BLOODHOUNDBLOG.COM

A clip from a fascinating City Journal article on the differences in taxes and services among the states and how that affects growth:

If California doesn’t want to be Texas, it must find a way to be a better California. The easy thing about being Texas is that the government has a great deal of control over the part of its package deal that attracts consumer-voters—it must merely keep taxes low. California, on the other hand, must deliver on the high benefits promised in its sales pitch. It won’t be enough for its state and local governments to spend a lot of money; they have to spend it efficiently and effectively.

The optimistic assessment is that things are going to get worse in California before they get better. The pessimistic assessment is that they’re going to get worse before they get much worse. As is often the case, hanging around with the pessimists is less fun but more instructive. The current recession has driven California’s state government into what amounts to a five-month budget cycle, according to Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee. He estimates that the budget deal tortuously wrought in July should start falling apart in October, because it was predicated on pie-in-the-sky revenue estimates and because so many of its spending cuts are being challenged, often successfully, in the courts.

The recession will eventually end and California’s finances will improve, say the optimists. Given the state’s pervasive political bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether its finances will ever get truly well. States that have grown accustomed to thinking of the engine that drives their economies as an inexhaustible resource—whether it’s Michigan and the auto industry, New York and Wall Street, or California and the vision of the sunlit good life that used to attract new residents—find it tough to compete again for what they thought would be theirs forever, and to plan budgets for lean years that turn into lean decades. Instead, they invest their hopes in a deus ex machina that will rescue them from the hard choices they dread.

For California’s governmental-industrial complex, a new liberal administration and Congress in Washington offer plausible hope for a happy Hollywood ending. Federal aid will replace the dollars that California’s taxpayers, fed up with the state’s lousy benefits and high taxes, refuse to provide. Americans will continue to vote with their feet, either by leaving California or disdaining relocation there, but their votes won’t matter, at least in the short term. Under the coming bailout, the new 49ers—Americans in the other 49 states, that is—will be extended the privilege of paying California’s taxes. At least they won’t have to put up with its public services.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

The $8000 first time home buyer tax credit is a mistake.  Congress should have enacted the original idea: a $15,000 tax credit.  This goes for the repeat home buyer tax credit as well.  As a matter of fact, I would like to have seen both tax credits even higher.  If you’ll maintain an open mind for the next few minutes, I hope to show you how embracing these tax credits actually creates a “win-win” situation that benefits you and this great nation.

The inherent spirit of humankind is individualistic, creative and inclined toward action.  The heart of man is inexorably drawn toward freedom: freedom to live, freedom to express and freedom to choose.  No matter what short-term damage is effected by an oppressor or institutionalized by a government, men and women will devise ways to rebuild and overcome.  Even in countries where the idea of freedom has been systematically driven out by force, we witness people taking action toward freedom.  It is a natural state that can be delayed, but not denied.  We are DOERs.  This country, the United States of America, is the poster child for taking action toward freedom.  We are a nation made up of DOERs.

So what does this have to do with the tax credit?  It empowers us with a “win-win” opportunity.  The immoral bribes to home buyers, the unconstitutional mandate for health insurance, the socialistic bail-outs, even the very destruction wrought by stimulus packages:  embrace them all!  These are all opportunities to make that “win-win” choice.  Embrace the home buyer’s credit and ACT on it!  Be a DOER.  It’s the DOERs who create the success of our society.  A nation of DOERs - of independent, entrepreneurial, action-based DOERs - will always bring about the necessary changes to save this republic.  If you desire your own success, then you desire to become a DOER.

More specifically: every action you take to help another person receive the tax credit strengthens you as a DOER while at the same time weakening the architects - the very architecture - that imposes itself upon a free people with that tax credit.  Eventually, the system cannot bear its own weight; the center cannot hold.  In taking action to embrace the tax credit you not only strengthen your potential for long-term success  by being a DOER, but you effect the implosion of the progressive state.  In other words, you hasten the collapse of an economic enemy by using its own tools of destruction and in the action of using those tools, in being a DOER, you reinforce and strengthen the very reason such a system cannot stand in the first place.  It’s a “Win-Win” proposition.

One last thought: there are those who fear taking action because they don’t know what will happen after the crash.  That’s actually a  surprisingly insignificant concern.  We don’t control outcomes and so we cannot know them.  Rather, we take action based on our knowledge of who we are, what we believe and what we desire.  We are a nation of DOERs.  If you believe that, than you have no reason to fear your desires or the brave new world after the collapse.  A more legitimate fear might instead be: “what happens to me after the collapse if I am not a DOER in a society being restored by DOERs?”

Embrace the government hand-outs and credits and stimulus spending.  Encourage an immediacy so apocalyptic that no one has time to read the laws they enact.  Take action and be a DOER… Join the revolution.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

It’s cash-for-clunkers time in the real estate market.

Last week, in addition to extending the $8,000 first-time home-buyers tax credit for another six months, Congress added a new $6,500 tax-credit for move-up buyers.

The credit can be applied for homes selling for as much as $800,000, and the income limits exclude almost nobody.

You have to have lived in your home for more than five years out of the last eight, but that’s hardly an onerous restriction. And homeowners who have put down roots have equity.

Remember that capital gains on your primary residence are excluded from taxation if you have lived in your home for the past five years. But the way the government is spending money, that exclusion cannot last.

But, but, but… Your home isn’t worth what it was in December of 2005. That’s true, but it doesn’t change anything. The home that you can buy now was also selling for more four years ago.

Here’s the way things really shake out: If you have equity in your home, you can take that equity as a tax-free profit — for now. At the same time, you can snag the $6,500 tax credit. And you can do all of this at historic low interest rates.

If your house is worth $400,000 and you only paid $300,000 for it, you could reap a gain of $100,000 — which would save you thousands of dollars in taxes. If you wait for prices to go higher, you may wait a long time for a much smaller return. And the house you buy then will have appreciated, also.

I think we’re looking at a perfect storm for homeowners with equity: You can move now, take a tax-free gain, get a lot more house than you could have bought a few years ago, all financed with a low-interest mortgage. And then, next April, Uncle Sam will write you a big fat check for your trouble.

On second thought, this is less cash-for-clunkers than the taxpayer’s revenge…

 
Sell this idea! Feel free to share this idea with your clients and prospects — in your blog, by email, on the phone. This is big, and the more we talk about it, the bigger it will get. Yes, it’s insane, but for once the hardworking American people will be on the sunny side of insanity.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

I guess I haven’t reached that point in my life yet when I’m so jaded (or is it cynical) that nothing will surprise me.  I say this after reading an interesting little article in the London TimesOnline.  They had the chance to interview Lloyd Blankfein, the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.  It seems he’s convinced - or at least he’s convinced he can convince us - that Goldman serves “a social purpose.”  As a matter of fact, Mr. Blankfein is so enamored with the self-importance of Goldman that he proudly proclaims he’s “Doing God’s Work.”  Wow…

Just to refresh our memory:

• Goldman received $10 Billion in Tarp Money
• Goldman received $12.9 Billion of government money through AIG
• Goldman received $20.9 Billion in FDIC debt guarantees
• Goldman, restructured as a “bank holding company” borrows at the Fed Window (at basically no cost)

Oh, and one more thing: Goldman will be paying $21.9 Billion in bonuses for 2009.  I don’t begrudge them bonuses, after all: they’ve had a helluva year.  Although some of that might be due to their oligarchical position within the federal government.  It would be nice - every once in a while - if Goldman would send a little thank you nod our way; maybe a quick wave or even a wink.  I guess I’m saying that when you’re screwing me this bad, a little dinner wouldn’t hurt.

John Lennon stirred up quite a spot of bother when he said: “We’re more popular than Jesus now.”  Have to admit though, that seems like such a trifle compared to the CEO of Goldman Sachs.  I mean, who cares if you’re more popular than Jesus?  Mr. Blankfein is angling to BE Jesus.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

I watched C-SPAN last night.

Now I feel dirty.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

This from my Arizona Republic real estate column:

The elections this past Tuesday were not a referendum on President Barrack Obama or his plans and policies. How do we know that? Because everyone associated with the Obama administration loudly insists that this cannot be so. They ought to know, right?

Senators and Representatives from states and districts that supported John McCain in the last election might have second thoughts, though, and this is very far from being a bad thing.

Americans insist to each other that they want a government that gets things done — except when they happen to be suffering under a government that is getting things done. If this election was not a referendum on Obama, it was a loud, angry shout about what the government has been doing lately.

The last time voters repudiated an over-ambitious president — the last six years of the Clinton administration — the nation experienced a period of tremendous growth and prosperity. The American people recoiled in horror from socialized medicine, and the resulting government — liberal president, conservative congress — was amazingly beneficial for the American people.

How? By getting nothing done, that’s how.

For free markets to work at their best, entrepreneurs need to be able to plan for the future. If they can surmise that prices and credit terms will not swing wildly over the next few years, they can plan their investments with a sense of security.

And if not? Not.

The Obama administration’s herky-jerky dance of currency inflation, stimulus programs, emergency bailouts and tax credits not only cannot stabilize the economy, they do exactly the opposite: They convince entrepreneurs that now is not a safe time to make plans for the future.

This goes for the real estate market, too. Buyers sit on the sidelines waiting for new tax credits. Sellers live in dread of future interest rate hikes. The Cap and Trade bill promises to complicate life for every homeowner.

So how might these elections have helped us all? It’s simple. If Senators and Representatives are afraid to act, nothing will change. And when nothing changes in Washington, everything changes, usually for the better, for everyone else.

Steal this book: I’ve written over 200 of these real estate columns. They are consistently one of the most popular features on our blogs. Many of them are dated and/or entirely Phoenixocentric. But many others are timeless and generic. If you want to use any of my columns on your weblog or web site, feel free. Three rules: Don’t change my text, credit me as the author and give me a link back to http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/ with appropriate anchor text. Something like this, perhaps:

<a href="http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/" target="_blank">
Phoenix Realtor Greg Swann</a> suggested I share this with you:

Am I link-baiting? You bet. The quid pro quo is free content for your site that pulls eyeballs and excites interest.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

Fannie Mae announced today it’s implementation of the Deeds for Lease Program (which name, interestingly, they have trademarked). I cannot begin to count the problems with this latest attempt by the government to sober up an alcoholic nation by supplying enough booze to drown a water hippo.

You can read the press release and imagine the nightmare yourself so I’m not going to recount it here, but I will point out one of the less reported aspects of this program that has the potential to cause a whole lot of those pesky unintended consequences our political leaders are so loathe to anticipate:

… (the borrowers or tenants) lease back the house at a market rate… Borrowers or tenants interested in a lease must be able to document that the new market rental rate is no more than 31% of their gross income.

Interesting wording there at the end.  It’s not clear at first glance, but what this means is that if the borrower - who has generally endured a financial hardship to begin with - doesn’t make enough money, they’re still eligible… the rent will just have to drop to below market.  Well what could go wrong with a government/landlord artificially lowering rents throughout the nation… That shouldn’t bother anyone who works with real estate investors should it?  Anyone here, reading BHB, work with real estate investors?  I didn’t think so.  Sorry to have brought it up.  I’m sure the people who paid $70,000 for $30,000 trailers that are STILL housing people post Katrina know exactly what they’re doing.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

The national Republican party is riven by an insuperable internal contradiction.

Out of one side of their mouths, Republicans wish to portray themselves as tax cutters, red-tape slashers, champions of liberty fearlessly hacking away at the slimy tentacles of the leviathan state. Ignore for the moment that they’re spineless jellyfish when it comes time to cut, slash or hack; this is how they wish to present themselves.

Out of the other side of their mouths, Republicans offer American voters an alternate set of slimy tentacles for the same old leviathan. The state they promise to shrink will simultaneously promote a nebulous family values agenda and forbid abortion. Republicans will simultaneously dismantle the Department of Education and supplant ecosocialist indoctrination with theocratic indoctrination. The leviathan state will lose the power to ban cancer drugs but gain the power to ban rap records.

Things fall apart. The center cannot hold…

Whatever the Republican party seeks to be in the states, in the counties, in the towns, what it cannot be at the national level is the party of both smaller and larger government. It can’t because as a strategy it makes no sense, and it can’t because there is no common ground between the liberty-seeking Republicans and the theocracy-seeking Republicans. Those two wings of the party can only fly apart in the long run.

But: There is a way around this: The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the national Republican party were to concentrate solely on shrinking the Federal leviathan to a strict adherence to the Constitution, devolving all of the usurped tentacular powers to the states to do with — or do away with — as they choose, the party could achieve these goals:

• It would actually deliver on a promise, prompting universal amazement.
• It would present to both of its contradictory wings the opportunity to achieve at the state and local levels what they cannot hope to achieve nationally.
• It would result in something much better than campaign finance reform: A Federal government that’s not worth buying because it has nothing to sell.
• It would result in something much better than tax reform: A massive reduction in the Federal tax burden.
• It would give Republicans a lasting national agenda. Moreover, it would protect American voters from the predations of the Democrats even when Republicans are out of power.

I myself am a libertarian, and I suppose it’s important to answer the libertarian objection: Fifty small tyrannies is not preferable to one large one. This is false on a number of grounds.

First, the only devolution of power that can be effected by the Federal government is the devolution of Federal power. Whatever else you might hope to do at other levels of government must be done there.

Second, tyranny is most onerous where escaping it is most costly. So long as free-thinkers can easily move to New York or California, it doesn’t matter as much what happens in Iowa or Alabama. Moving from the U.S. to New Zealand is a much higher hurdle.

Third, the irrationality of bad laws is most obvious where comparison is easiest. If it turns out that the Iowans scare away their best and brightest with irrational laws, the Iowans will either change their ways or pay the consequences of failing to.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution anticipated that the states would comprise laboratories of democracy, each seeking to find the best balance between individual rights and collective authority. Devolving political power from the Federal government to the states, and from there to the counties and municipalities, most closely mimics the grand idea expressed in the Declaration of Independence: The consent of the governed.

In effect, I am offering to the national Republican party the choicest cut of the libertarian steak, the insufferable confiscatory Federal nanny-state. What Republicans choose to do on the state and local levels is their business. What they will stop trying to do is to find a common national ground between Connecticut country-clubbers and Texas bible-thumpers. There is none.

Cut Federal agencies one by one, and cut taxes in lockstep. Sell Federal assets to reduce the national debt. Pass Constitutional amendments that clarify the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause and other clauses that weasel-wording lawyers have used to feed the leviathan. Repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments to restore to the states their power over the Federal government. Do everything necessary to give us the Federal government provided for in the Constitution, and then start whittling away at that. Ecosocialists and theocrats can impose their views on those who share them. Those of us who don’t can get on with the business of building a civilization.

That is a national Republican agenda that can win. It gives the liberty-seeking Republicans the liberty they seek. It gives the theocracy-seeking Republicans a fighting chance to achieve their goals locally. And it will appeal to many, many Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, each for their own reasons.

This can win. And nothing else will.

 
Further notice: I wrote this in November of 1998. Nothing has changed since then, alas, and nothing will now, either, I’m afraid.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

The Washington Post:

Under the housing program, people seeking to own a home for the first time in three years would receive an $8,000 tax credit if they sign a contract by April 30 and close on it by June 30. Current homeowners who are buying a new primary residence would be eligible for a $6,500 tax credit starting Dec. 1 if they owned their home for five consecutive years in the previous eight.

The timing is more lenient for military families who have been deployed overseas for 90 days or more in 2008 or 2009. They would have until April 30, 2011 to sign a contract.

But the measure limits the purchase price of the home to $800,000. It also imposes income caps so that people who make more than $125,000 annually and couples who make more than $225,000 would not be eligible for a refund. Anyone who collects the tax credit but sells their home within three years of buying it must return the refund.

The program is estimated to cost $10.8 billion.

The passage of the tax credit provision was a huge win for the real estate industry, which has been lobbying aggressively to extend and expand the program. They say the tax credit has helped boost sales and clear out a glut of lower-priced homes, especially foreclosures, and that ending it would be a blow to the housing market’s recovery.

But critics of the program, including some economists, say the program is far too expensive. They say that most people who used it would have bought homes anyway. They attribute the uptick in home sales in recent months more to low prices and record low interest rates.

Questions for the lenders: The tax credit for move-ups doesn’t commence until 12/01/09. What about first-timers? Can they be under contract now, or do they need to wait until after the end of the month.

More: Do I read this right? Can you “move up” after having rented for the last three years?

I hate this, of course. The real estate market can’t shake out if we won’t let it. But as listers of higher-end homes… Thus does the legislature make whores of us all.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

Yahoo News:

Can’t pay the mortgage? You still might be able to stay in your home. Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year.

The change announced Thursday could give a temporary break to thousands of homeowners, but critics question whether it will only add to the mushrooming losses at the company, which has received billions in taxpayer money.

The new “Deed for Lease” program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with potential month-to-month extensions after that. It also helps save money because the lender does not need to complete the often lengthy and time-consuming foreclosure process.

The program helps “eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes during a transitional period, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities,” Jay Ryan, a Fannie Mae vice president, said in a statement.

It also does less harm to the borrower’s credit record.

“It shows that you put your best effort to work out a solution,” said Gabe Del Rio, director of homeownership at Community HousingWorks of San Diego.

However, Mike Himes, director of homeownership services at NeighborWorks Sacramento, said the industry should push harder to modify loans at lower monthly payments. “The preferred option is allowing people to retain ownership,” he said.

Fannie Mae executives said the rental program is designed to help delinquent homeowners who don’t qualify for a loan modification, but still want to stay in their homes.

To qualify, homeowners have to live in the home as the primary residence and prove that they can afford the market rent, which will be established by the management company running the program. Rents are based on current market rates.

The plan is expected to be particularly attractive in places like Phoenix or Orange County, Calif., where homeowners are stuck paying large mortgage bills on properties that are now worth far less than they originally paid. At the same time, rents have been falling in those areas and homeowners may find they are paying far less to live in their home.

In Orange County, for example, the average monthly rent for all apartments was about $1,450 in September, down nearly 8 percent from a year earlier, according to research firm MPF Research. In Phoenix, the average renter paid about $720, also down about 8 percent from last year.

Still, based on a similar program, the effort is likely to attract a relatively small number of homeowners.

In the first nine months of the year, Fannie Mae took ownership of nearly 2,000 properties through a process known as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That pales in comparison to the 90,000 foreclosed properties the company repossessed in the period.

Deed-in-lieu works like the new program, allowing homeowners to turn over title to Fannie Mae, but rather than renting, the owners simply walk away.

While Fannie Mae executives say the company’s motives are community-minded, critics say the company is simply gambling that the properties will eventually sell for a higher price. That’s folly, says Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Darien, Conn., and a longtime bearish investor.

“Taxpayers are now going to own all these houses that (Fannie Mae) should have unloaded,” he said. “It’s going to cost a fortune.”

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

I actually feel kind of bad for the should-have-known-better folks who voted for Obama. It was obvious to me last fall that he was a false-flag candidate, a stone liberal masquerading as a centrist. And I understand that, for true stone liberals, he’s actually been somewhat of a disappointment. But for people who can do math, their misplaced faith in Obama has to sting twice, once for having been so dreadfully wrong, and once again because snarky assholes like me just won’t let it slide.

But here’s the good news, from my point of view: Last night’s results may have the immediate impact of putting the brakes on all this tax-and-spend stupidity. The larger stupidities will endure, of course, but we just might have gotten ourselves shut of the home-buyer’s tax-credit last night. Surely this is an event worth celebrating.

This is Instanpundit.com’s Glenn Reynolds in today’s New York Post:

But [Obama] was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of “czars” while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

With the economy tanking (unemployment is much worse after Obama’s deficit-swelling stimulus than Obama’s advisers predicted it would be with no stimulus at all), with the promised post-partisanship dissolving into witch-hunts against hostile media and the promised post-racial America devolving into the awkwardly staged “beer summit,” with the “necessary war” in Afghanistan the subject of endless dithering and the promised “smart diplomacy” materializing as a series of awkward missteps by Hillary Clinton, the froth has become a lot less frothy.

Republicans, who were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt a year ago, now can’t stand him. Independents who voted for him are deserting in droves. And Democrats don’t seem that happy either.

The good news for Obama is that he doesn’t have to run for re-election for three more years, so he still has a chance to get his feet under him. But for Congress members facing elections in a year — including but not limited to the famous “blue-dog” Democrats — the lesson of this week is that Obama can’t save their seats if the public is unhappy (and, equally, that Obama probably can’t hurt them much, either). So what Obama wants is nice, but it’s what the voters in their districts want that will control.

That makes Obama’s health-care “reform” package look iffy and his other big plans for remaking America look even iffier. With the hope having faded, enthusiasm for change seems much diminished. From a mythic figure, Obama has shrunk to an ordinary politician — and, so far, not an obviously deft one. It’ll be politics as usual from now on, and we can thank Obama, at least, for making politics-as-usual seem not so bad after all …

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

A few months back, as part of a Tin Foil Hat Production, I mentioned CIT’s desperate need for funds and the Fed’s decision not to bail them out. Why is this noteworthy? After all, I don’t believe the Fed should bail anybody out.  I cheer wildly to see Ford record surprising profits while competing against the Frankenstein creation that is GM, just as I quietly root for GM’s justified demise.  But here we are, with CIT declaring bankruptcy and the hypocrisy is just too much.   Apparently, a company focused on financing small business (70% of the entire factoring business!) is not worth a bail out from the administration that claims to look for ways to spur Small Business.  Color me cynical, but I think CIT’s main problem was a lack of Goldman-Sach’s alumni on its board…

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

This from my Arizona Republic real estate column:

As I write this, the entire real estate industry is on tenterhooks, waiting to see if the $8,000 first-time home-buyers tax credit is going to be extended.

It’s not really a tax credit, it’s a taxpayer-funded subsidy, a “gift” extracted by force from everyone who does not buy a house under the program. The money taken from taxpayers — either now or later by deficit spending — is money that cannot be spent or invested elsewhere.

And it’s not as though this were a zero-sum game. The actual marginal sales — the home sales that would not have happened without the subsidy — may have cost taxpayers from $40,000 to $75,000 each. And as huge as those numbers are, they ignore the interest cost of the borrowed money, the opportunity costs of mal-investment and the compound interest value of those opportunity costs.

Government action cannot create wealth. At best, it moves wealth around. At worst, government destroys wealth by taking it away from the very people who have new ideas and new technologies to invest in.

But as bad as this tax credit is, it’s only temporary. Someday it will end. The mortgage interest tax deduction — which almost no home-owners actually get — is forever. The government dominance of the secondary mortgage market — FannieMae, FreddieMac, GinnieMae, etc. — is forever.

And here’s the real kick in the head, given all we’ve been through in the real estate market over the last eight years: The National Association of Realtors reports that 59% of all new home loans this year were underwritten by the Federal Housing Authority, the Veterans Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

What this means is that a huge number of homes will have been sold this year with down-payments ranging from 3.5% to -5%. Six out of ten new mortgages are essentially nothing-down loans.

The U.S. government wants to buy your vote by making home-ownership easy. But the net effect of government intrusions in the real estate market is to create a standing wave of foreclosures amid steadily-declining home values.

 
Steal this book: I’ve written over 200 of these real estate columns. They are consistently one of the most popular features on our blogs. Many of them are dated and/or entirely Phoenixocentric. But many others are timeless and generic. If you want to use any of my columns on your weblog or web site, feel free. Three rules: Don’t change my text, credit me as the author and give me a link back to http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/ with appropriate anchor text. Something like this, perhaps:

<a href="http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/" target="_blank">
Phoenix Realtor Greg Swann</a> suggested I share this with you:

Am I link-baiting? You bet. The quid pro quo is free content for your site that pulls eyeballs and excites interest.

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

…today is probably the day to make contact with your state’s U.S. Senators.

(Incidentally, if you want for your political communications to have maximum force, you have to do more than write a check. You’ll get double the impact is you make a photocopy of your check — and then mail the photocopy to your candidate’s opponent. This should be very effective over the next two years in “purple” districts.)

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed

From Politics Daily, the you-just-can’t-make-this-shit-up section:

Four-year-olds are adorable, trustworthy, and, having never owned a home before, fully eligible for the first-time homebuyer tax credit that Congress passed in 2008.

As a result of that loophole and numerous faulty reporting mechanisms, a House panel learned Thursday of tens of thousands of cases of fraud in the tax credit program, including more than 500 instances of people using their children — including a four-year-old — to apply for the credit to get around income caps and a requirement that the purchaser has never owned a home.

Together, fake or faulty claims for the $8,000 refundable tax credit may have cost the government up to half a billion dollars so far, investigators told the Ways and Means subcommittee.

Russell George, an inspector general with the Treasury Department, told the subcommittee about the most brazen instances of bogus claims that he had come across since the IRS created a filtering system last May to weed out suspicious applications.

George said he had found nearly 20,000 returns for people who may not have actually purchased homes; thousands for people who already owned homes; 3,200 taxpayers who could not prove they were in the country legally; and an unspecified number of IRS employees wrongly applying for the credit.

It is completely implausible to me that anyone could expect anything other than disaster from government-run anything. I like to say that governments are only good at one thing — killing people — but even that isn’t true of the U.S. government: The Army expends 20,000 rounds of ammunition for every confirmed kill. No worries, though:

This week Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) began a push to expand the credit to all homebuyers and extend the deadline, now set for Nov. 30th, to July 2010.

Good plan…

Bookmark this to: del.icio.us • Digg it • StumbleUpon • Subscribe to RSS feed