Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1351.0 | -10.4 | -0.76% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2261.3 | -23.6 | -1.03% |
| Oil (WTI) | 84.46 | -2.8 | -3.16% |
| LIBOR | 0.458 | -0.002 | -0.44% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 82.97 | 0.154 | 0.19% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.55% | -0.04% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 182.8 | 0.3 |
Jobs Friday. Basically a crummy report – Nonfarm payrolls increased by 80k, less than economists forecast. The unemployment rate remained at 8.2% and the labor force participation rate remained at a depressed 63.8%. The only bright spot was that weekly hours ticked up, as did hourly earnings. But otherwise, it was a disappointing report.
S&P futures are selling off on the number, and bonds are rallying. MBS are flat. Markets should be dull going into the weekend as a lot of players took the week off. Alcoa kicks off the earnings season on Monday.
In the “you can’t make this up” category, San Bernardino County is considering using eminent domain to seize underwater mortgages from banks. The WSJ explains:
“For a home with an existing $300,000 mortgage that now has a market value of $150,000, Mortgage Resolution Partners might argue the loan is worth only $120,000. If a judge agreed, the program’s private financiers would fund the city’s seizure of the loan, paying the current loan investors that reduced amount. Then, they could offer to help the homeowner refinance into a new $145,000 30-year mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has a program allowing borrowers to have as little as 2.25% in equity”
The program would only be available for current loans. So banks (and pension funds) would take the hit on the mortgage, since current mortgages are probably carried on their books at par. The only way the partner (Mortgage Resolution Partners) can make any money is if they purchase the mortgage at a discount to the value of the underlying real estate. So the bank would lose the difference between the mortgage amount and the discounted bid to the underlying real estate ($300,000 – $120,000 = a $180,000 loss). The VC fund and the city would make the difference between the discounted bid on the underlying real estate and the new mortgage amount ($145,000 – $120,000 = a $25,000 gain). Supposedly the VC fund and the city would split the profits.
Needless to say, the Left is cheering this on. It is theft, if you ask me.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
It is theft, if you ask me.
I think qb used that exact phrase yesterday, also. I have to admit that the reasoning doesn’t make any sense at all to me, and I’ve read four or five different descriptions of how it’s supposed to work. I can’t imagine any court going along with this.
LikeLike
Brent:
The “cheering this on” link doesn’t seem to work for me. Can you post the URL?
I read up a little on eminent domain. Apparently, it can be used for private property (patents, copyrights, interest) in addition to real property. Frightening.
LikeLike
Mike, here ya go: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/an-off-the-wall-plan-to-save-homeowners-and-make-some-investors-rich/259462/
LikeLike
Thanks, Brent.
“a tad bit unseemly” — talk about understatements. Frickin’ Kelo v. New London.
LikeLike
I just talked to a guy who used to originate mortgages out there. San Bernardino is more or less a small, crime-ridden city. Banks used to own mortgages there (primarily Ginnies) to meet their CRA targets, not because it was a great area to invest in.
It sounds like a big chunk of the mortgages are FHA to begin with. So… If the city does this with a Ginnie or FHA loan, the investor is guaranteed their principal by FHA or VA or whatever. So they won’t take a loss.
So, if they do it with Ginnie / FHA paper, it will be a transfer of wealth from the Federal Government to the homeowner, city, and hedge fund. But, since the FHA insurance fund is woefully underfunded, I wonder if Washington will fire a shot across the bow, at least in order to discourage this.
But for non-GSE paper, it will work as I laid out above.
LikeLike
“Needless to say, the Left is cheering this on. It is theft, if you ask me.”
It is, but the question is how far does Kelo v. New London go in authorizing public/private thievery?
Worst decision since Wickard v Filburn.
LikeLike
Brent: what’s a “Ginnie”?
LikeLike
“Michigoose, on July 6, 2012 at 9:28 am said:
…
I can’t imagine any court going along with this.”
That’s what I thought about Kelo v. New London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
LikeLike
Michigoose: A Ginnie is a Ginnie Mae mortgage backed security. Principal is guaranteed by the US government (either the Federal Housing Administration or the VA), so there is no credit risk. They typically have very low yields and are considered to be as safe as sovereign debt. Right now, they yield about 2.7% or so.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brent.
Interesting reading, jnc. . .
LikeLike
This could prove interesting:
European Money Market Industry Shutting Down As Goldman Closes MM Fund, Says In “Unchartered Territory”
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/06/2012 13:29 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/european-money-market-industry-shutting-down-goldman-closes-mm-fund-says-unchartered-territory
LikeLike
“Brent Nyitray, on July 6, 2012 at 10:30 am said:
…
I wonder if Washington will fire a shot across the bow, at least in order to discourage this. ”
I still think there could be a potential preemption issue with federal bankruptcy law as this appears to be a back door cram down proposal as well.
LikeLike
jnc:
Worst decision since Wickard v Filburn.
Korematsu (1944) was worse than Kelo. Kelo lets the government take your stuff. Korematsu, which still hasn’t been directly overturned, lets the government take you.
LikeLike
Roe and Casey (and Griswold) are just as bad.
LikeLike
“Mike, on July 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm said:
jnc:
Worst decision since Wickard v Filburn.
Korematsu (1944) was worse than Kelo. Kelo lets the government take your stuff. Korematsu, which still hasn’t been directly overturned, lets the government take you.”
Small potatoes compared to the ability of the government to assassinate American citizens now and not even requiring an actual declaration of war in order to do so.
LikeLike
Agreeing with the WSJ:
Barclays Bank Bash
The regulators protect themselves and the giant institutions.
Updated July 5, 2012, 7:26 p.m. ET
…
“But if there truly was an effort to seek unfair advantage on bank counterparties or even clients, there should be a market penalty. This is another reason why it’s essential to return to a system that allows giant financial houses to fail. Markets are pretty good at rooting out companies that don’t provide real value.
In a world of open competition and smaller taxpayer safety nets, market players can make honest judgments about the value they get from giant banks, and they could make an honest assessment of whether the Barclays story is about minor offenses or something far worse. In today’s world, regulation essentially locks the incumbent giants in place by giving them implicit and explicit advantages over smaller rivals, especially the expectation of government assistance in a crisis.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304211804577502943967390270.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
LikeLike
jnc:
I too am with the WSJ.
LikeLike
Small potatoes compared to the ability of the government to assassinate American citizens now and not even requiring an actual declaration of war in order to do so.
That policy hasn’t been challenged in court so there hasn’t been a Supreme Court ruling on it. Of course, it’s hard to find a plaintiff with standing in order to challenge it.
LikeLike
jnc:
Small potatoes compared to the ability of the government to assassinate American citizens now and not even requiring an actual declaration of war in order to do so.
Sure. But the government isn’t killing American citizens inside the US yet (that we know of). And, as yello notes, there hasn’t been a challenge to the policy that has made it to SCOTUS. OTOH, the Japanese-Americans internment occurred on American soil and Hirabayashi and Korematsu are decided SCOTUS cases.
Anyways, SCOTUS is denying cert to most of the GWOT cases, so it is unlikely that this issue of extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens on foreign soil will ever be argued in front of the Justices.
LikeLike
In a state of declared war, or if Islamists successfully detonate a weapon of mass destruction in a population center, I fully expect internment camps to make a reappearance.
LikeLike
Roe and Casey (and Griswold) are just as bad.
So under what conditions are people allowed to use contraception? How is that not covered by the Tenth Amendment?
LikeLike
I think it is unintentionally humorous whenever John Yoo accuses anyone else of tortured anything.
Roe is weak. Casey is wrong. Kelo is correctable, thank your favorite Deity, by the states. Korematsu is an abomination.
LikeLike
yello:
So under what conditions are people allowed to use contraception? How is that not covered by the Tenth Amendment?
The tenth amendment is a restriction on what the federal government can do. Hence the reference to rights being reserved to the states. Griswold related to a state law, not a federal law. Hence the tenth amendment is not relevant.
Beyond that, the irony of a liberal who thinks the federal government’s power is so constitutionally unlimited as to allow it to force individuals to buy a product simply because they exist fretting over what a state might prevent an individual from doing is palpable.
LikeLike
So under what conditions are people allowed to use contraception?
That you put your argument in the form of such a question is a good illustration of what is so wrong with liberal constitutional arguments. You don’t have an argument about the Constitution at all, just a bogeyman argument about a result that you don’t like. The Constitution does not say anything remotely about contraception or abortion. Liberals aren’t satisfied with that, because they insist that the document be read to include whatever rights they think it should, and any federal government powers they think it should.
How is that not covered by the Tenth Amendment?
I don’t think you know what the 10th Amendment says. It actually undermines your position.
LikeLike
The irony of conservatives who think that requiring people to be financially responsible for their own health risks is unconstitutional but think the government (state or federal) has the right to tell them they can’t not have kids is palpable.
LikeLike
yello:
The irony of conservatives who think that requiring people to be financially responsible for their own health risks is unconstitutional but think the government (state or federal) has the right to tell them they can’t not have kids is palpable.
I don’t see the irony at all.
First of all, I am not aware of any conservative who thinks that requiring people to be financially responsible for their own health risks is unconstitutional. Indeed, there is a very simple method, wholly compatible with the constitution, by which such a goal could be easily accomplished. Specifically the government could simply not pay for anyone’s health care. To the extent that this is not acceptable, it is not because it doesn’t achieve the goal of making people responsible for their own risks, but rather because the real goal is to get some people to be responsible for the risks of other people.
Second, your attempt to obscure the difference between state and federal governments suggests you really don’t understand the nature of the federal system. The two are governed by entirely different sets of rules. Indeed, the Constitution explicitly reserves certain rights for the states that it witholds from the federal government. And, of course, individual states are governed by their own constitutions as well. So there is really no necessary tension, or source of irony, in thinking that behavior X by the fed is unconstitutional while also thinkgin a state has the right to engage in behavior Y.
You should also understand, as I suspect you do not, that a recognition that a state government has the legal right to pass a certain law is not an indication of support for that law. One can easily think a law is a bad law, but one that a state is not constitutionally prevented from passing.
Lastly, you obviously do not understand the law under question in Griswold, which was not a law requiring anyone to have children. It is ironic, though, that you object to the notion that a government might have the right to do so, given your obvious support for the government’s power to compel activity and penalize inactivity.
LikeLike
Even progressives are sick of the blame game and excuses at this point:
“The Jobs Doldrums and Obama’s Future
Posted: 07/06/2012 11:04 am
Robert Reich
Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, ‘Beyond Outrage'”
…
“In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That’s true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It’s his economy now, and most voters don’t care what he inherited. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-jobs-doldrums-and-oba_b_1654082.html
LikeLike
Colbert I. King makes a better case for Romney than Romney himself does:
“Romney denies what he knows about the private sector
By Colbert I. King, Published: July 6
Mitt Romney is betraying his calling.
He brings to the presidential race a record of accomplishment to which few White House contenders can lay claim: W. Mitt Romney knows how to make money.
Some may argue that a money-making ability alone is no qualification to be president. I agree that having a high net worth is insufficient reason to be declared presidential timber.
But attaining a personal fortune of as much as $250 million, as Romney has done — and not through inheritance or grand theft — is a testament to creative abilities, a strong work ethic, a focused mind and keen understanding of the economic environment.
Romney, however, is blowing it by seeking to appeal to the average voter by selling himself as something he’s not. He also is running away from the opportunity to show voters that he, above all other candidates, knows how Americans can reap a better return on the investments they are making of time, energy and talent in our country.”
…
“A year ago, I said on the TV program “Inside Washington” that Romney understands how the economy works and that he should use the campaign to explain the private sector’s critical role. That point didn’t go down well with some of my liberal friends. Maybe it’s because I was wearing my banker’s hat at the time. Ten years as a commercial banker and bank director were more than enough time to convince me that a thriving business sector is key to economic growth and expanding opportunity. Romney, I believed last year, was well suited to make that case.
Instead, he has made a mess of it, misrepresenting his history and shying away from the truth, apparently out of fear that by sticking up for the country’s privately owned enterprises he will be portrayed as a heartless, money-grubbing capitalist and scourge of the poor. Of course, in this political climate, that might happen anyway. Still, there’s no reason to dissemble.
That’s the only way to describe Romney’s suggestion that job creation was the motivating force behind his work in the private sector. Beyond the question of whether Romney created 100,000 jobs — as he has claimed — is his implicit buy-in to the argument that the private sector’s purpose is to produce jobs.
Romney knows better, even if his critics don’t. The private sector operates to make profits, not jobs.
True, a majority of Americans work in the private sector. But General Motors, Giant Food, the TV networks and others don’t exist in order to employ Americans.
General Motors sells cars, Giant sells food and the networks sell entertainment to make a profit for their owners and investors.
Without question, a payroll is a necessary ingredient in building and selling vehicles, groceries and entertainment.
But owners, regardless of industries, are obligated to control costs. The fewer workers they employ, the better.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-denies-what-he-knows-about-business/2012/07/06/gJQAuXFfSW_story.html
LikeLike
An interesting history of the expansion of the federal government’s taxing power.
There is also this:
LikeLike
“To any sentient adult, it looks like a “capitation” or head tax, imposed upon individuals directly. Unfortunately, having plenty of other reasons to object to ObamaCare, the four dissenting justices in NFIB v. Sebelius did not explore this point.”
I believe it’s structured as a deduction to the income tax. The 16th Amendment is pretty much unlimited in terms of how income taxes can be structured.
LikeLike
jnc:
I believe it’s structured as a deduction to the income tax.
According to page 151 of this monstrosity of a law, “The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.”
Since the law is divided not into “chapters” but rather into titles, subtitles, and sections, I could not find any “chapter 68”, so I have no idea what “manner” the law is speaking of.
edit: Now I get it. Chapter 68 refers to chapter 68 of the IRC.
LikeLike
You don’t have an argument about the Constitution at all, just a bogeyman argument about a result that you don’t like.
I don’t have a problem with Griswold, so I’m not the one with the result I don’t like. That Santorum feels it was wrongly decided is key factor in my opinion that he is more than a butt-sex obsessed puritan but that he is religious fundamentalist of the worst kind.
In thermodynamics there is what is called the Zeroth Law which was formulated after the other three had been named and numbered. It was so essential that it had been overlooked as a given. The right to privacy is a similar fundamental in that it is a right so basic that it had never been actually explicitly stated.but underpins the Fourth Amendment. Without a right to privacy there is no need to protect against unreasonable search.
I don’t think you know what the 10th Amendment says. It actually undermines your position.
No. I had never seen it before. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. Let’s have a look at it:
But you’re right, the amendment I should have cited is the Ninth:
The right to determine when and how to reproduce sure strikes me as such an unenumerated right. The only role the government should have in regulating birth control devices should be for safety and efficacy, not who should be allowed to used them and for what reasons.
I would expect libertarians to innately understand this. However, social conservatives with their obsession over sexual morality reverse their position on government’s role in the economy when it comes to regulating interpersonal relationships.
LikeLike
yello,
I typed up a reply to you, but I am not going to post it after all. Given some of your remarks, I don’t think the discussion is worthwhile. Perhaps someone else will be interested, but not me.
LikeLike
Once again, NYT readers are shocked when the cocoon is breached.
Considering the right has been writing about this for a while.
http://m.reason.com/26821/show/1e38fc708900574f2d2ead304683cbc2/
If the NYT is your primary source for news, are you adequately informed?
LikeLike
NoVA, assuming a dozen or more states do not form exchanges and the medicaid expansion cannot be used where the feds form the exchange, what will be all the predictable results? Use, say, Texas, as an example of a likely non-conforming state.
Will the medical insurance industry only be able to flatten rates in states with state exchanges, because the cost for the uninsured in TX will continue to be spread in part through the policies rather than through the federal taxpayers? I think it will be attenuated by other factors and not readily apparent. For example, we locally defray charity hospital costs through Hospital District property taxes in Austin. These taxes climb rapidly, of course, but stand at about 1/40th of our property tax bill right now. I am not sure we will notice and bitch if they double, say.
What about the employer liability issues that are described? If employers are truly off the hook in TX without them, TX will never under any circumstances volunteer to form exchanges, it seems to me.
Given this loophole, why would a state opt to form exchanges? Would it have a competitive advantage over TX if it did?
I wonder if having starkly different systems, one with certain costs born through federal taxpayers and one with these certain costs shared between local taxpayers and cost spreading by providers to the insured, would produce enough differences in various costs and outcomes to act as a laboratory experiment.
George, I knew about this potential “complication” a long time ago, and probably read it in an employers’ law newsletter, so I cannot speak to whether the NYT readers should have heard about it sooner. I have to say it did not strike me as a big deal.
I didn’t really care about this statute as soon as I learned only one of my clients was big enough to be covered by the penalties, and it was unconcerned, and all of the smaller ones could get aid they did not have now on their health insurance expenditures, if they had any.
NoVA, is this potential loophole a big deal? Why? Why not?
LikeLike
Positioning for the lame duck has started:
“Obama Poised for New Fight With G.O.P. Over Tax Cuts
By MARK LANDLER
Published: July 8, 2012
WASHINGTON — With a torpid job market and a fragile economy threatening his re-election chances, President Obama is changing the subject to tax fairness, calling for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making less than $250,000.
Mr. Obama plans to make his announcement in the Rose Garden on Monday, senior administration officials said. The ceremony comes as Congress returns from its Independence Day recess, and as both parties and their presidential candidates head into the rest of the summer trying to seize the upper hand in a campaign that has been closely matched and stubbornly static.
House Republicans plan to vote this month to extend permanently all of the Bush tax cuts, for middle- and upper-income people.
The president’s proposal could also put him at odds with Democratic leaders like Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who have advocated extending the cuts for everyone who earns up to $1 million. And it will most likely do little to break the deadlock in Washington over how to deal with fiscal deficits, an impasse that has only hardened as Republicans sense a chance to make gains in Congress this fall.
But by calling for an extension for just a year, Mr. Obama hopes to make Republicans look obstructionist and unreasonable.”
The gulf between the President and Congressional Democrats should be easy for the Republicans to exploit. One would think that after the results of the past three years, Democrats would attempt to get on the same page before staking out a position in public. It also hands Romney the tax issue on a silver platter.
LikeLike
I typed up a reply to you, but I am not going to post it after all. Given some of your remarks, I don’t think the discussion is worthwhile. Perhaps someone else will be interested, but not me.
Yet you felt the need to notify me of that. Passive-aggressive much?
LikeLike
Yet you felt the need to notify me of that. Passive-aggressive much?
I didn’t feel any need to do anything. Your seemingly irrepressible urge to throw in offensive ad hominem jabs makes discussing these issues with you a fool’s errand. I thought you should know that I am not blind to it. Call that whatever you want. Just don’t try to pretend you are engaged in some intellectually serious debate.
LikeLike
Best wishes to Barney Frank and his new husband.
LikeLike
In a state of declared war, or if Islamists successfully detonate a weapon of mass destruction in a population center, I fully expect internment camps to make a reappearance.
I’m dubious that this would fly. I would expect the call for it to be vociferous, but we’re not going to have US local internment camps. High quality “suspects” might find themselves guests of the US government elsewhere, outside of the US, however. Although that happens already.
Best wishes to Barney Frank and his new husband.
Do you hear where they met? In his basement! Ba-dum-dum!
SSM advocates need to stick with Neil Patrick Harris as a standard bearer. Just thinking about the branding here.
LikeLike
I typed up a reply to you, but I am not going to post it after all.
What about everybody else in the audience? He’s not the only one who comes here. 😉
LikeLike
President Obama is changing the subject to tax fairness, calling for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making less than $250,000.
Bah! Permanent extension on folks making less that $250k (or less than $150k would work) and modest tax hikes on folks higher than that. He should demonstrate unequivocally that he is a man of the middle class. Otherwise, he’s not going to win much ground on this as an election issue.
LikeLike
That Santorum feels it was wrongly decided is key factor in my opinion that he is more than a butt-sex obsessed puritan but that he is religious fundamentalist of the worst kind.
No, the worst kind fly airplanes into buildings filled with innocent people of all faiths . . . and daycare centers.
Santorum is a religious fundamentalist of the most prudish kind, perhaps. Worst? Too much competition for him to reach that rarefied air.
LikeLike
The right to privacy is a similar fundamental in that it is a right so basic that it had never been actually explicitly stated.
One could also argue that it is implied. However, it wouldn’t hurt to state it explicitly, although given that the right to privacy wouldn’t give you the right to commit infanticide, such an explicit right would not, ipso facto, guarantee a right to abortion, given the ongoing dissension as regards to whether or not a fetus is a human child or an unviable tissue mass.
As a general concept, though, I think a right to privacy is a right worthy of legal legitimization, and would, ideally, be included in the constitution. Though, again, it’s presence would not immediately legitimize legalized abortion.
LikeLike
The irony of conservatives who think that requiring people to be financially responsible for their own health risks is unconstitutional but think the government (state or federal) has the right to tell them they can’t not have kids is palpable.
I’m not sure that’s ironic. First, the vast majority of conservatives don’t think the government, at any level, as the right to tell people that they must have children. Rather, most conservatives believe a fetus represents a human life, and that the taking of that life is murder, and are thusly opposed. One may disagree with that assessment, but it’s not that complicated. As regards contraception, they may not believe contraceptives should be distributed at schools, or that the federal government should pay for them, which may be positions that are weak on their own merits, but is not equal to believing that people should be forced to have children or that all birth control should be made illegal. While I realize some people do hold such views, they do not constitute the majority of conservatives.
Finally, conservatives believe that people should be financially responsible for their own health risks, they just don’t think the government should be mandating specific purchases of specific products, generally. And using that as a lever for ever-increasing government control of the healthcare industry, and individual healthcare choices. That is, it does not require the government to force people to buy health insurance to have individuals responsible for their own healthcare expenses, only that the government not step in to cover them when individuals cannot take care of them.
A purist position as regards to individual responsibility may not be palatable, but I’m not sure that it means that conservatives object to people being responsible for their own healthcare costs. The ACA is not required to ensure individual responsibility for covering their own healthcare expenses (or dying). Thus, one can reasonably object the ACA and still support individuals covering their own healthcare.
LikeLike
No, the worst kind fly airplanes into buildings filled with innocent people of all faiths . . . and daycare centers.
I have to concede that one to you. Santorum is not encouraging suicide bombers or shooting abortionists. But that is a pretty low bar.
However, it wouldn’t hurt to state it explicitly, although given that the right to privacy wouldn’t give you the right to commit infanticide, such an explicit right would not, ipso facto, guarantee a right to abortion, given the ongoing dissension as regards to whether or not a fetus is a human child or an unviable tissue mass.
Exactly why I am using Griswold as the template hear rather the far more controversial (and that understates it) Roe. However there are those that see all non-barrier methods of birth control as abortificiants (sp?) so even the types of methods covered by Griswold on privacy issues become ‘beginning of life’ items for the more radical. And there are joined by hard-core Catholics and the like that oppose contraception for anybody on moral grounds rather than as a privacy issue. Fortunately, those are a small minority in this country.
LikeLike