Hi folks. Right now my blogging is consigned to an odd post here and there since my family life has become very crazy in the last month and will remain so for another month. But I will be back in full swing, and as a side note, I am now giving McCain a 50/50 chance of winning (used to be 20/80 or something) thanks to the Dem inter-party squabbling.

But onto the article on the housing market I was just reading. From the LA Times:

--Statewide, median sales prices fell by a stunning 26% from year-ago levels in February, with home prices dropping at a rate of nearly $3,000 a week, the California Association of Realtors reports. Further, the CAR says the Fed's interest rate-cutting campaign "will have little near-term direct effect on the housing market."

--In the San Fernando Valley, losing a home to foreclosure is now almost as common for families as buying a home. The L.A. Daily News: "During January and February, there were 1,084 foreclosures and 1,335 sales of houses and condos in Valley communities from Glendale to Calabasas, according to the San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center at California State University, Northridge."

"It's bad. It's really bad," market analyst Nima Nattagh told the Daily News.

This is crazy stuff, and frankly I think we have at least another year or two of this while we wait for all the 2 and 3 year arm people who were sold houses they can't afford to foreclose. In the mean time, the housing market has no choice but to lower and correct itself.

Frankly, I don't want the government to correct it. People who lose their houses in a foreclosure are not done in, and they are eligible to buy a new house in another few years. In the meantime, they can live in their houses rent free (most states) during the foreclosure process and catch up on their bills. Why would we want to keep people in houses they artificially can't afford and keep prices high? Right now- barring a $100,000 job or living in the country and telecommuting to work- most people can't afford a house without two full time incomes. Owning your own home should not be so difficult.

Obviously, a major self correction such as this has repercussions throughout the economy, and an economist would know better than me. But am I the only one who sees dropping home prices as not the worst thing in the world?

Michael Kinsley at the Washington Post, while doing a mostly unserious look at the advantage of being a male in the Presidential race because it takes less time to get ready in the morning, says one thing that shouldn't be forgotten:

A year ago the big dinner-table question was whether it is a bigger disadvantage in running for president to be an African-American or a woman. It seemed for a while as if neither one was a particular disadvantage. In fact, the prize for biggest burden of prejudice to be lugging around the primaries went to Mitt Romney for being a Mormon.

Labels: LDS Mormon Romney

Freedom’s Watch Hires Romney Aide - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog: "The conservative group, Freedom’s Watch, which has endured some prominent staff departures in recent months, announced today the hiring of Carl Forti, who was most recently political director for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, to run the group’s issue advocacy campaign in the fall.

Prior to the Romney campaign, Mr. Forti was communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee, where he oversaw the committee’s independent expenditures in 2004 and 2006.

Freedom’s Watch, organized as a 501(c)4 non-profit corporation, made a big initial splash after it was formed last year and plunged into a $15 million advertising campaign to build support for President Bush’s troop escalation in Iraq. The group also aired ads challenging the liberal group, MoveOn.org, for its criticism of General David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq."

What do these things have in common?  They are all prime examples of politicians inventing their own memories for political gain.

Labels: bosnia, CBS, edmund hillary, hillary, Hillary Clinton, schuster