LyrArc Article Gist
A Tax Policy Center study (joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Insitute) shows $157 billion would be generated in the first year from an increase in taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the U.S., about 1.13 million households earning average $2.1 million, by increasing the federal tax rate from current 33.4% for this group to 40%. This could pay for a program to provide tution free education in America's colleges and universities. Even increasing the federal tax to 40% on the 115,000 households earning over $9.4 million on average, the top 0.1% of American households, would generate $55 billion in the first year, enough to pay for the $47 billion cost of tution free education at all of America's public colleges and universities, according to the Tax Policy Center. Economists including Stiglitz and others, point to significant impact of revenue generated from such a tax when applied to improving educational opportunity for the middle class and lower income groups. Education is a great leveler of income disparities as seen in the U.S. after World War II. During recent decades the highest income groups weren major beneficiaries of tax and economic policy, at the very time the middle class and factory workers were hit hard by global competition which lowered wages and exported jobs. The interest rate policies of the Fed after boom bust cycles also favored large investors in equity markets over smaller income earners with savings account deposits, whose savings experienced little growth under interest rates close to zero. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the graph vivdly shows in 2005 and 2006 there is surge in subprime lending to Hispanics and blacks, with almost as many subprime loans to Hispanics and Black people as to whites. It slows down in 2007 by which time foreclosures were starting to take shape. WaMu, Countrywide, Ameriquest and other lenders who pushed subprime lending were backers of an initiative called Hogar which worked to spread lending to redline areas, in what an organization for responsible housing lending calls reverse redlining- in which high cost loans were pushed on those least able to sustain payments for a long time. Previously these areas did not get much lending because of the lack of good credit history.

LyrArc Article Gist
This New York Times editorial says the U.S. Obama administration and its Housing Secretary Donovan should stop pretending that its settlement is the best way to help homeowners under water. The editorial asks the serious question- how far would the $20 billion settlement the banks would provide under the deal help, when 14.6 million homeowners owe $753 billion more on their mortgages than the value of their homes? The Obama administration is pressuring New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, to accept the settlement with the largest U.S. banks for questionable foreclosure practices, including robo-signing. It asks Schneiderman to resist these pressures and not support the settlement. Schneiderman has resisted this pressure because he and other prosecutors would be restricted from pursuing their investigations into wrongdoings in housing mortgages. The proposal from the Times to the Obama administration is to make principal reductions for underwater homeowners who are currrent in their payments through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The proposal to help homeowners uner water on their mortgages was first proposed by Martin Feldstein during the mortgage financial crisis in 2008-2009 with repeated op-eds in leading newspapers including the Wall Street Journal. Paul Krugman called attention to the failure of the Obama administration on this issue in recent op-eds. Peter Coy of Business Week pointed to some form of loan forgiveness as an essential part of restoring the economic health of the U.S. and Europe in the August issue of Bloomberg Business Week. Higher unemployment has made the foreclosure crisis worse, and has created a strong headwind for the U.S. economy by erasing chances of an early recovery in American housing markets. The Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program has been a dismal failure in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and was a huge missed opportunity to take the correct action early....

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporters Corkery and Yoon give a remarkable account of the individual homeowners and investors inside one toxic subprime mortgage security from Countrywide Financial Corp. named CWABS- 2006-2007. There is Amanda Gavini of Fort Myers who continued making mortgage payments against the odds after a illness and death in the family. And a couple Donald Mudd- Patricia Starr who were approved by Countrywide for a $171,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan at 8% with a $10,000 down payment for a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. The approval came only 3 months after the couple emerged from personal bankruptcy in 2006, and by 2009 Mudd was missing payments. Other borrowers such as Mrs. Gavini in Florida took out two loans at 7% and 11% in 2006, have continued making payments and are still unable to refinance under the HAMP or HARP government programs. It is because of these homeowners who continue to make payments helping the security price recover, that one of PIMCO's funds which owns a stake in this security has made good returns. Hedge fund Marathon Asset has also made good returns on this security because of the U.S. government's Public Private Investment Program to help banks recover by providing government incentives for purchase of these securities from banks. This was a way to get banks holding these subprime securities to resume normal lending in financial markets....

LyrArc Article Gist
The home ownership rate for the U.S. in March 2012, is 65.4%, the same rate as in 1997 before the housing bubble, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The irony of this is that the housing bubble was inflated by politicians in Congress and mortgage lenders and purchasers of mortgage securities. Fannie Mae and Countryside worked together ostensibly to promote home ownership while pursuing profits. In the case of politicians they pursued goals of raising employment and growth without understanding the risks of artificially inflating home ownership, and without consideration for incomes of subprime borrowers. A less benign view of the interests and goals of politicians comes from reflections on the impact of political lobbying by Fannie Mae and other housing lenders in the U.S. Congress. The consequences in terms of foreclosures have been devastating for minorities as well as other middle class homeowners. It has also damaged the U.S. banking system, credit growth in the economy and prospects for recovery, which will take years to correct. The federal government is also saddled with large losses at Fannie Mae because of its quasi government agency role. That role led to inflation of the bubble. Most of the consequences will be borne by middle and lower income households in the U.S. The pass-through effects in a global economy affect Europe, and emerging market countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krauthammer cites Congressional Budget Office numbers that show the Obama U.S. health care law continues the spiralling costs of health care with new government mandates at a time of severe budget cuts in education and other areas- for 2013-2022 the costs come to $1.76 trillion. The initial Obama administration figures of 10 year costs of $938 billion announced in 2010 reflected the fact that the new U.S. health care law would take 4 years to fully go into effect. Costs after 2021 are shown to be $250 billion each year in the CBO figures. The law is now before the Supreme Court in 2012, which has to decide on the basis of the limits of the Commerce Clause.