Although it is probably good news that congress and President Obama managed to start the New Year by avoiding going over the fiscal cliff, it is hard not to get a sense that, now that we have avoided that, we can go back to the steady decline that has characterized our economy in recent years. Moreover, while avoiding the fiscal cliff is evidence that our elected officials are not completely unable to work together or govern, there is still reason to believe that congress is not capable of governing the country in a serious way or of addressing any of the myriad problems facing the U.S.
To a large extent, the fiscal cliff was an artificial crisis arising out of the Republican-led congress’ unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. Congress’ inability to function in summer of 2011 led to the formation of a super committee which was supposed to do the work which congress could not. Unsurprisingly, that super committee was similarly unable to function, thus leading to the automatic spending cuts and tax increases which were due to start this year and became known as the fiscal cliff.
In some respects, what is so unusual about the fiscal cliff negotiations is that they represented, for the most part, the every day work of congress. For decades, congress and presidents have been able to work together despite partisan and ideological differences to agree on a budget, tax policies and spending. In recent years this has broken down. In fairness, for much of recent American history, this agreement was reached by increasing borrowing, an option that is politically not as easy today as it was even a decade ago. However, the deficit alone does not explain why this basic act of governance has become so difficult.
It is possible to attribute this to an increase in partisan fighting and an increasingly partisan climate in Washington. This explanation is not entirely inaccurate, but it is also intellectually lazy and suggests a shared responsibility among the two parties that no longer exists. Now, even more than in Obama’s first term, it is clear that the responsibility for most of the obstruction lies with the Republicans in congress who are largely either radical Tea Party types or leaders who are unable to discipline or deliver their caucus. Interestingly, congressional Republicans are now so committed to their extremism and heedless of the political reality around them that they are willing, even anxious, to create political problems for themselves in the name of some ideological purity that is better understood as little more than a deep commitment to disagree with President Obama on absolutely everything.
The fiscal cliff deal has done nothing to change this basic orientation of a significant segment of congressional Republicans, who are still unwilling to take the work of governance seriously, preferring to operate through ultimatums and threats. Currently, this includes a number of prominent Republicans calling for a government shutdown, seemingly because they did not get their way on the fiscal cliff agreement.
In this context, the fiscal cliff agreement means very little. The agreement not only solves nothing, but it buys very little time as the Republicans in congress seem to be pivoting quickly to discussing government shutdowns, refusals to raise the debt ceiling and other measures which will accomplish little and be destructive to the American economy.
The fiscal cliff emerged because of a failure of governance, more specifically, because of a failure of the House Republicans to make governance rather than some ersatz ideological purity a priority. Although the immediate threat was avoided, this basic condition has not changed, meaning the fiscal cliff deal resolved very little. The fiscal cliff was a political construct which turned into a potential political and economic crisis. Interestingly, the lesson some in the Republican Party learned from this is not that creating false crises is a bad idea, but that they can get attention and an opportunity to show how much they oppose the president by creating more of these crises.
Unfortunately, it is likely that the fiscal cliff will be the beginning of a series of crises rather than the resolution or end of a process. It is unclear what can dissuade the House Republicans from continuing to do this. The resounding defeat of their party’s standard bearer in this recent election clearly did not accomplish this. Similarly, it is clear that leaders such as Speaker John Boehner are either unable or unwilling to try to curb this behavior. The cost of this will be quite high for the country. If one party refuses to govern, or sees it as less important than proving some increasingly obscure and irrelevant point, the fiscal cliff of January 2013 will seem like a fond memory within a year or two.
–>
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
FOLLOW POLITICS203k
Daily Archives: January 7, 2013
3 more “fiscal cliffs” on the horizon | Armonk NY Homes
Stock markets around the world began 2013 with a huge rally, as investors breathed a sigh of relief that the “fiscal cliff” was averted at the eleventh hour. However, the measures taken to avoid the cliff were stopgaps, not solutions. There’s still plenty of uncertainty out there, because there are three more “cliffs” coming up in short order.
National debt limit
Unless Congress takes action to raise the debt ceiling, which stands at $16.4 trillion, it’s estimated that the U.S. Treasury will reach its credit limit sometime around the end of February. This could reprise the conflict that in 2011 brought the country within days of default and led to the first ever downgrading of the federal government’s credit rating. The related financial uncertainty sowed fear among investors, and from July 1, 2011, through August 8 of that year the S&P 500 fell from 1,340 to 1,119, a drop of more than 16 percent.
A quick resolution before the latest debt-ceiling deadline looks anything but a certainty. Remember that the deal that avoided the fiscal cliff included almost no spending cuts at all. And Republicans are now insisting that they’ll demand that any increase in the debt limit be tied to significant spending cuts. On the other side of the aisle, President Obama has vowed not negotiate over the borrowing limit. Meanwhile, the ratings agencies have warned that the Treasury’s AAA rating is in danger if the problem isn’t addressed.
Spending cuts
When Congress last week passed the bill averting the fiscal cliff, officially called the American Taxpayer Relief Act, it only addressed the revenue side of the nation’s budget gap. Remember that Congress has had almost a year-and-a-half to address the spending side. In 2011, they even set up the so-called sequestration that would have imposed $109 billion in annual spending cuts, totaling $1.2 trillion, if they failed to act by December 31. About half of the reductions would have come from defense and half from non-defense programs, including education, science and technology, national parks, Medicare and other entitlements. This was set up to be so painful that lawmakers would be forced to reach a deal. Yet even the congressional “supercommittee” in 2011 failed to come up with a deficit-reduction plan. And the new law only kicks the proverbial can down the road for two months, until March 1. The prior failures and an even more ideologically divided Congress calls into question Congress’ ability to agree on spending cuts within the next two months.
Congressional budget
The third “cliff” also stems from lawmakers’ inability to pass rein in spending. For the federal government to run, Congress has to not only pass a budget, but also has to appropriate the money. When that doesn’t happen, Congress has to instead pass continuing resolutions to fund the government. Right now, we’re operating under a continuing resolution scheduled to expire March 27. Without another such resolution, the government could face a shutdown.
Investors are facing so many cliffs that they must feel like Wile E. Coyote. With all this uncertainty, there’s certainly the potential for markets to be volatile over the next few months, putting your discipline to the test. With that in mind, there are two important considerations.
- Even with the uncertainty surrounding this last fiscal cliff, markets rallied. Remember that if you get tempted to sell when potential deals look bleak.
- Your investment plan should have already accounted for uncertainty in the markets. If not, get yourself a new plan.
South Salem 2012 sales rise 23.5% – Prices down 2.6% | RobReportBlog
South Salem 2012 sales rise 23.5% – Prices down 2.6% | RobReportBlog
South Salem NY Sales 2012 2011 63 Sales 51 23.50% UP $575,000.00 Median Price $590,822.00 2.60% DOWN $185,000.00 Low Price $191,000.00 $1,557,000.00 High Price $2,000,000.00 2842 Ave. Size 2583 $232.00 Ave. Price/foot $234.00 235 Ave. DOM 198 93.66% Ave. Sold/Ask 94.45% $652,715.00 Ave. Sold Price $590,821.00
Armonk Homes | America’s 5 Least Affordable Housing Markets
San Francisco’s housing boom | North Salem NY Real Estate
Top 10 Turnaround Housing Markets Of ’12 | Waccabuc NY Real Estate
Cross River Real Estate | From Pet Spas To Digital Brokerages, The Most Unusual Housing Trends To Track In 2013
40-year home loan feasible, but ‘challenging’ | Katonah NY Real Estate
KUALA LUMPUR: The long tenure of up to 40 years to repay loans under the My First Home Scheme is feasible but it comes with some challenges, analysts said.
The scheme helps to lessen house buyers’ burden and gives them greater opportunity to own their first house in the Klang Valley, they said.
But finding a decent house costing RM200,000 to RM400,000 there will be tough for young adults, they pointed out.
The home scheme, launched by the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in March 2011, is part of the government’s efforts to help young adults own a house, with 100 per cent financing from banks.
Under the scheme, individuals with a monthly income not exceeding RM5,000 (previously RM3,000) will be eligible to buy their first house of up to RM400,000 without paying the 10 per cent down payment.
The government, via Cagamas, will guarantee the initial 10 per cent of the loan.
For joint borrowers, the income limit has been increased to RM10,000 per month.
The higher income limit of purchasers is effective this year.
The loan repayment period is up to 40 years, or when the buyer reaches 65 years old, whichever is earlier. This means, a buyer needs to be 25 years old or younger, if he wants to apply for a 40-year loan.A research head from a local brokerage said the scheme can be a catalyst for the property industry as it spurs young adults to be first-time house buyers.
“Property developers can also take advantage of this by building more affordable houses as there is a group of ready buyers.
“However, as cost to build a house has increased, the government would need to figure out a way to solve it before you can see many developers jumping on the bandwagon,” he added.
Based on dipstick calculation, a buyer earning RM5,000 a month would be in a “borderline situation” if he were to purchase a RM400,000 house via a 40-year loan under the scheme.
“The new lending guidelines require banks to look at a borrower’s net income,” said a bank officer who declined to be named.
“This would mean that by default, his net income would be about RM4,500, that is without factoring in his car loan.
“A 40-year loan period would mean that he has to pay up about RM1,790 a month (based on an interest rate of 4.5 per cent).“Under the new lending guidelines, the approval or rejection of the loan would depend on his other commitments, like personal loan or car loans. It’s going to be borderline.
While the longer tenure for loan repayment may have its benefits, it does have some “loopholes”.
“Today, getting a RM400,000 property in the Klang Valley will be a challenge. So, you can imagine if one were to look for a decent new development under RM300,000 or RM200,000.
“Let’s assume that the supply of properties worth RM400,000 are in abundance. How many young adults will have a monthly income of RM5,000 a month at the age of 25 years?
“I guess the likelihood of individuals aged 25 or below buying a RM400,000 property will be low, but if they opt to buy a property as joint borrowers, it is still very much possible,” said an analyst.
The good news is, the government has established the Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia Bhd (PR1MA) with the sole purpose of developing and maintaining affordable and quality houses, specifically for the middle income group. These houses are expected to be priced between RM100,000 and RM400,000.
Currently, PR1MA is accepting applications for one of its projects in Nusajaya – a double-storey link house (1,384 sq ft and above) for as low as RM199,000. Its website stated that more projects are underway, in Penang and Seremban.
Foreclosure Supply Plummeted in November | Bedford Hills NY Real Estate
Completed foreclosures fell 23 percent in November compared to a year ago and the national foreclosure inventory declined 18 percent from November 2011, from 1.5 to 1.2 million properties as demand from investors kept local inventories low.
According to CoreLogic, there were 55,000 completed foreclosures in the U.S. in November 2012, down from 72,000 in November 2011, a year-over-year decrease of 23 percent. On a month-over-month basis, completed foreclosures fell from 59,000* in October 2012 to the current 55,000, a decrease of 6 percent.
Approximately 1.2 million homes, or 3.0 percent of all homes with a mortgage, were in the national foreclosure inventory as of November 2012 compared to 1.5 million, or 3.5 percent, in November 2011. Month-over-month, the national foreclosure inventory was down 3.5 percent from October 2012 to November 2012. Year-over-year, the foreclosure inventory was down 18 percent. The foreclosure inventory is the share of all mortgaged homes in any stage of the foreclosure process.
(See National Foreclosure and Shadow Inventories fell by a Total 500K in 2012).
“The continued fall in completed foreclosures is a positive supply-side contribution in many regions of the U.S.,” said Anand Nallathambi, president and CEO of CoreLogic. “We still have a long way to go to return to historic norms, but this trend is firmly in the right direction.”
Historically, foreclosures averaged 21,000 per month between 2000 and 2006. Since the financial crisis began in September 2008, there have been approximately 4.0 million completed foreclosures .
“The pace of completed foreclosures has significantly improved over a year ago as short sales gain popularity as a disposition method. Additionally, the inventory of foreclosed properties continues to decline while the housing market demonstrates an ongoing ability to absorb the distressed sales that result from completed foreclosures,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist for CoreLogic.
Highlights as of November 2012:
- The five states with the highest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in November 2012 were: California (102,000), Florida (94,000), Michigan (75,000), Texas (58,000) and Georgia (52,000).These five states account for 50 percent of all completed foreclosures nationally.
- The five states with the lowest number of completed foreclosures for the 12 months ending in November 2012 were: South Dakota (10), District of Columbia (62), Hawaii (415), North Dakota (491) and Maine (597).
- The five states with the highest foreclosure inventory as a percentage of all mortgaged homes were: Florida (10.4 percent), New Jersey (7.3 percent), New York (5.1 percent), Nevada (4.7 percent) and Illinois (4.7 percent).
- The five states with the lowest foreclosure inventory as a percentage of all mortgaged homes were: Wyoming (0.4 percent), Alaska (0.7 percent), North Dakota (0.7 percent), Nebraska (0.8 percent) and South Dakota (1.0 percent).
*October data was revised. Revisions are standard, and to ensure accuracy CoreLogic incorporates newly released data to provide updated results.
Americans are Moving More Often | Bedford NY Real Estate
Rising home values, affordable prices, pent up demand and fewer households underwater on there are motivating more American families to move more often. The average home buyer is expected to stay in a home only 13 years, down from a peak of 20 years in 2009.
Based on a long-run calculation that averages mobility tendencies over a number of years, the typical buyer of a single-family home-including first-time buyers as well as move up buyers- can be expected to stay in the home is now approximately 13 years, according to recent article published by the National Association of Home Builders.
The NAHB work updates a previous article that used data from the American Housing Survey (funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and conducted in odd-numbered years by the Census Bureau) through 2007. The new study incorporates AHS data through 2011.
The mobility tendencies observed in the 2011 data imply that the expected length of stay in an owner-occupied, single-family home would be about 16 years (the time it would take half of single-family buyers to move out). However, 2011 is likely to be an atypical year, so the article repeats the analysis using mobility tendencies observable in earlier years, with results as shown in the figure below.
If a single estimate is needed for how long buyers who move in today or in the near future can be expected to remain in their homes, the article recommends 13 years, based on the rounded average across all data points.
The article also shows that, over the 1987-2011 period, the expected length of stay in a single-family home has been consistently longer for trade-up buyers than for first-time buyers. Averaged over those years, the expected length of stay in a single-family home is about 11 and a half years for first-time buyers, compared to 15 years for buyers who have owned a home before.
The National Association of Realtors reported that the average tenure is still nine years in its recent 2012 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, up from six years before the housing crash in 2007, but the average buyers expectation is to live in theuir new home 15 years.






