opposition to voter suppression, etc., Pinkney was interviewed in 1988 on the nationally televised PBS News Hour, formerly known as The MacNeil / Lehrer News Hour. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker, by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book.) Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.
Neighbor vs. neighbor as homeowner fights get ugly As more are unable to pay homeowners' fees, associations pit neighbor against neighbor
In this June 15, 2011 photo, an empty park bench and rusting pipe sit near the swimming pool at the Inlet House, in Fort Pierce, Fla. The complex was an affordable place that the 55-and-older set aspired to. But now the Homeowner's association has levied a $6,000 assessment on every homeowner and then foreclosed on seniors who did not owe the bank a dime but could not afford the association bill. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
Michelle Conlin and Tamara Lush, AP Business Writers, On Sunday July 10, 2011, 3:46 pm EDT
The Inlet House condo complex in Fort Pierce, Fla., was once the kind of place the 55-and-older set aspired to. It was affordable. The pool and clubhouse were tidy, the lawns freshly snipped. Residents, push-carts in tow, walked to the beach, the bank, the beauty parlor, the cinema and the supermarket. In post-crash America, this was a dreamy little spot. Especially on a fixed income.
But that was Inlet House before the rats started chewing through the toilet seats in vacant units and sewage started seeping from the ceiling. Before condos that were worth $79,000 four years ago sold for as little as $3,000. And before the homeowners' association levied $6,000 assessments on everyone -- and then foreclosed on seniors who couldn't pay the association bill, even if they didn't owe the bank a dime.
Normally, it's the bankers who go after delinquent homeowners. But in communities governed by the mighty homeowners' association, as the sour economy leaves more people unable to pay their fees, it's neighbor versus neighbor.
"What the board is doing is trying to foreclose on people to force people out the door," says Mike Silvestri, 75, who stopped paying his dues at Inlet House in protest over what he considers unnecessary and unaffordable assessments.
He and others say there were cheaper ways to deal with the rat infestation and leaky sewage that led the board to order up a costly plumbing overhaul. "They are bamboozling old people. I'm old, but I'm not senile," he says.
In the past, housing associations have gained infamy for dictating everything from the weight of your dog (one mandated a diet for a hound) to whether you can kiss in your driveway (not if you don't want a fine). Homeowners' associations have served as the behavior police, banning lemonade stands, solar panels and hanging out in the garage. One ordered a war hero to take down his flag because of a "nonconforming" pole. Another demanded that residents with brown spots on their lawns dye their grass green.
Now, past the faux regal gates, beyond the clubhouses, many property owners in associations owe more than their homes are worth. Some are struggling to pay their bills after they lose a job. Others have had their pay cut. So they've stopped paying their association dues.
To combat the rise in delinquencies, boards are switching off utilities, garnishing income and axing cable. They are yanking pool passes and banning the billiard room. And, in the most extreme cases, they are foreclosing.
"The treacherous part is that homeowners' associations are acting like a local government without restraints, and they have this extraordinary power," says Marjorie Murray, a lawyer and founder of the Center for California Homeowner Association Law.
Today, one in five U.S. homeowners is subject to the will of the homeowners' association, whose boards oversee 24.4 million homes. More than 80 percent of newly constructed homes in the U.S are in association communities.
And of the nation's 300,000 homeowners' associations, more than 50 percent now face "serious financial problems," according to a September survey by the Community Association Institute. An October survey found that 65 percent of homeowners' associations have delinquency rates higher than 5 percent, up from 19 percent of associations in 2005.
Associations set rules for their communities. They levy monthly dues, typically between $200 and $500, and cover the costs of services that a municipal government usually takes care of: road repair, streetlights, sewage systems. If an association's budget is strained or major repairs need to be done, the board can levy a "special assessment" on top of those dues. And when one homeowner doesn't pay those fees, all the other homeowners have to pick up the cost.
The rise in delinquencies comes as banks are taking over foreclosed homes and then leaving them vacant more often than ever. Taken together, these shortfalls are resulting in higher fees for all of the other homeowners -- and massive financial angst for association boards.
Before now, associations rarely, if ever, foreclosed on homeowners. But today, encouraged by a new industry of lawyers and consultants, boards are increasingly foreclosing on people 60 days past due on association fees, says Evan McKenzie, a former homeowner association attorney who is now a University of Illinois political science professor and the author of the book "Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government."
The government does not keep statistics on how often homeowners' associations initiate foreclosures. But a nonprofit research group found that association-initiated foreclosures in the Houston area jumped from 500 in 1995 to 2,200 in 2007. Most association-related foreclosures in Texas do not go through the judicial process, so the group's analysis represented only a fraction of the foreclosures that housing associations have initiated.
In exchange for adhering to the rules, homeowners got safe communities with clubhouses, pools and tennis courts. But what many didn't realize when they bought their homes was that the fine print gave the association the right to foreclose -- even over a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues.
All the association board has to do is alert its attorney to place a lien on the property to start the process. The home can then be auctioned by the board until the bank eventually takes ownership. Homeowners typically have no right to a hearing.
"These are banana republics," McKenzie says.
The problems in some communities are resulting in more scrutiny. In Nevada, the FBI is investigating corruption in elections of association boards. In Utah and Arizona, legislators are trying to pass bills that would root out the use of debt-collectors who are alleged to have used thug-like tactics to strong-arm residents into paying fees.
State legislatures in California, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas and Florida have taken up legislation that would clamp down on foreclosures.
Not everyone thinks the tactics are out of line, though.
"When people are not paying their assessments, they're not shortchanging some giant multinational corporation. They are taking money directly out of the pockets of their neighbors," says Andrew Fortin, head of government affairs for the trade group the Community Associations Institute.
So the neighborhood feuds are escalating. At Inlet House, one resident claims her fellow senior citizens have turned into vigilantes, vandalizing her car in retaliation for not paying her dues.
In all, 17 of the 60 units are in various stages of delinquency. Paul Gray, a fastidious budgeter, paid off his mortgage long ago and paid all but $2,500 of the Inlet House assessment. The association initiated foreclosure proceedings. A few days after he received the foreclosure notice, Gray suffered another stroke, three friends say. Now he is in a nursing home. He has since paid off the $2,500. His home, worth $89,000 in 2006, is for sale for $18,500.
In the meantime, the board, facing $172,000 in costs from nonpayers, has had no choice but to raise dues by an extra $50 a month to an average of $375. Between the assessment and increased dues, some residents complain that they pay more than they would to rent a plush oceanfront spread down the street at the posh Fontainebleau condo complex. Association manager Janice Stinnett, who is also an Inlet House resident, says she isn't to blame, the nonpayers are.
"It's unfair that everyone is paying extra to cover these deadbeats," she says.
The board is continuing to make the plumbing repairs that made the assessments necessary to begin with. It will soon issue another special assessment to cover the costs.
To homeowners who opposed the repairs on the grounds that they were too expensive, the entire picture adds up to a crime. Says Silvestri, "What these associations are doing is illegal. It's a fraud."
Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.
3,305 comments
Show:
Post a comment
Comments 1 - 10 of 3305First PrevNextLast
00Robert 2 minutes ago Report Abuse
This is just another HOA's should be banned nation wide, unless, of course, you prefer to live in a non-democratic society where someone else can tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it. Sure HOA's have some benefits such as someone else doing the yard work (their way), more secure living (once in a while), etc. The greed and insanity of the selfish control freaks has to stop, HOA's should just be completely outlawed and those neighborhoods returned to the Land of the FREE.
Reply
00Scott 2 minutes ago Report Abuse
Your vice president said to count yourself lucky when you can pay your fare share. Hey we live in Obamanation, get used to the tax if no one cares about spending.
Reply
00Crafashion.Com 3 minutes ago Report Abuse
polo tshirt ，gucci prada lv chanel ，handbag， shoes ，online 33 usd look my name 67
Reply
10Anonymous 3 minutes ago Report Abuse
That is why, I would NEVER live in a community with an HOA. I've done that, and all they do is take your money and do nothing for it, except tell me how I should live in my own house. I understand that some people like the idea of uniformaty, but, alot of these HOA a**hole see it as a way to impose their way of thinking on everyone else, and get money to do it. If it ever come to the point of renting or living in a HOA community, I'll take renting, they tell you want you can and can't do, cause they own the building yoy are living in. These are hard times for everyone, people are out of work and are barely scraping by. Those people are being a little rediculous, emphasis on the 'DIC'.
Reply
10Roger 4 minutes ago Report Abuse
ive been thinking about buying a house , but buying one with H O A is know way out , of what i want , after reading this , i had no ideal about the H O A having this kind of bull , i have a feeling that some people that run the H O A are going to get hurt !!! a realator was trying to get me to buy a house that the h o a said needed a roof, i said if i buy it , ill wait and theres soo many that cant aford it , whats the H O A going to do , the realator , said yea what can they do , goes to show she knew that thye could o this and just wanted to sell the house , realators are vampires , her names talia from brandon florida , ill look for no H O A and hope they get what coming to them , what ever that may be , hope the people can chase them out !!!
Reply
00Alien Jesus 4 minutes ago Report Abuse
USA, where people will actually pay to be told what to do as long as it makes them feel like they're getting to tell someone else what to do... it's a greedy hell bent power mad society and most of the people who bought into this crap in the first place deserve whatever they have coming.
Reply
00Jerry 5 minutes ago Report Abuse
When the hell did it become other peoples business what you do on your own property? Everything stays within the parameters of the law how the freaking hell can they do this? I've never heard of anything so outrageous here in central/northern New York.
Reply
10Fat 6 minutes ago Report Abuse
blame the citys that allow hoa. they don't write rules to govern them and they just suck up the taxes . city arent any different that hoa.I wish that if you live in a hoa you didn't have to pay property taxes. you get nothing from the city when you pay property tax.JMHO
Reply
20H.Busch 9 minutes ago Report Abuse
I think our country is being run by an H O A.
Reply
00Jerry 10 minutes ago Report Abuse
Just how do they get away with making such ridiculous rules? This can't be fully legal. I've heard of some far-fetched things but some of that is incredible. The weight of your dog, kiss in your driveway...seriously? No way can they have full legal authority to enforce this and fine 'offenders'.
Reply
Michelle Conlin and Tamara Lush, AP Business Writers, On Sunday July 10, 2011, 3:46 pm EDT
The Inlet House condo complex in Fort Pierce, Fla., was once the kind of place the 55-and-older set aspired to. It was affordable. The pool and clubhouse were tidy, the lawns freshly snipped. Residents, push-carts in tow, walked to the beach, the bank, the beauty parlor, the cinema and the supermarket. In post-crash America, this was a dreamy little spot. Especially on a fixed income.
But that was Inlet House before the rats started chewing through the toilet seats in vacant units and sewage started seeping from the ceiling. Before condos that were worth $79,000 four years ago sold for as little as $3,000. And before the homeowners' association levied $6,000 assessments on everyone -- and then foreclosed on seniors who couldn't pay the association bill, even if they didn't owe the bank a dime.
Normally, it's the bankers who go after delinquent homeowners. But in communities governed by the mighty homeowners' association, as the sour economy leaves more people unable to pay their fees, it's neighbor versus neighbor.
"What the board is doing is trying to foreclose on people to force people out the door," says Mike Silvestri, 75, who stopped paying his dues at Inlet House in protest over what he considers unnecessary and unaffordable assessments.
He and others say there were cheaper ways to deal with the rat infestation and leaky sewage that led the board to order up a costly plumbing overhaul. "They are bamboozling old people. I'm old, but I'm not senile," he says.
In the past, housing associations have gained infamy for dictating everything from the weight of your dog (one mandated a diet for a hound) to whether you can kiss in your driveway (not if you don't want a fine). Homeowners' associations have served as the behavior police, banning lemonade stands, solar panels and hanging out in the garage. One ordered a war hero to take down his flag because of a "nonconforming" pole. Another demanded that residents with brown spots on their lawns dye their grass green.
Now, past the faux regal gates, beyond the clubhouses, many property owners in associations owe more than their homes are worth. Some are struggling to pay their bills after they lose a job. Others have had their pay cut. So they've stopped paying their association dues.
To combat the rise in delinquencies, boards are switching off utilities, garnishing income and axing cable. They are yanking pool passes and banning the billiard room. And, in the most extreme cases, they are foreclosing.
"The treacherous part is that homeowners' associations are acting like a local government without restraints, and they have this extraordinary power," says Marjorie Murray, a lawyer and founder of the Center for California Homeowner Association Law.
Today, one in five U.S. homeowners is subject to the will of the homeowners' association, whose boards oversee 24.4 million homes. More than 80 percent of newly constructed homes in the U.S are in association communities.
And of the nation's 300,000 homeowners' associations, more than 50 percent now face "serious financial problems," according to a September survey by the Community Association Institute. An October survey found that 65 percent of homeowners' associations have delinquency rates higher than 5 percent, up from 19 percent of associations in 2005.
Associations set rules for their communities. They levy monthly dues, typically between $200 and $500, and cover the costs of services that a municipal government usually takes care of: road repair, streetlights, sewage systems. If an association's budget is strained or major repairs need to be done, the board can levy a "special assessment" on top of those dues. And when one homeowner doesn't pay those fees, all the other homeowners have to pick up the cost.
The rise in delinquencies comes as banks are taking over foreclosed homes and then leaving them vacant more often than ever. Taken together, these shortfalls are resulting in higher fees for all of the other homeowners -- and massive financial angst for association boards.
Before now, associations rarely, if ever, foreclosed on homeowners. But today, encouraged by a new industry of lawyers and consultants, boards are increasingly foreclosing on people 60 days past due on association fees, says Evan McKenzie, a former homeowner association attorney who is now a University of Illinois political science professor and the author of the book "Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government."
The government does not keep statistics on how often homeowners' associations initiate foreclosures. But a nonprofit research group found that association-initiated foreclosures in the Houston area jumped from 500 in 1995 to 2,200 in 2007. Most association-related foreclosures in Texas do not go through the judicial process, so the group's analysis represented only a fraction of the foreclosures that housing associations have initiated.
In exchange for adhering to the rules, homeowners got safe communities with clubhouses, pools and tennis courts. But what many didn't realize when they bought their homes was that the fine print gave the association the right to foreclose -- even over a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues.
All the association board has to do is alert its attorney to place a lien on the property to start the process. The home can then be auctioned by the board until the bank eventually takes ownership. Homeowners typically have no right to a hearing.
"These are banana republics," McKenzie says.
The problems in some communities are resulting in more scrutiny. In Nevada, the FBI is investigating corruption in elections of association boards. In Utah and Arizona, legislators are trying to pass bills that would root out the use of debt-collectors who are alleged to have used thug-like tactics to strong-arm residents into paying fees.
State legislatures in California, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas and Florida have taken up legislation that would clamp down on foreclosures.
Not everyone thinks the tactics are out of line, though.
"When people are not paying their assessments, they're not shortchanging some giant multinational corporation. They are taking money directly out of the pockets of their neighbors," says Andrew Fortin, head of government affairs for the trade group the Community Associations Institute.
So the neighborhood feuds are escalating. At Inlet House, one resident claims her fellow senior citizens have turned into vigilantes, vandalizing her car in retaliation for not paying her dues.
In all, 17 of the 60 units are in various stages of delinquency. Paul Gray, a fastidious budgeter, paid off his mortgage long ago and paid all but $2,500 of the Inlet House assessment. The association initiated foreclosure proceedings. A few days after he received the foreclosure notice, Gray suffered another stroke, three friends say. Now he is in a nursing home. He has since paid off the $2,500. His home, worth $89,000 in 2006, is for sale for $18,500.
In the meantime, the board, facing $172,000 in costs from nonpayers, has had no choice but to raise dues by an extra $50 a month to an average of $375. Between the assessment and increased dues, some residents complain that they pay more than they would to rent a plush oceanfront spread down the street at the posh Fontainebleau condo complex. Association manager Janice Stinnett, who is also an Inlet House resident, says she isn't to blame, the nonpayers are.
"It's unfair that everyone is paying extra to cover these deadbeats," she says.
The board is continuing to make the plumbing repairs that made the assessments necessary to begin with. It will soon issue another special assessment to cover the costs.
To homeowners who opposed the repairs on the grounds that they were too expensive, the entire picture adds up to a crime. Says Silvestri, "What these associations are doing is illegal. It's a fraud."
Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.
3,305 comments
Show:
Post a comment
Comments 1 - 10 of 3305First PrevNextLast
00Robert 2 minutes ago Report Abuse
This is just another HOA's should be banned nation wide, unless, of course, you prefer to live in a non-democratic society where someone else can tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it. Sure HOA's have some benefits such as someone else doing the yard work (their way), more secure living (once in a while), etc. The greed and insanity of the selfish control freaks has to stop, HOA's should just be completely outlawed and those neighborhoods returned to the Land of the FREE.
Reply
00Scott 2 minutes ago Report Abuse
Your vice president said to count yourself lucky when you can pay your fare share. Hey we live in Obamanation, get used to the tax if no one cares about spending.
Reply
00Crafashion.Com 3 minutes ago Report Abuse
polo tshirt ，gucci prada lv chanel ，handbag， shoes ，online 33 usd look my name 67
Reply
10Anonymous 3 minutes ago Report Abuse
That is why, I would NEVER live in a community with an HOA. I've done that, and all they do is take your money and do nothing for it, except tell me how I should live in my own house. I understand that some people like the idea of uniformaty, but, alot of these HOA a**hole see it as a way to impose their way of thinking on everyone else, and get money to do it. If it ever come to the point of renting or living in a HOA community, I'll take renting, they tell you want you can and can't do, cause they own the building yoy are living in. These are hard times for everyone, people are out of work and are barely scraping by. Those people are being a little rediculous, emphasis on the 'DIC'.
Reply
10Roger 4 minutes ago Report Abuse
ive been thinking about buying a house , but buying one with H O A is know way out , of what i want , after reading this , i had no ideal about the H O A having this kind of bull , i have a feeling that some people that run the H O A are going to get hurt !!! a realator was trying to get me to buy a house that the h o a said needed a roof, i said if i buy it , ill wait and theres soo many that cant aford it , whats the H O A going to do , the realator , said yea what can they do , goes to show she knew that thye could o this and just wanted to sell the house , realators are vampires , her names talia from brandon florida , ill look for no H O A and hope they get what coming to them , what ever that may be , hope the people can chase them out !!!
Reply
00Alien Jesus 4 minutes ago Report Abuse
USA, where people will actually pay to be told what to do as long as it makes them feel like they're getting to tell someone else what to do... it's a greedy hell bent power mad society and most of the people who bought into this crap in the first place deserve whatever they have coming.
Reply
00Jerry 5 minutes ago Report Abuse
When the hell did it become other peoples business what you do on your own property? Everything stays within the parameters of the law how the freaking hell can they do this? I've never heard of anything so outrageous here in central/northern New York.
Reply
10Fat 6 minutes ago Report Abuse
blame the citys that allow hoa. they don't write rules to govern them and they just suck up the taxes . city arent any different that hoa.I wish that if you live in a hoa you didn't have to pay property taxes. you get nothing from the city when you pay property tax.JMHO
Reply
20H.Busch 9 minutes ago Report Abuse
I think our country is being run by an H O A.
Reply
00Jerry 10 minutes ago Report Abuse
Just how do they get away with making such ridiculous rules? This can't be fully legal. I've heard of some far-fetched things but some of that is incredible. The weight of your dog, kiss in your driveway...seriously? No way can they have full legal authority to enforce this and fine 'offenders'.
Reply
Hanging onto houses
Introduction
Reed Saxon/Associated Press
.
In his column on Monday, Paul Krugman said that the Obama administration has done almost nothing to help troubled homeowners. Of $46 billion set aside for mortgage relief, less than $2 billion has been spent.
It has been more than six months since a bipartisan Congressional report called the government's effort -- called the Home Affordable Modification Program -- "a failure."
Since then, new foreclosure filings have slowed significantly -- down by a third nationally -- because of a large backlog in cases, greater caution by lenders after the "robosigning'' scandals and more aggressive defenses by homeowners whose mortgages are in jeopardy because they lost their job.
But housing experts expect the pace of foreclosures to pick up again. What changes can be made in the program to make it work more efficiently -- for homeowners, mortgage holders and taxpayers?
-----------------------------------------------------------
How We All Suffer
July 11, 2011
Kim Luu is the editor of Money and Risk and a principal at an independent brokerage firm specializing in retirement and 401(k)s.
The federal Home Affordable Modification Program was badly designed, overly complicated and poorly communicated. Borrowers suffered through horrendous paperwork for months and years. People ran through their retirement savings during the process, and then lost their homes anyway. Meanwhile, banks are saddled with billions of dollars in losses and inventory that still need to be auctioned.
Bank loan losses translate into lower stock prices and lower retirement account values for everyone.
For the thousands of homeowners dropping out of or failing to qualify for HAMP, it has obviously not been a success. People in foreclosure are not the only ones affected. We all suffer because bank loan losses translate into reduced stock prices and lower retirement account values.
If we are asked to pay billions for another rescue, we need a simple-to-execute program that protects the homeowners, the banks and the investors.
The solution doesn't have to be radical. I'm not a proponent of lowering the mortgage amount. When someone enters into a contract to borrow money, it is a commitment to be honored. They should be held responsible for paying it back as the money that they borrowed came from the bank deposits of their neighbors. Cutting mortgage debt because home value dropped encourages speculation now and in the future.
Adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts.
The primary issue for troubled borrowers is variable payment size -- not variable interest or loan amount. Whether they went into a low starter payment to buy a house that they knew full well they could never afford, or whether they are 50 years old and got laid off and now making 50 percent less, HAMP should have addressed this issue with a meaningful solution.
Here's one proposal: adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts. There is nothing wrong with a 40-year amortization if you plan to live in your home for life. Review the loans periodically and adjusted rates and payments back to market as income improves. Homeowners can request a review for adjustment up at any time. During unemployment, payments are deferred on negative amortization or are switched to interest only.
Give people the chance to work through financial distress with personal dignity and pride. Help those who are committed to staying in their homes. Let the speculators suffer foreclosure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of Delaying Foreclosures
July 11, 2011
R. Kelley Pace is the director of the Real Estate Research Institute and a professor in the E.J. Ourso College of Business at Louisiana State University. Shuang Zhu is a doctoral candidate in the department of finance there.
Providing cost effective and useful aid to struggling borrowers, while not creating any unintended adverse consequences, is the holy grail of foreclosure prevention programs. Even if a program's design achieves this goal, the actual performance depends on its implementation.
Prolonging the process provides additional free rent to defaulting borrowers and thus increases the benefit of default.
For example, a program seeking to reduce strategic default (a borrower with sufficient income who defaults because the mortgage balance exceeds the house price) might rely on an estimated house price (appraisal). However, appraisals are performed by appraisers who not long ago were cast as villains.
As villains they were biased and inaccurate. Now when working for the program, these heroes will be unbiased and accurate. In reality, appraisers also encounter difficulties in estimating prices for imperfect houses in low volume markets.
In a study of New Orleans foreclosures, we estimated that unspecialized, licensed appraisers might have an average error rate of around 10 percent. This means that about 4 percent of the properties would have appraisals that are either 20 percent too high or too low. Such appraisal inaccuracies could result in random borrower qualification and aid amounts.
A relatively low "cost" means of preventing foreclosures is to add delays to the process. For example, Massachusetts added a 90 day right-to-cure period as part of a revamp of their foreclosure rules. However, foreclosure delays provide additional free rent to defaulting borrowers and thus increase the benefit of default.
Actual foreclosure delays have been increasing. In 2003, none of the 16 states that we examined had over 12 months of delay. By 2008 (still before the documentation crisis), 50 percent of the states had a delay of over one year. In our research on this topic, we found that foreclosure delays had a statistically and economically significant impact on default.
For higher risk loans, imposing a three-month foreclosure delay had almost the same effect as increasing the average loan-to-value by 10 percent. Although increasing delays reduce the explicit cost of foreclosure prevention programs, they do impose costs on investors. By raising the risk of owning residential mortgages, mandated foreclosure delays potentially affect the access and cost of credit.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unemployment Factor
July 11, 2011
Morris A. Davis is the academic director of the James A. Graaskamp Center for Real Estate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Home Affordable Modification Program is designed to prevent foreclosures caused by mortgages with exploding payments. The program creates incentives for banks to refinance these mortgages.
Don't reduce the principal -- that only rewards people who took on the most debt. Extend loans to unemployed homeowners instead.
The past two years of data suggest exploding mortgage payments are not the cause of the foreclosure crisis. Prime mortgages account for the majority of mortgage defaults. Instead, there are two “triggers” that cause foreclosures.
The first is when the value of the house is less than the mortgage amount, and homeowners cannot sell their house (unless they write a check at closing). The second trigger is when the homeowner experiences some disruption to income, like unemployment. Why? In most states, maximum monthly unemployment benefits are less than or not much larger than average mortgage payments. In a recent survey from Freddie Mac, the most frequently cited reason for “hardship” among borrowers was “Unemployment or Curtailment of Income” at 57 percent.
HAMP continues to fail because it does not address the root causes of foreclosures. Twenty percent of all residential properties with mortgages are under water; unemployment rates are high; and no one forecasts a quick recovery to house prices or employment. An effective foreclosure-prevention policy would directly address one of the two triggers. Some proposals under discussion require that banks write down mortgage principal. Other proposals suggest direct assistance to unemployed homeowners to help them make their mortgage payments.
I dislike the idea of principal reduction because it transfers wealth to people that took on the largest amount of mortgage debt relative to their home value. I would instead recommend the federal government institute the Boston Fed plan, which extends loans to unemployed homeowners. Homeowners would be offered a loan for a certain number of months while unemployed and would repay the loan over time once employed.
I like the Boston Fed plan because it directly addresses the unemployment trigger, and it is a loan which mitigates some moral hazard issues. Further, the program might directly benefit all U.S. taxpayers. After a foreclosure, the average loss to the holder of the mortgage is about $100,000. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insure against these losses on many mortgages. Any program that reduces foreclosures also reduces losses incurred by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose costs are now covered by U.S. taxpayers.
===================================================================================
How We All Suffer
July 11, 2011
Kim Luu is the editor of Money and Risk and a principal at an independent brokerage firm specializing in retirement and 401(k)s.
The federal Home Affordable Modification Program was badly designed, overly complicated and poorly communicated. Borrowers suffered through horrendous paperwork for months and years. People ran through their retirement savings during the process, and then lost their homes anyway. Meanwhile, banks are saddled with billions of dollars in losses and inventory that still need to be auctioned.
Bank loan losses translate into lower stock prices and lower retirement account values for everyone.
For the thousands of homeowners dropping out of or failing to qualify for HAMP, it has obviously not been a success. People in foreclosure are not the only ones affected. We all suffer because bank loan losses translate into reduced stock prices and lower retirement account values.
If we are asked to pay billions for another rescue, we need a simple-to-execute program that protects the homeowners, the banks and the investors.
The solution doesn't have to be radical. I'm not a proponent of lowering the mortgage amount. When someone enters into a contract to borrow money, it is a commitment to be honored. They should be held responsible for paying it back as the money that they borrowed came from the bank deposits of their neighbors. Cutting mortgage debt because home value dropped encourages speculation now and in the future.
Adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts.
The primary issue for troubled borrowers is variable payment size -- not variable interest or loan amount. Whether they went into a low starter payment to buy a house that they knew full well they could never afford, or whether they are 50 years old and got laid off and now making 50 percent less, HAMP should have addressed this issue with a meaningful solution.
Here's one proposal: adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts. There is nothing wrong with a 40-year amortization if you plan to live in your home for life. Review the loans periodically and adjusted rates and payments back to market as income improves. Homeowners can request a review for adjustment up at any time. During unemployment, payments are deferred on negative amortization or are switched to interest only.
Give people the chance to work through financial distress with personal dignity and pride. Help those who are committed to staying in their homes. Let the speculators suffer foreclosure.
==================================================================================
Broken Promises
July 11, 2011
Neil Barofsky is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program from 2008 to 2011.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, announced in February 2009 after Treasury abandoned its original promise to use Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to purchase and then modify up to $700 billion in mortgages, has been a failure.
At the time, President Obama promised that through incentive payments to mortgage servicers, investors and borrowers, HAMP would help three to four million American families stay in their homes through permanent, sustainable mortgage modifications. Nearly two and a half years later, that promise lies in tatters, with far more failures than successes, and estimates that, at best, the program will achieve only one-fifth of the upper end of its goal.
The Treasury Department has engaged in nothing more than political theater in addressing the universal criticism of its failed mortgage relief program.
Even if it is now too late to meet the president’s original promise, the lull in both HAMP modifications (with a six-month average monthly net addition of fewer than 21,000 permanent modifications) and foreclosures (which have been delayed following discovery of widespread documentation failures by mortgage servicers) present Treasury with an opportunity to respond to the program’s failures. Treasury should use this time – and the tens of billions of TARP dollars still obligated to HAMP – to improve the program before the next wave of anticipated foreclosures hits.
Unfortunately, Treasury has showed no willingness to address the program’s deep structural flaws. Despite Secretary Geithner’s concession to Congress earlier this year that its incentive payments to the mortgage servicers who effectively run the program have “not been powerful enough” to maximize participation, Treasury has done nothing to address this defect.
Similarly, although acknowledging the “abysmal” performance of those same mortgage servicers, Treasury refuses to sanction them meaningfully, portraying itself as impotent in the face of the servicers’ willful disregard of their contractual obligations.
Instead, in an obvious attempt to blunt near universal criticism of its velvet glove approach, last month Treasury took largely meaningless action against just three of the servicers by temporarily withholding payments until they stop violating the program's rules -- something to which they had largely already committed in a previous unrelated settlement with their regulators -- and then paying them in full. This action, which one servicer said “mean[t] very little” to it, is not even a slap on the wrist; it is political theater.
Although the president recently acknowledged that the housing efforts to date have been "not enough" and promised to go back to the "drawing board," Treasury has thus far shown no interest in trying to fix the program (a senior official of the Troubled Asset Relief Program promised a room full of cheering mortgage servicers earlier this year that it would only “tweak” HAMP around the edges), it could and should take steps to make the program more effective.
First, it should re-examine its incentive structure to fix the problems acknowledged by Secretary Geithner. Second, it should adopt a recommendation SIGTARP made last year, and make principal reduction mandatory in instances where it results in the best economic outcome for both the borrower and the owner of the mortgage. Finally, Treasury should live up to a promise it made in November 2009 to impose meaningful “monetary penalties and sanctions” on servicers, both to compensate for past violations and to ensure better compliance going forward.
Reed Saxon/Associated Press
.
In his column on Monday, Paul Krugman said that the Obama administration has done almost nothing to help troubled homeowners. Of $46 billion set aside for mortgage relief, less than $2 billion has been spent.
It has been more than six months since a bipartisan Congressional report called the government's effort -- called the Home Affordable Modification Program -- "a failure."
Since then, new foreclosure filings have slowed significantly -- down by a third nationally -- because of a large backlog in cases, greater caution by lenders after the "robosigning'' scandals and more aggressive defenses by homeowners whose mortgages are in jeopardy because they lost their job.
But housing experts expect the pace of foreclosures to pick up again. What changes can be made in the program to make it work more efficiently -- for homeowners, mortgage holders and taxpayers?
-----------------------------------------------------------
How We All Suffer
July 11, 2011
Kim Luu is the editor of Money and Risk and a principal at an independent brokerage firm specializing in retirement and 401(k)s.
The federal Home Affordable Modification Program was badly designed, overly complicated and poorly communicated. Borrowers suffered through horrendous paperwork for months and years. People ran through their retirement savings during the process, and then lost their homes anyway. Meanwhile, banks are saddled with billions of dollars in losses and inventory that still need to be auctioned.
Bank loan losses translate into lower stock prices and lower retirement account values for everyone.
For the thousands of homeowners dropping out of or failing to qualify for HAMP, it has obviously not been a success. People in foreclosure are not the only ones affected. We all suffer because bank loan losses translate into reduced stock prices and lower retirement account values.
If we are asked to pay billions for another rescue, we need a simple-to-execute program that protects the homeowners, the banks and the investors.
The solution doesn't have to be radical. I'm not a proponent of lowering the mortgage amount. When someone enters into a contract to borrow money, it is a commitment to be honored. They should be held responsible for paying it back as the money that they borrowed came from the bank deposits of their neighbors. Cutting mortgage debt because home value dropped encourages speculation now and in the future.
Adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts.
The primary issue for troubled borrowers is variable payment size -- not variable interest or loan amount. Whether they went into a low starter payment to buy a house that they knew full well they could never afford, or whether they are 50 years old and got laid off and now making 50 percent less, HAMP should have addressed this issue with a meaningful solution.
Here's one proposal: adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts. There is nothing wrong with a 40-year amortization if you plan to live in your home for life. Review the loans periodically and adjusted rates and payments back to market as income improves. Homeowners can request a review for adjustment up at any time. During unemployment, payments are deferred on negative amortization or are switched to interest only.
Give people the chance to work through financial distress with personal dignity and pride. Help those who are committed to staying in their homes. Let the speculators suffer foreclosure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of Delaying Foreclosures
July 11, 2011
R. Kelley Pace is the director of the Real Estate Research Institute and a professor in the E.J. Ourso College of Business at Louisiana State University. Shuang Zhu is a doctoral candidate in the department of finance there.
Providing cost effective and useful aid to struggling borrowers, while not creating any unintended adverse consequences, is the holy grail of foreclosure prevention programs. Even if a program's design achieves this goal, the actual performance depends on its implementation.
Prolonging the process provides additional free rent to defaulting borrowers and thus increases the benefit of default.
For example, a program seeking to reduce strategic default (a borrower with sufficient income who defaults because the mortgage balance exceeds the house price) might rely on an estimated house price (appraisal). However, appraisals are performed by appraisers who not long ago were cast as villains.
As villains they were biased and inaccurate. Now when working for the program, these heroes will be unbiased and accurate. In reality, appraisers also encounter difficulties in estimating prices for imperfect houses in low volume markets.
In a study of New Orleans foreclosures, we estimated that unspecialized, licensed appraisers might have an average error rate of around 10 percent. This means that about 4 percent of the properties would have appraisals that are either 20 percent too high or too low. Such appraisal inaccuracies could result in random borrower qualification and aid amounts.
A relatively low "cost" means of preventing foreclosures is to add delays to the process. For example, Massachusetts added a 90 day right-to-cure period as part of a revamp of their foreclosure rules. However, foreclosure delays provide additional free rent to defaulting borrowers and thus increase the benefit of default.
Actual foreclosure delays have been increasing. In 2003, none of the 16 states that we examined had over 12 months of delay. By 2008 (still before the documentation crisis), 50 percent of the states had a delay of over one year. In our research on this topic, we found that foreclosure delays had a statistically and economically significant impact on default.
For higher risk loans, imposing a three-month foreclosure delay had almost the same effect as increasing the average loan-to-value by 10 percent. Although increasing delays reduce the explicit cost of foreclosure prevention programs, they do impose costs on investors. By raising the risk of owning residential mortgages, mandated foreclosure delays potentially affect the access and cost of credit.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Unemployment Factor
July 11, 2011
Morris A. Davis is the academic director of the James A. Graaskamp Center for Real Estate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Home Affordable Modification Program is designed to prevent foreclosures caused by mortgages with exploding payments. The program creates incentives for banks to refinance these mortgages.
Don't reduce the principal -- that only rewards people who took on the most debt. Extend loans to unemployed homeowners instead.
The past two years of data suggest exploding mortgage payments are not the cause of the foreclosure crisis. Prime mortgages account for the majority of mortgage defaults. Instead, there are two “triggers” that cause foreclosures.
The first is when the value of the house is less than the mortgage amount, and homeowners cannot sell their house (unless they write a check at closing). The second trigger is when the homeowner experiences some disruption to income, like unemployment. Why? In most states, maximum monthly unemployment benefits are less than or not much larger than average mortgage payments. In a recent survey from Freddie Mac, the most frequently cited reason for “hardship” among borrowers was “Unemployment or Curtailment of Income” at 57 percent.
HAMP continues to fail because it does not address the root causes of foreclosures. Twenty percent of all residential properties with mortgages are under water; unemployment rates are high; and no one forecasts a quick recovery to house prices or employment. An effective foreclosure-prevention policy would directly address one of the two triggers. Some proposals under discussion require that banks write down mortgage principal. Other proposals suggest direct assistance to unemployed homeowners to help them make their mortgage payments.
I dislike the idea of principal reduction because it transfers wealth to people that took on the largest amount of mortgage debt relative to their home value. I would instead recommend the federal government institute the Boston Fed plan, which extends loans to unemployed homeowners. Homeowners would be offered a loan for a certain number of months while unemployed and would repay the loan over time once employed.
I like the Boston Fed plan because it directly addresses the unemployment trigger, and it is a loan which mitigates some moral hazard issues. Further, the program might directly benefit all U.S. taxpayers. After a foreclosure, the average loss to the holder of the mortgage is about $100,000. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insure against these losses on many mortgages. Any program that reduces foreclosures also reduces losses incurred by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose costs are now covered by U.S. taxpayers.
===================================================================================
How We All Suffer
July 11, 2011
Kim Luu is the editor of Money and Risk and a principal at an independent brokerage firm specializing in retirement and 401(k)s.
The federal Home Affordable Modification Program was badly designed, overly complicated and poorly communicated. Borrowers suffered through horrendous paperwork for months and years. People ran through their retirement savings during the process, and then lost their homes anyway. Meanwhile, banks are saddled with billions of dollars in losses and inventory that still need to be auctioned.
Bank loan losses translate into lower stock prices and lower retirement account values for everyone.
For the thousands of homeowners dropping out of or failing to qualify for HAMP, it has obviously not been a success. People in foreclosure are not the only ones affected. We all suffer because bank loan losses translate into reduced stock prices and lower retirement account values.
If we are asked to pay billions for another rescue, we need a simple-to-execute program that protects the homeowners, the banks and the investors.
The solution doesn't have to be radical. I'm not a proponent of lowering the mortgage amount. When someone enters into a contract to borrow money, it is a commitment to be honored. They should be held responsible for paying it back as the money that they borrowed came from the bank deposits of their neighbors. Cutting mortgage debt because home value dropped encourages speculation now and in the future.
Adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts.
The primary issue for troubled borrowers is variable payment size -- not variable interest or loan amount. Whether they went into a low starter payment to buy a house that they knew full well they could never afford, or whether they are 50 years old and got laid off and now making 50 percent less, HAMP should have addressed this issue with a meaningful solution.
Here's one proposal: adjust the payment schedule to the individual's specific situation without absolving responsibility for the debts. There is nothing wrong with a 40-year amortization if you plan to live in your home for life. Review the loans periodically and adjusted rates and payments back to market as income improves. Homeowners can request a review for adjustment up at any time. During unemployment, payments are deferred on negative amortization or are switched to interest only.
Give people the chance to work through financial distress with personal dignity and pride. Help those who are committed to staying in their homes. Let the speculators suffer foreclosure.
==================================================================================
Broken Promises
July 11, 2011
Neil Barofsky is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. He was the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program from 2008 to 2011.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, announced in February 2009 after Treasury abandoned its original promise to use Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to purchase and then modify up to $700 billion in mortgages, has been a failure.
At the time, President Obama promised that through incentive payments to mortgage servicers, investors and borrowers, HAMP would help three to four million American families stay in their homes through permanent, sustainable mortgage modifications. Nearly two and a half years later, that promise lies in tatters, with far more failures than successes, and estimates that, at best, the program will achieve only one-fifth of the upper end of its goal.
The Treasury Department has engaged in nothing more than political theater in addressing the universal criticism of its failed mortgage relief program.
Even if it is now too late to meet the president’s original promise, the lull in both HAMP modifications (with a six-month average monthly net addition of fewer than 21,000 permanent modifications) and foreclosures (which have been delayed following discovery of widespread documentation failures by mortgage servicers) present Treasury with an opportunity to respond to the program’s failures. Treasury should use this time – and the tens of billions of TARP dollars still obligated to HAMP – to improve the program before the next wave of anticipated foreclosures hits.
Unfortunately, Treasury has showed no willingness to address the program’s deep structural flaws. Despite Secretary Geithner’s concession to Congress earlier this year that its incentive payments to the mortgage servicers who effectively run the program have “not been powerful enough” to maximize participation, Treasury has done nothing to address this defect.
Similarly, although acknowledging the “abysmal” performance of those same mortgage servicers, Treasury refuses to sanction them meaningfully, portraying itself as impotent in the face of the servicers’ willful disregard of their contractual obligations.
Instead, in an obvious attempt to blunt near universal criticism of its velvet glove approach, last month Treasury took largely meaningless action against just three of the servicers by temporarily withholding payments until they stop violating the program's rules -- something to which they had largely already committed in a previous unrelated settlement with their regulators -- and then paying them in full. This action, which one servicer said “mean[t] very little” to it, is not even a slap on the wrist; it is political theater.
Although the president recently acknowledged that the housing efforts to date have been "not enough" and promised to go back to the "drawing board," Treasury has thus far shown no interest in trying to fix the program (a senior official of the Troubled Asset Relief Program promised a room full of cheering mortgage servicers earlier this year that it would only “tweak” HAMP around the edges), it could and should take steps to make the program more effective.
First, it should re-examine its incentive structure to fix the problems acknowledged by Secretary Geithner. Second, it should adopt a recommendation SIGTARP made last year, and make principal reduction mandatory in instances where it results in the best economic outcome for both the borrower and the owner of the mortgage. Finally, Treasury should live up to a promise it made in November 2009 to impose meaningful “monetary penalties and sanctions” on servicers, both to compensate for past violations and to ensure better compliance going forward.
No, We Can’t? Or Won’t? By PAUL KRUGMAN
If you were shocked by Friday’s job report, if you thought we were doing well and were taken aback by the bad news, you haven’t been paying attention. The fact is, the United States economy has been stuck in a rut for a year and a half.
Yet a destructive passivity has overtaken our discourse. Turn on your TV and you’ll see some self-satisfied pundit declaring that nothing much can be done about the economy’s short-run problems (reminder: this “short run” is now in its fourth year), that we should focus on the long run instead.
This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality.
Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses.
Excuse No. 1: Just around the corner, there’s a rainbow in the sky.
Remember “green shoots”? Remember the “summer of recovery”? Policy makers keep declaring that the economy is on the mend — and Lucy keeps snatching the football away. Yet these delusions of recovery have been an excuse for doing nothing as the jobs crisis festers.
Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market.
Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation.
But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of last week it was 3.03 percent.
How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare, declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows.
Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault.
Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow lack the skills the economy needs.
Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires long-term solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing).
Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually fell last month.
Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work.
Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong.
Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office.
So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved.
It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners — almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent.
So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s because it was never actually tried.
Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you’d think the problem was “no, we can’t.” But the reality is “no, we won’t.” And every pundit who reinforces that destructive passivity is part of the problem.
Yet a destructive passivity has overtaken our discourse. Turn on your TV and you’ll see some self-satisfied pundit declaring that nothing much can be done about the economy’s short-run problems (reminder: this “short run” is now in its fourth year), that we should focus on the long run instead.
This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality.
Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses.
Excuse No. 1: Just around the corner, there’s a rainbow in the sky.
Remember “green shoots”? Remember the “summer of recovery”? Policy makers keep declaring that the economy is on the mend — and Lucy keeps snatching the football away. Yet these delusions of recovery have been an excuse for doing nothing as the jobs crisis festers.
Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market.
Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation.
But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of last week it was 3.03 percent.
How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare, declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows.
Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault.
Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow lack the skills the economy needs.
Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires long-term solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing).
Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually fell last month.
Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work.
Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong.
Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office.
So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved.
It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners — almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent.
So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s because it was never actually tried.
Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you’d think the problem was “no, we can’t.” But the reality is “no, we won’t.” And every pundit who reinforces that destructive passivity is part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)