« August 2008 |
Main
| October 2008 »
 Updated post: The Bush White House is now complaining that the media has unfairly labeled the $700-billion bailout bill as a ... bailout. Sen. John McCain, also chafing at the "b" word, is suggesting, "Let's not call it a bailout."
From CNN today: "The first thing I'd do is say, Let's not call it a bailout," McCain said this morning. "Let's call it a rescue. Because it is a rescue of Main Street America..."
"We haven't convinced people that this is a rescue effort not just for Wall Street but for Main Street,'' McCain said in an appearance on CNN's American Morning. "All over America, people are going to lose credit. ... We didn't do a good-enough job.''
Here's the update: Alert commenter Nancy points out that Laura Tyson, an economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, made the same argument last night on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. Highlights of Tyson's comments: You know, all along, this has been called a bailout bill. It's such a misnomer. We are in the midst of a massive credit contraction. It's strangling the economy. ...
So, yes, we have to communicate this to the American people so the American people understand this is not about Wall Street. It's not about a bailout. It is about Main Street and jobs.
The Bush White House was making the same case yesterday, whining really, complaining that critics of the $700-billion Paulson plan had somehow tarnished the bailout bill by labeling it as a "bailout": "It's really unfortunate shorthand for a very complicated issue," said Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto.
"Our critics took the language of a 'bailout for Wall Street,'" he said, and the news media adopted it as the shorthand to describe the administration's aid package.
He insisted at the daily White House news briefing: "It is not a bailout for Wall Street. It is not a bailout for CEOs."
Two cents: This is kind of silly. If you take $700 billion in public money and use it to buy nearly worthless toxic securities from overpaid bankers, that, my friends, is a bailout. That's not the same thing as saying it is wrong or foolish. Perhaps it's necessary. Perhaps it's the only way to avoid financial Armageddon. But it's still accurately described as "a bailout."
As always, the comment section is open to those who would like to agree, or disagree.
-- Peter Viles
Photo credit: Getty Images
More from McCain, via the Swamp blog:
Listing prices in Los Angeles County remained nearly flat for the fourth week in a row, and inventory of for-sale homes and condos held steady, according to Housing Tracker's weekly analysis of MLS listings.
Median listing prices were unchanged at $399,000 over the week ending Monday, representing a decline of 23.1% from year-earlier levels. Inventory, at 40,539, was flat from the week earlier, and down 12.4% from year-ago levels.
So my question to you: What explains a month of flat prices? A sign the market is bottoming? A potentially misleading and meaningless lull in the downturn? A change in the mix of what's for sale, with more expensive homes coming onto the market and stopping the decline in median prices? You tell me.
Date Median listing price Inventory
4/06 $579,666 27,251
4/07 $545,000 35,489
5/07 $545,000 38,297
6/07 $540,000 40,766 (up 20.4% y/y)
7/07 $535,000 42,685 (up 14.5% y/y)
8/07 $529,000 44,483 (up 13.6% y/y)
9/07 $520,000 46,414 (up 16.9% y/y)
10/07 $510,000 46,603 (up 15.6% y/y)
11/07 $499,900 46,503 (up 19.0% y/y)
12/07 $495,000 (down 10.0% y/y) 43,174 (up 28.2% y/y)
1/08 $479,900 (down 12.6%) 40,850 (up 33.3% y/y)
2/08 $475,000 (down 13.5%) 43,625 (up 38.3%)
3/08 $464,900 (down 15.5%) 42,098 (up 31.4%)
4/08 $450,000 (down 17.4%) 42,430 (up 16.7%)
5/08 $449,900 (down 17.4%) 42,532 (up 11.1%)
6/08 $440,000 (down 18.5%) 42,398 (up 4.0%)
7/08 $425,000 (down 20.6%) 44,636 (up 4.6%)
8/08 $410,000 (down 22.3%) 42,279 (down 5.1%)
9/2/08 $400,000 (down 23.8%) 42,081 (down 8.6%)
9/8/08 $399,999 (down 23.1%) 41,803 (down 9.9%)
9/15/08 $399,900 (down 23.1%) 42,553 (down 7.9%)
9/22/08 $399,000 (down 23.1%) 40,565 (down 12.3%)
9/29/08 $399,000 (down23.1%) 40,539 (down 12.4%)
-- Peter Viles
Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to Peter Viles.
Worth noting: In Los Angeles County, which contains all or parts of 18 separate congressional districts, the bailout failed -- 10 representatives voted against it, eight voted for it. The L.A. delegation consists of:
22nd Congressional District
Lancaster; Republican Kevin McCarthy voted no.
25th Congressional District
Lancaster; Republican Howard McKeon voted yes.
26th Congressional District
Altadena, East Pasadena, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta; Republican David Dreier voted yes.
27th Congressional District
Burbank, North Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Winnetka; Democrat Brad Sherman voted no.
28th Congressional District
Encino, Pacoima,Toluca Lake, Valley Village, Universal City; Democrat Howard Berman voted yes.
29th Congressional District
Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena; Democrat Adam Schiff voted no.
30th Congressional District
Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica; Democrat Henry Waxman voted yes.
31st Congressional District
Los Angeles; Democrat Xavier Becerra voted no.
32nd Congressional District
Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, El Monte; Democrat Hilda Solis voted no.
33rd Congressional District
Culver City, Ladera Heights, View Park-Windsor Hills; Democrat Diane Watson voted no.
34th Congressional District
Bell, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Commerce; Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard voted no.
35th Congressional District
Gardena, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Los Angeles (South Central); Democrat Maxine Waters voted yes.
36th Congressional District
El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance; Democrat Jane Harman voted yes.
37th Congressional District
Carson, Compton, Long Beach; Democrat Laura Richardson voted yes.
38th Congressional District
Industry, La Puente, Montebello, Norwalk, Pomona; Democrat Grace Napolitano voted no.
39th Congressional District
Artesia, Cerritos, Lakewood, La Mirada, Whittier; Democrat Linda Sanchez voted no.
42nd Congressional District
Diamond Bar, Whittier, Rowland Heights; Republican Gary Miller voted yes.
46th Congressional District
Part of San Pedro. Republican Dana Rohrabacher voted no.
Your thoughts? Comments? Play a game with me: Predict the L.A. reps most likely to switch sides and turn their "no" vote into a "yes" vote the next time the bailout comes up for a vote. I have a hunch, but I won't share it until I hear from a few of you.
--Peter Viles
The Case-Shiller index of home prices showed the 10th month in a row of record-setting price declines in July, with prices in Los Angeles falling 26.2% from July 2007 to July 2008.
Standard & Poor's, which publishes the monthly index, noted that pace of price declines is slowing, but there is, "no evidence of a bottom" in housing prices. S&P economist David Blitzer: "Little positive news can be found when cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix report annual declines as large as 29.9% and 29.3% respectively, and all 20 cities are still in negative territory on a year-over-year basis."
The Case-Shiller index of 20 large cities showed price declines of 16.3% in the year ending in July, and the index of 10 large cities showed declines of 17.5%.
The index does not translate into a dollar amount for average or median home prices. Some analysts believe it probably overstates price declines on a national basis because the index measures prices in large cities, where the housing bubble was more pronounced.
-- Peter Viles
Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to Peter Viles.
 Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architecture firm that brought us the Beijing Olympics' Bird's Nest, has designed a residential highrise for New York developer Alexico Group, reported the International Herald Tribune's Raising the Roof blog. Condos in the Tribeca complex, slated to open in 2010, will range in size from 1,430 to 6,380 square feet and in price from $3.5 million to $33 million.
Does anyone else think the towering struction bears some resemblance to a game of Jenga?
Not the kind of structure that would likely inspire condfidence here in earthquake country, but Hollywood should take a look-see. What a great location for a remake of "Vertigo."
 --Lauren Beale
Thoughts? Comments?
Illustration: Copyright Herzog & de Meuron.
 In the rush to a bailout deal, this piece of news fell through the cracks last week, but is worth revisiting:
California and many of its communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis stand to receive more than $500 million in federal aid over the next 18 months to buy and fix up distressed homes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced Friday.
More, from the Los Angeles Times: The city of Los Angeles is to receive about $33 million directly from the federal government. In the next few months, the city could also get money from the state, which has a pool of $145 million to allocate to communities. With more than 13,000 foreclosed homes in the city, Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes warned that the federal funds would go quickly. Los Angeles County is to receive $17 million, and other cities in the county, such as Long Beach and Lancaster, also would get awards.
In Los Angeles, it's not clear whether this gift from the federal government -- from taxpayers, really -- will be worth the trouble. Foreclosed houses are already selling to private buyers, and they are selling quickly -- roughly 100 foreclosed houses are sold every business day in Los Angeles County. Foreclosures account for 1 of every 3 homes sold in L.A. County.
At prevailing prices -- roughly $200,000 to $300,000 for foreclosed homes -- the $33 million in federal funds would buy roughly 130 houses -- the same number of homes that private buyers snap up in a day or two across the county. But the city will have to go to some lengths to buy the homes, or at least it should. It will need to establish a procedure that safeguards against favoritism in picking which houses to buy, and guarantees the city pays no more -- or less -- than market price. The city will also have to come up with a plan to seek bids, hire contractors and renovate and those homes, then maintain them while it lists them for sale and sells them. It will be selling into a market dominated by falling prices, which means the city could well lose money on homes the private sector would have happily bought.
What's the point, then, of the city buying the foreclosed houses? Great question.
-- Peter Viles
Your thoughts? Comments?
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Here's a good link to the roll call vote by which the bailout bill failed in the House today. Here's how the California delegation voted (29 in favor, 24 opposed); the breakdown by party is as follows: Among Democrats, 19 voted for the bailout, 15 against; Among Republicans, 10 voted for the bailout, nine against.
Republicans voting yes:
Wally Herger (Chico)
Dan Lungren (Gold River)
George Radanovich (Mariposa)
Howard "Buck" McKeon (Santa Clarita)
David Dreier (San Dimas)
Jerry Lewis (Redlands)
Gary Miller (Diamond Bar)
Ken Calvert (Corona)
Mary Bono Mack (Palm Springs)
John Campbell (Irvine)
Republicans voting no:
John Doolittle (Roseville)
David Nunes (Tulare)
Kevin McCarthy (Bakersfield)
Elton Gallegly (Simi Valley)
Ed Royce (Fullerton)
Dana Rohrabacher (Huntington Beach)
Darrell Issa (Vista)
Brian Bilbray (Carlsbad)
Duncan Hunter (Alpine)
Democrats voting yes:
Doris Matsui (Sacramento)
George Miller (Martinez)
Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco)
Ellen Tauscher (Alamo)
Jerry McNerney (Pleasanton)
Jackie Speier (Hillsborough)
Anna Eshoo (Menlo Park)
Mike Honda (San Jose)
Zoe Lofgren (San Jose)
Sam Farr (Carmel)
Dennis Cardoza (Atwater)
Jim Costa (Fresno)
Lois Capps (Santa Barbara)
Howard Berman (Valley Village)
Henry Waxman (Beverly Hills)
Maxine Waters (Los Angeles)
Jane Harman (Venice)
Laura Richardson (Long Beach)
Susan Davis (San Diego)
Democrats voting no:
Mike Thompson (St. Helena)
Lynn Woolsey (Petaluma)
Barbara Lee (Oakland)
Pete Stark (Fremont)
Brad Sherman (Sherman Oaks)
Adam Schiff (Burbank)
Xavier Becerra (Los Angeles)
Hilda Solis (El Monte)
Diane Watson (Los Angeles)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (East Los Angeles)
Grace Napolitano (Norwalk)
Linda Sanchez (Lakewood)
Joe Baca (Rialto)
Loretta Sanchez (Garden Grove)
Bob Filner (Chula Vista)
Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to Peter Viles
11:39 A.M.: Both parties trade blame and charges of partisanship. In a press conference carried live on CNN, Republican Rep. Eric Cantor blames House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the defeat of the bailout, saying she set a partisan tone during the debate that offended Republicans and that she failed to deliver enough Democratic votes. Earlier, CNN reported that Democratic Rep. Barney Frank had blamed Republicans for the bill's failure, saying future bailout efforts are "up to the Republicans."
11:36 A.M.: The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House lobbied Republicans right up until the vote, in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to overcome Republican objections to the bailout: "Right up until the roll call, [President] Bush, [Dick] Cheney and [Henry] Paulson and industry groups called skeptical members of the president's party. Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto said they worked one-by-one through a list of potentially recalcitrant Republicans, seeking to answer their complaints."
11:33 A.M.: House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, the Republicans' top vote-counter in the House, tells a news conference that he miscounted -- he believed Republicans had a dozen more votes for the bailout than they really did. He blames "partisan discussion" for the failure of the bill.
11:31 A.M.: Deidre Walsh, a CNN producer who was inside the House chamber during the vote, describes the final moments before the bailout failed. Walsh reports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shook her head, and the House fell unusually silent when the gavel came down indicating the vote was over. Walsh called it "an unbelievably extraordinary moment," unlike anything she had ever seen on the House floor.
11:13 A.M.: The Los Angeles Times reports the bailout has failed in the House.
11:08 A.M.: CNN, reading wire copy live on air, reports the bill has been defeated in the House. Some confusion evident on the House floor. The Dow industrials fall 616 points. CNN had earlier pointed out that a Dow sell-off of this magnitude "is not a crash."
11:03 A.M. Tally unchanged, 226 against, 207 for. Fox reporter: "The arm-twisting goes on, this is not a done deal." The bulk of the bailout opposition is coming from House Republicans.
11:00 A.M.: Tally unchanged: 226 against, 207 for. Voting remains open. 217 votes are needed to pass the bailout.
10:57 A.M. Dow is down 468 points. Tally unchanged: 226 against, 207 for.
10:54 A.M.: Tally unchanged: 226 against, 207 for. Fox News anchor observes, "It looks like, for the time being, the $700 billion bailout has failed in the House." Voting, however is still open; members of the House can change their votes. The bailout has not yet failed.
10:52 A.M.: Dow industrials bounce off their lows, now down 399 points.
10:51 A.M. One arm has been successfully twisted. One "no" vote switches to a "yes," the tally is now 227 against, 206 for.
10:49 A.M. 228 against, 205 for, one not voting. Among Republicans, the bailout is failing by a 133-65 vote; Among Democrats, it is favored by 140, opposed by 95. Voting is not yet final. Much discussion on Fox News of whether leadership can twist enough arms to change the outcome.
10:47 A.M. 228 against, 205 for, one not voting. These are not yet final votes. The Dow is down 503 points.
10:46 A.M. 224 against, 202 for. Voting remains open, these are not final tallies.
10:45 A.M. Dow industrials plummet 600 points as bailout vote continues.
10:44 A.M.: 213 against, 192 for.
10:42 A.M.: 201 against, 185 for.
10:41 A.M. 180 for, 171 against.
10:39 A.M.: A Fox News analyst raises the possibility that the 15-minute time limit on voting may be extended, noting that in close votes in the past it has been extended for up to 3 hours.
10:38 A.M.: 155 for, 148 against.
10:36 A.M.: 136 for, 139 against.
10:35 A.M. PDT: 126 for, 119 against.
10:33 A.M.: 117 for, 98 against. Fox News anchor Brit Hume, covering the vote tally, calls the bill "wildly unpopular."
10:30 A.M.: Updated tally: 108 for, 74 against. Among Democrats 78 for, 31 against; Among Republicans, 30 for, 44 against).
10:27 A.M.: Early voting: 93 for, 59 against.
10:26 A.M.: The 15-minute voting period begins.
10:25 A.M.: Majority Leader Hoyer: "The people, by an overwhelming majority, have asked us to act." He notes, however, the people have not specifically asked the House to act by passing the bailout. Hoyer wraps, debate is over at 10:26 A.M.
10:24 A.M.: Majority Leader Hoyer: "The alternative is nothing and that is not acceptable. ... We are doing our best to forestall ... a disaster."
10:21 A.M.: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, arguing for the bailout, tells the House it will likely cost far less than $700 billion, saying CBO does not believe the price tag will be anywhere near $700 billion.
10:19 A.M.: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reminds House, just prior to vote, that both presidential candidates favor the bailout. "With this bipartisan rescue plan, I am hopeful ... that we will prevent the worst-case scenario."
10:18 A.M.: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, making final appeal for the bailout: "This is a day of consequence for the American people. ... None of us is an island. We're all bound together in boom or bust." Warns of coming foreclosures and bank failures if Congress doesn't act.
10:15 A.M. PDT: Minority Leader John Boehner: "I believe that Congress has to act. These are the votes that separate the men from the boys and the girls from the women. ... I believe it's in the best interests of our country today to vote for this bill ... to keep ourselves from the brink of an economic disaster."
10:13 A.M. PDT, Rep. Barney Frank, chief House author of the bailout, makes a final appeal for the bill, asking the House, "Please don't throw it out."
A few quick links and thoughts this morning, on what could be a historic day for our country. Or not -- because even if the bailout passes, history may ultimately see it as just the third or fourth in a string of ever-larger government interventions in the late, great American free market.
Here's a complete text of the bailout bill the House will vote on in a few hours. Where's the debate, you ask? Where's the deliberation? Debate? Deliberation? Man, what century are you from?
The Citigroup take-under of Wachovia was messy and required assistance from the FDIC to avoid failure.
Global investors don't like the idea of bank failures, or near-failures. Even as Congress rushes to give the government $700 billion in spending cash, the Federal Reserve this morning is frantically trying to inject liquidity into the banking system. "There is just no way to describe the size of what the federal reserve is putting out there," said CNBC's Steve Leisman.
The U.S. economy continues to weaken. Housing prices continue to decline. The government is poised to take a much larger role in a weakening economy. (Have a problem with your mortgage? Call your congressman, ask the government to fix your loan).
This is not a slippery slope -- we already slid down the slope. This is the cliff. It is almost impossible to imagine the events of the next year or so without additional large government interventions. Governments like ours don't say no.
One more: The L.A. Times columnist Al Martinez lived through the Great Depression, and writes that the current situation really worries him.
-- Peter Viles
Your thoughts? Comments?
 Your Congress and your president (I don't want 'em, you can have 'em) have again agreed on a $700-billion bailout, and this time they say they really mean it. Headlines and links first, and then as always I'd like to hear your thoughts.
The Los Angeles Times: "Congressional and administration officials unveiled their $700-billion rescue plan for Wall Street today, setting up the largest government intervention in the economy since the Great Depression."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, evidently with a straight face: "This is not about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around" and protect the assets of ordinary Americans. Well, now I feel so much better about it. I'm buying in! I'm getting a piece of financial products that are so worthless that there's no market for them.
The New York Times: "Congress braced for a difficult vote on a $700 billion rescue of the financial markets after a weekend of tense negotiations produced a plan that Congressional leaders began selling to lawmakers on Sunday as significantly strengthened by new taxpayer safeguards.
"The 106-page bill, intended to ease a growing credit crisis, came after a frenzied week of political twists and turns and still faced some resistance from lawmakers on both the left and right who portrayed it as a dangerous rush to economic judgment.
Bold Bipartisan Leadership for Change department: The New York Times reports, "The two presidential candidates ... both gave guarded endorsements of the bailout plan Sunday."
-- Peter Viles
Your thoughts? Comments?
Photo Credit: A.P.
|
|
Updated post: The Bush White House is now complaining that the media has unfairly labeled the $700-billion bailout bill as a ... bailout. Sen. John McCain, also chafing at the "b" word, is suggesting, "Let's not call it a bailout."
