I recently started reading a book I picked up from the bargain bin while on vacation. It's called "Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention" and it's pretty good. It's not what I would call a must-read or a spell binding book, but it helps fill some gaps in my understanding of the Constitution and helps you get inside the minds of the people who drafted it.
Part of what I was reading talked about the need for a strong central government and then I heard something on the radio that basically said - "who needs states anyway?" With the push towards national control of education, national control of health care, national control of banking and finance laws, etc, etc. Why have individual states?
Of course my friends and family who cheer for University of South Carolina who have to adjust to a new name if the states went away and Columbia College is already taken. But they could keep their beloved mascot and change the name to something like Gamecock U.
In all seriousness, I'd like your opinion. Who needs states? Why not let the federal government dictate everything. Why should my state laws be different than yours?
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
A New Day for Consumers?
That's what the NY Times headline says in this article. And I'm sure we'll hear that from a lot of politicians, how they have saved the consumer from so much grief from the big-bad banks. You see, congress has passed a new law (well, details are still being ironed out between the House and Senate) legislating how banks can act on your behalf. But I find interesting the details of the new law.
The NY Times lays out several areas of "change" in the new bill. It shows how a new Consumer Bureau has been created with the Federal Reserve that "would write and enforce rules for most banks, mortgage lenders, credit-card and private student loan companies." Well, I'm glad a new agency was created so that more government money can be spent (hopefully the sarcasm in that comment comes through - the Federal Reserve has been doing this for years).
But the new law goes further, in allowing the consumer to get his/her credit score for FREE! Yes, the guys singing the free credit report song have been upheld by the government. Well sorta. You see, you always could get your credit report for free (3 per year). And the only way you can get your score with this new law is if you apply for credit and were harmed by your score. The NY Times points out that "nothing is stopping you from asking for the score, even if you like the rate or result of your application." Actually, that's always been true. The last time I applied for a loan (car loan circa 2004) I asked to see my credit report and score. I sat down with the loan agent and went through it line by line. (I told them I wouldn't buy the car unless they did).
Mortgages will be changed (or not) by the new law. Mortgage companies will now have to verify your actual income. The article accurately points out that "most lenders have learned that lesson by now or have ceased to exist. Prepayment penalties will now be illegal on certain types of loans. Seems to me that with a little education, consumers would have eliminated these previously. Simple rule - don't accept loans with prepayment penalties. Isn't HUD supposed to do some education like this?
There are a few more items in the bill being worked on, but when you get down to the details, they really don't do much either. This is a lot like the much-bally-hooed CARD act of 2009 (see my comments here) that "changed" the way credit cards were managed. When you look at the details of that law, you'll find it was much softer that the changes the Federal Reserve had ALREADY ENACTED. It just gave more time to the credit card companies.
You'll hear a lot about this new bill in the coming weeks and months. I suspect you'll hear a lot about it during the upcoming election cycle. But remember, we would all be better if congress stayed out of it, and made the appropriate EXISTING agencies do their job.
Your comments are welcome.
The NY Times lays out several areas of "change" in the new bill. It shows how a new Consumer Bureau has been created with the Federal Reserve that "would write and enforce rules for most banks, mortgage lenders, credit-card and private student loan companies." Well, I'm glad a new agency was created so that more government money can be spent (hopefully the sarcasm in that comment comes through - the Federal Reserve has been doing this for years).
But the new law goes further, in allowing the consumer to get his/her credit score for FREE! Yes, the guys singing the free credit report song have been upheld by the government. Well sorta. You see, you always could get your credit report for free (3 per year). And the only way you can get your score with this new law is if you apply for credit and were harmed by your score. The NY Times points out that "nothing is stopping you from asking for the score, even if you like the rate or result of your application." Actually, that's always been true. The last time I applied for a loan (car loan circa 2004) I asked to see my credit report and score. I sat down with the loan agent and went through it line by line. (I told them I wouldn't buy the car unless they did).
Mortgages will be changed (or not) by the new law. Mortgage companies will now have to verify your actual income. The article accurately points out that "most lenders have learned that lesson by now or have ceased to exist. Prepayment penalties will now be illegal on certain types of loans. Seems to me that with a little education, consumers would have eliminated these previously. Simple rule - don't accept loans with prepayment penalties. Isn't HUD supposed to do some education like this?
There are a few more items in the bill being worked on, but when you get down to the details, they really don't do much either. This is a lot like the much-bally-hooed CARD act of 2009 (see my comments here) that "changed" the way credit cards were managed. When you look at the details of that law, you'll find it was much softer that the changes the Federal Reserve had ALREADY ENACTED. It just gave more time to the credit card companies.
You'll hear a lot about this new bill in the coming weeks and months. I suspect you'll hear a lot about it during the upcoming election cycle. But remember, we would all be better if congress stayed out of it, and made the appropriate EXISTING agencies do their job.
Your comments are welcome.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Tax Delinquency Sale
I have some vacation days that I need to burn (either use them or lose them), so yesterday I took a day to go watch a tax delinquency sale. This is for people who haven't paid their taxes on their property and they are about to lose them. I didn't plan to buy anything, I just wanted to watch.
Having no prior information except a list of properties for sale, I was ill-equipped for the process. I want to go back next year now that I know more. At this rate, I may be prepared to participate in 5 or 6 years. The people that were present looked like some "professional" buyers and some people trying to save their home.
First, there is a lot of protection on the person loosing their property. After all, we don't want to kick grandma out of the house. Taxes were due in January (almost 9 months ago) and notices were sent out last August/September. If taxes aren't paid on time, penalties accrue, then in March a delinquent notice is sent. If nothing is done in 30 days, a Notice of Seizure is sent. If for some reason this can't be delivered, a physical sign has to be posted. Then the notice is placed in the paper (what happens if newspapers go away?).
So after about 9 months, the property finally comes up for auction. But the buyer doesn't get a deed. According to our county website "The defaulting taxpayer, ... or any mortgage ... creditor may redeem each item of real estate within twelve months from the date of the delinquent tax sale." That means if the previous owner or his mortgage company want to, they can come back to the bidder and take the property (by paying all taxes plus interest).
The auction started shortly after 9am (which was good for me as I was late). One thing I had noticed was that there were several property owners who had multiple delinquent properties. In particular, one home builder had 189 properties listed. We didn't go through all of the properties, but went through many. The delinquent taxes were from $498 to $7512. Many properties went for $2000, some went for as high as $5000. I think a single bidder, #136, won all of the ones that were bid. (see below for why some weren't bid).
Some properties received no bids. These will go to the Forfeited Land Commission and be sold via sealed bid later. Some of the properties (not the ones mentioned above) sold for very high dollar amounts, over $100,000.
As mentioned, not all of the homes for a single delinquent taxpayer were sent out for bids. The website mentions that "as soon as sufficient funds have been accrued to cover all of the defaulting taxpayer’s delinquent taxes, no further items may be sold." Here's what I think that means. If you have 10 properties and owe taxes of $498 each, if the first property sells for $5000, bidding on the other nine is suspended. I'm assuming the delinquent taxpayer gets to keep them.
After about an hour or so, I decided I couldn't learn any more and was bored. I decided that the process seems to work, with the county getting taxes, but not necessarily more. The buyers are promised a deed eventually (takes over a year to complete), and are offered some restitution if they lose the property. I definitely want to see more of this, but I'm convinced I won't be buying any property this way for quite some time (after all, the next auction is a year away).
Having no prior information except a list of properties for sale, I was ill-equipped for the process. I want to go back next year now that I know more. At this rate, I may be prepared to participate in 5 or 6 years. The people that were present looked like some "professional" buyers and some people trying to save their home.
First, there is a lot of protection on the person loosing their property. After all, we don't want to kick grandma out of the house. Taxes were due in January (almost 9 months ago) and notices were sent out last August/September. If taxes aren't paid on time, penalties accrue, then in March a delinquent notice is sent. If nothing is done in 30 days, a Notice of Seizure is sent. If for some reason this can't be delivered, a physical sign has to be posted. Then the notice is placed in the paper (what happens if newspapers go away?).
So after about 9 months, the property finally comes up for auction. But the buyer doesn't get a deed. According to our county website "The defaulting taxpayer, ... or any mortgage ... creditor may redeem each item of real estate within twelve months from the date of the delinquent tax sale." That means if the previous owner or his mortgage company want to, they can come back to the bidder and take the property (by paying all taxes plus interest).
The auction started shortly after 9am (which was good for me as I was late). One thing I had noticed was that there were several property owners who had multiple delinquent properties. In particular, one home builder had 189 properties listed. We didn't go through all of the properties, but went through many. The delinquent taxes were from $498 to $7512. Many properties went for $2000, some went for as high as $5000. I think a single bidder, #136, won all of the ones that were bid. (see below for why some weren't bid).
Some properties received no bids. These will go to the Forfeited Land Commission and be sold via sealed bid later. Some of the properties (not the ones mentioned above) sold for very high dollar amounts, over $100,000.
As mentioned, not all of the homes for a single delinquent taxpayer were sent out for bids. The website mentions that "as soon as sufficient funds have been accrued to cover all of the defaulting taxpayer’s delinquent taxes, no further items may be sold." Here's what I think that means. If you have 10 properties and owe taxes of $498 each, if the first property sells for $5000, bidding on the other nine is suspended. I'm assuming the delinquent taxpayer gets to keep them.
After about an hour or so, I decided I couldn't learn any more and was bored. I decided that the process seems to work, with the county getting taxes, but not necessarily more. The buyers are promised a deed eventually (takes over a year to complete), and are offered some restitution if they lose the property. I definitely want to see more of this, but I'm convinced I won't be buying any property this way for quite some time (after all, the next auction is a year away).
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - Continued
Well, it looks like it's official (see here), the Senate has now approved an extension of the Cash for Clunkers bill. The bill was either a huge success or a huge expenditure depending on your point of view. It's a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers (only 50% of Americans) to those who are in a position to buy a car. Or maybe it's another bailout for car manufacturers.
Some interesting information has come out about the program and actually a lot of details have not come out. But so far, it looks like GM has been the biggest winner with 18.7 percent of new sales. Ford has actually seen a profit. From my previous post, I showed how the increase in sales was short lived, so I hope Ford is investing the profit wisely - it won't last.
Another report I saw said that Ford Explorers were the most traded in vehicle along with older mini-vans. My suspicion is that these owners had been waiting to get rid of their "clunkers".
Remember the program had a dual purpose: #1 to help the auto industry and #2 to increase fuel efficiency. If the Ford Explorers and mini-vans were actually being used and the new cars are taking their place, the second goal will have been reached. I suspect the less fuel efficient cars weren't in heavy use and the newer efficient cars will be used by new drivers, thereby increasing overall fuel usage. (I considered selling a clunker and getting my wife a new car, but I didn't qualify).
Details of the clunker program have been hard to find. The AP reports that the "Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success." So despite promises of "transparency in the people’s White House," things seem to be mostly cloudy. I guess like the stimulus plan, we don't have time to be forthcoming, we have to act now.
My main concern though is the change in the program. The program was initially approved (after a lot of discussion) for $1BILLION or until November 1, which ever came first. We've reached the $1BILLION mark, so the program should be ended. The expansion is going on without any real analysis. Everyone's having a good time, so we just go on spending.
Some of my kids have learned (the hard way) that only the Federal Government can continue spending when they run out of money. In this case, the government doesn't even know how much it has. It's like ignoring the balance column in the checkbook register (do people still use those?)
The new bill should have gone the way of the clunkers -- into the shredder. What do you think?
Some interesting information has come out about the program and actually a lot of details have not come out. But so far, it looks like GM has been the biggest winner with 18.7 percent of new sales. Ford has actually seen a profit. From my previous post, I showed how the increase in sales was short lived, so I hope Ford is investing the profit wisely - it won't last.
Another report I saw said that Ford Explorers were the most traded in vehicle along with older mini-vans. My suspicion is that these owners had been waiting to get rid of their "clunkers".
Remember the program had a dual purpose: #1 to help the auto industry and #2 to increase fuel efficiency. If the Ford Explorers and mini-vans were actually being used and the new cars are taking their place, the second goal will have been reached. I suspect the less fuel efficient cars weren't in heavy use and the newer efficient cars will be used by new drivers, thereby increasing overall fuel usage. (I considered selling a clunker and getting my wife a new car, but I didn't qualify).
Details of the clunker program have been hard to find. The AP reports that the "Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success." So despite promises of "transparency in the people’s White House," things seem to be mostly cloudy. I guess like the stimulus plan, we don't have time to be forthcoming, we have to act now.
My main concern though is the change in the program. The program was initially approved (after a lot of discussion) for $1BILLION or until November 1, which ever came first. We've reached the $1BILLION mark, so the program should be ended. The expansion is going on without any real analysis. Everyone's having a good time, so we just go on spending.
Some of my kids have learned (the hard way) that only the Federal Government can continue spending when they run out of money. In this case, the government doesn't even know how much it has. It's like ignoring the balance column in the checkbook register (do people still use those?)
The new bill should have gone the way of the clunkers -- into the shredder. What do you think?
Monday, May 04, 2009
Who's your daddy?
When I say this phrase, it comes out "Hoosier daddy?" (which is approved by Wikipedia) or "who's yo daddy". Wikipedia says the phrase "is commonly used as a boastful claim of dominance over the intended listener." I've been thinking about this phrase and how it relates to our present day government. It's been rolling around in my mind for a while and I had the chance to explain it to one of my daughters this weekend while my son was listening.
As I explained to my daughter, "yo daddy" does things for you when you are young. He buys you things like clothes, food, shelter and maybe some things you want as opposed to need. As you get older, you find that "yo daddy" has certain rules. Rules for the way you drive, rules for where you can go and sometimes rules for who you can see.
When you borrow money to buy something like a car or a house, you accept a new daddy. The bank becomes "yo daddy." They make sure you keep insurance on your car, make sure you pay taxes for your house and will probably require you to risk some of your own money. They will likely look over your shoulder to make sure you're getting a good deal and not getting ripped off. FHA loans used to require extra inspections as "yo daddy" was stricter than most.
One of my daughters (who was the one hearing this) decided she didn't like her daddy's rules and decided to move out on her own. She's learned that some of her daddy's rules weren't all that bad after all.
Now, the government wants to step up help people in a lot of new ways. I'm convinced that universal health care is coming, we just don't know the style it will take yet. There is already an expanded health program for children, there's a promise of new medicine from stem cell research, new foreign policy, etc. The question comes up "hoosier daddy?" What rules will "yo daddy" have for you to live by?
As I explained to my daughter, "yo daddy" does things for you when you are young. He buys you things like clothes, food, shelter and maybe some things you want as opposed to need. As you get older, you find that "yo daddy" has certain rules. Rules for the way you drive, rules for where you can go and sometimes rules for who you can see.
When you borrow money to buy something like a car or a house, you accept a new daddy. The bank becomes "yo daddy." They make sure you keep insurance on your car, make sure you pay taxes for your house and will probably require you to risk some of your own money. They will likely look over your shoulder to make sure you're getting a good deal and not getting ripped off. FHA loans used to require extra inspections as "yo daddy" was stricter than most.
One of my daughters (who was the one hearing this) decided she didn't like her daddy's rules and decided to move out on her own. She's learned that some of her daddy's rules weren't all that bad after all.
Now, the government wants to step up help people in a lot of new ways. I'm convinced that universal health care is coming, we just don't know the style it will take yet. There is already an expanded health program for children, there's a promise of new medicine from stem cell research, new foreign policy, etc. The question comes up "hoosier daddy?" What rules will "yo daddy" have for you to live by?
Monday, April 20, 2009
My second and third TEA party and opposition
Last week I told you about my first TEA party. That was Monday, on Wednesday I went to one at lunch time in Simpsonville (the picture here were before the party started) and then I went to one Friday night that was much larger. And there was some opposition to the Friday night party.
The Simpsonville party was, by nature, small. I estimated around 100, the TV station there estimated about 200. Downtown Simpsonville isn't exactly a metropolis, so this was about what I expected. There was a single protester who had a sign saying "Obama's Will Help" (presumably, it meant his plan). The sign was quickly drawn on a cardboard box top. At the end of the meeting, signs were displayed with the number to call for the White House and for Congress. Everyone was encouraged to call one of the numbers and to let them know we were at a TEA party.
The Friday evening party was much larger. The police estimated 10,000, later estimates from the TV station with helicopter view estimated 6,000. The party was coordinated by the Upstate Young Republicans and there were several Republican speakers, but the crowd was far from died-in-the-wool Republican. When Congressman Gresham Barrett (who voted for TARP) was booed so loudly and longly, that his speech could not be heard.
There was also a counter-rally at the same time, behind the auditorium. I walked down there several times to get a feel for the rally. The meeting got off to a late start. Apparently, Leola Robinson-Simpson (see her webpage here) got tied up in the wrong meeting. My first thought was, if this lady, who is a Trustee for our local school board, was tied up in the wrong meeting, why is she leading our children? Scary.
The counter-rally actually was not so much anti-TEA (which would make it a coke party?), but a "Save Our Schools" (SOS) or anti-Sanford rally. For those outside SC, Mark Sanford is our Republican Governor. Because of term-limits, he's ineligible to run again in 2012 and appears to be positioning for a presidential run. He's spent the last 5 years as one of the new "young" right-wing conservative southern governors. He has, so far, turned down part of the stimulus money. There are many in the state who feel this is stealing from education. (SC has one of the worst education records of any of the 50 states.)
There were some "facts" given out at the SOS rally that I have questions about. To me, it sounded like the speakers were disappointed that the rally was so poorly attended. I did hear on the news that some of the participants moved to the TEA rally and a small ruckus broke out. Apparently, some TEA attenders asked them to leave (the news clip I saw showed SOS attenders yelling). But apparently, this was resolved without major incident.
My final thought for the day is that the TEA movement, while promoted by local radio and republican groups, is a big "grass roots" movement. The people attending are upset at government, but aren't quite sure why. The big test will be to see what happens from here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
My first tea party - Updated
Last night my daughter was surprised that I was going to a tea party. She probably thought the same as my son, who believed I was at a tea party with my niece (who has probably outgrown those parties). Surprisingly, when I searched on the Internet for details I found out they still have those kinds of tea parties in Laurens County, a southern genteel county about 30 miles from my home.
Instead, this tea party was reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party held in 1773. If you're a Mary Poppins fan, you know the initial event made the tea undrinkable, even for Americans. But more than that, it signaled a rebellion, a rebellion against a government that didn't listen to the people it governed. The current day tea parties, over 2000 scheduled to have occurred by the end of this week, also signal a rebellion -- a rebellion against government spending and a change in the philosophy of this country.
During the meeting that lasted slightly over an hour, I tried to keep myself from becoming engrossed in the speeches and to report the details. My goal was to learn what was really going on and to listen carefully to what was said. A good bit of the meeting was simply political presentations: one man running for congress, another for Lt. Governor, a state senator and a US Congressman. Much of it toed the right wing of the Republican Party line - anti-abortion, defense of marriage and anti-Obama.
But there were also some good points that were brought out that require more research - a call for thinner waste lines on government (pardon the pun), more transparency in government, accusations of overstepped constitutional bounds (discussion on six provisions in the Constitution given to government).
One of the most impressive speakers was Bill Connor, candidate for Lt Governor. Connor spent some time in Afghanistan serving our country in our efforts there. For that alone he garnered my respect. He also gained my attention when he spoke of the difference in English view of taxes and American views (fodder for another post). While I didn't agree with everything he said, I want to follow this man and see what his candidacy will look like.
Another speaker, Bobby Smith, Chairman of the Laurens County Republican Party pointed out that effort started with the individual, that we must not allow the government to be the source of our provisions. In a poor county like Laurens, this is a difficult step for a lot of people. Smith admitted this in his speech, but encouraged everyone to make the step. With the way the government rules over those it helps (see here), we should all heed those words.
The final speaker was Dr. Tony Beam, pastor and local talk radio host. Beam's speech outlined what I believe is the focal point for the tea party - it's not about taxes, it's about tyranny. His notes will be posted on the 'net later this week, once I find them I'll post a link.
To summarize, the tea party was a success. I counted close to 150 people and probably missed some (a local report said 200 - I don't doubt it). I hope to attend another party later in the week, maybe even two. My goal is to understand what is really going on and what all the talk is about. I'll report more of the ideas later.
* Update - Tony Beam's speech can be found here.
Instead, this tea party was reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party held in 1773. If you're a Mary Poppins fan, you know the initial event made the tea undrinkable, even for Americans. But more than that, it signaled a rebellion, a rebellion against a government that didn't listen to the people it governed. The current day tea parties, over 2000 scheduled to have occurred by the end of this week, also signal a rebellion -- a rebellion against government spending and a change in the philosophy of this country.
During the meeting that lasted slightly over an hour, I tried to keep myself from becoming engrossed in the speeches and to report the details. My goal was to learn what was really going on and to listen carefully to what was said. A good bit of the meeting was simply political presentations: one man running for congress, another for Lt. Governor, a state senator and a US Congressman. Much of it toed the right wing of the Republican Party line - anti-abortion, defense of marriage and anti-Obama.
But there were also some good points that were brought out that require more research - a call for thinner waste lines on government (pardon the pun), more transparency in government, accusations of overstepped constitutional bounds (discussion on six provisions in the Constitution given to government).
One of the most impressive speakers was Bill Connor, candidate for Lt Governor. Connor spent some time in Afghanistan serving our country in our efforts there. For that alone he garnered my respect. He also gained my attention when he spoke of the difference in English view of taxes and American views (fodder for another post). While I didn't agree with everything he said, I want to follow this man and see what his candidacy will look like.
Another speaker, Bobby Smith, Chairman of the Laurens County Republican Party pointed out that effort started with the individual, that we must not allow the government to be the source of our provisions. In a poor county like Laurens, this is a difficult step for a lot of people. Smith admitted this in his speech, but encouraged everyone to make the step. With the way the government rules over those it helps (see here), we should all heed those words.
The final speaker was Dr. Tony Beam, pastor and local talk radio host. Beam's speech outlined what I believe is the focal point for the tea party - it's not about taxes, it's about tyranny. His notes will be posted on the 'net later this week, once I find them I'll post a link.
To summarize, the tea party was a success. I counted close to 150 people and probably missed some (a local report said 200 - I don't doubt it). I hope to attend another party later in the week, maybe even two. My goal is to understand what is really going on and what all the talk is about. I'll report more of the ideas later.
* Update - Tony Beam's speech can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)