NYT Opinion: Romney on Foreclosures

Robert's seen a few questionable New York Times Op-Ed pieces recently.  Including today's thing about foreclosures and Mitt Romney's alleged desire to see the pipeline of foreclosures flow more freely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/mr-romney-on-foreclosures.html?_r=1

Robert  believes it is undisputed that one problem with the current  housing market, and, more generally, the national economy, is that the home mortgage system has not yet been cleared of bad loans.  Bad loans (meaning loans that the debtor-- because of the loan's terms, the underlying property's value, and/or the debtor's income --should not keep repaying) need to be extinguished and underlying properties sold. This will allow prices to be reset, the market to stabilize, and the banks to start lending again.  Robert does not claim to know whose fault it is, or why the short-sale and foreclosure pipeline is stalled, but he thinks Romney is essentially right that we need to clear the markets in order to move on. Robert  does not see an obvious way for the government to help distressed homeowners in a meaningful way that is fair and that will not cause more delay and more damage. But he's not an expert, obviously.

New Camera

The Pierces have a new camera, so more kids photos are coming . . .

Commerical Marijuana

One of the Thanksgiving Day topics of conversation at the Pierce's house yesterday concerned the legalization of marijuana in California.  The discussion briefly touched upon the constitutional underpinnings of Congress's power to prohibit private farming and use of marijuana, even when legal in a particular state.  Here's a link to wikipedia entry on Gonzales v. Raich, the US Supreme Court case that affirmed that power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The Raich case is, essentially, a redo of Wickard v. Filburn, which said that Congress may regulate and limit a farmer's growth of wheat even if it is harvested solely for his family's personal consumption. Such a law is a regulation of commerce among the states and therefore allowable under the Commerce Clause.

From wikipedia . . .

The starting point for the Court's opinion was the fact that it was conceded that Congress had the power to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:

Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity

In Raich, the conservative justices, except Scalia, predictably did not join the majority. 

From wikipedia . . .

Justice O'Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

“

Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."[8]

”

O'Connor concluded:

“

Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

”

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

“

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

”

and

“

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

”

and further:

“

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[9]

Robert Likes

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/21/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

Mildly Funny

The Doors cover Reading Rainbow theme.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-doors-sing-reading-rainbow-theme/17wqhii6y?q=jimmy+fallon&rel=msn&from=fb_share&form=MSNRLL


For the uninformed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6j8EiWIVZs

Factoids

The Pierces are really thinking about schools lately. And it is going to get worse.

Here's some factoids.

Both Mira and Robert went to California public elementary schools. Here are the current profiles for Emperor Elementary School (Robert's school) and Bacich (Mira's school).

Note the student ethnicity differences.  Ahem.  Also home values.

http://school-ratings.com/school_details/19650526022933.html

http://school-ratings.com/ratingsDetails.php?cds=21653346024319

Not sure this stuff means much.  In Robert's snotty estimation, it does not look like it takes much to score a "10." Sorry to all the hard working California public school teachers who may be reading this. It's not a teacher thing . . . I don't think.

Bad Day

How to Build a Latrine in 51 Seconds

http://www.undispatch.com/how-to-build-a-latrine-in-51-seconds

The Angel Esmerelda

Michiko Takutani reviews Don DeLillo's new book of short stories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/books/don-delillo-stories-led-by-the-angel-esmeralda-review.html?hp

“The Angel Esmeralda,” the title story in Don DeLillo’s first ever collection of short fiction, is a dazzlingly told tale of despair and ruination, the dream of redemption and the testing of faith. Set in the Bronx and featuring a nun on the lookout for a miracle, this 1994 story prefigures portions of Mr. DeLillo’s 1997 masterwork, “Underworld,” but it also stands on its own as a beautifully realized and singular work of fiction.

Health Law Debate Puts Focus on Limits of Federal Power

Robert thinks that this case is not difficult. Certainly Congress may require citizens to buy insurance.  For Commerce Clause purposes, Congress' requiring citizens to buy something is conceptually no different than telling them they cannot buy something. The problem is that Scalia et al will use this rhetorical hogwash . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/politics/health-law-debate-puts-focus-on-limit-of-federal-power.html?src=recg

Health Law Puts Focus on Limits of Federal Power

WASHINGTON — If the federal government can require people to purchase health insurance, what else can it force them to do? More to the point, what can’t the government compel citizens to do?

Those questions have been the toughest ones for the Obama administration’s lawyers to answer in court appearances around the country over the past six months. And they are likely to emerge again if, as expected, the Supreme Court, as early as Monday, agrees to be the final arbiter of the challenge to President Obama’s signature health care initiative.
The case focuses on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in enacting parts of the law. Lower courts have reached divergent conclusions.

Even judges in lower courts who ultimately voted to uphold the law have homed in on the question of the limits of government power, at times flummoxing Justice Department lawyers.

Tokyo Olympiad

The Pierce Family has been enjoying  Kon Ichikawa's film, Tokyo Olympiad, which ranks among the greatest documents of sport ever committed to film.  Utilizing glorious widescreen cinematography, Ichikawa examines the beauty and rich drama on display at the 1964 Summer Games in Tokyo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Olympiad

The Inequality Map

Mildly amusing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/the-inequality-map.html?_r=1&hpw


"There used to be a high status difference between microbrews and regular old Budweiser. In academic jargon, beer had a high Gini Coefficient."

Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10 Document 129 - :: Justia Docs

Robert's legal colleague Joshua Koltun just won an important order in his anonymous blogger case. Congratulations Josh!


Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10 Document 129 - :: Justia Docs

Adobe Abandons Flash Mobile: Steve Jobs Scores from the Grave

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/tech/mobile/adobe-mobile-flash-wired/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn


(Wired.com) -- In an abrupt about-face in its mobile software strategy, Adobe will soon cease developing its Flash Player plug-in for mobile browsers, according to an e-mail sent to Adobe partners on Tuesday evening.

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

Robert likes it when smart people say the same things he says.  And vice versa.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901447

Tax Reform Options: Marginal Rates on High-Income Taxpayers, Capital Gains, and Dividends

 

Abstract

Leonard Burman's testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers.

---

Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on tax reform options affecting high-income taxpayers. I applaud the committee for devoting much of the past year to examining ways to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more conducive to economic growth, and I'm honored to be asked to contribute to those deliberations.

In summary, here are my main points:

• Economic theory suggests that the degree of progressivity should balance the gains from mitigating economic inequality and risk-sharing against the costs in terms of disincentives created by higher tax rates. The optimal top tax rate depends on social norms and the government's revenue needs.
• Experience and a range of empirical evidence suggests that the rates in effect in the 1990s would not unduly diminish economic growth. However, a more efficient option would be to broaden the base (reform or eliminate tax expenditures and eliminate loopholes) to achieve distributional goals while keeping top rates relatively low.
• The biggest loophole is the lower tax rate on capital gains. Several bipartisan tax reform plans, including the Bipartisan Policy Center plan that I contributed to, would tax capital gains at the same rate as other income. Combined with a substantial reduction in tax expenditures, this allows for a cut in top income rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system. That was also the approach taken by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
• Different economists reach diametrically opposite conclusions about the taxation of dividends. I find most compelling a recent analysis that suggested that concerns about tax avoidance activities of multinationals (e.g., moving headquarters and jobs overseas) would argue for fully taxing dividends and using the revenue raised to cut corporate tax rates.
• Finally, there has been much hand-wringing about lower-income families that don't pay income tax or even receive net subsidies. Some of these families are retired and I can't imagine that taxing them is feasible or desirable. The lower-income working families receive tax subsidies that encourage work, which is consistent with the prescriptions of optimal tax and transfer literature. To clarify the distinction between tax obligations and benefits, I suggest that the IRS produce a tax and subsidy report for all filers showing what their true tax liability is—before tax expenditures—as well as the value of their tax subsidies.
• Bottom line: allowing the top tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels after the economy has recovered would not be economically disastrous and might help build support for tax reform that would broaden the base and lower rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system (and hopefully contribute to reducing the debt).

 

The Problem with Flat Tax Fever

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/business/flat-tax-doesnt-solve-inequality-problem.html?src=recg


CLOSE watchers of presidential politics weren’t surprised to see many of this year’s Republican hopefuls proposing to replace the nation’s progressive income tax with a flat tax. Such plans reliably surface every four years, and, just as reliably, sink without a trace.

That’s not because the current tax system is far from the abominable tangle of complexity that candidates say it is. Actually, it’s worse. Flat-tax proponents promise to sweep away that mess by imposing a single levy on every dollar earned. That change, many contend, would allow taxpayers to file their returns on postcards. And surveys suggest positive voter responses to several of the most recent proposals.

Marin Waldorf School

School visit today.

Suit Against a Photographer Seeks to Recreate Wedding

Suit Against a Photographer Seeks to Recreate Wedding

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/nyregion/suit-against-photographer-seeks-re-creation-of-wedding-after-divorce.html


Of all the many things that make up a wedding, few are more important than the photographs.

Long after the last of the cake has grown stale and the tossed bouquet has wilted, the photos endure, stirring memories and providing vivid proof that the day of one’s dreams took place.
So it is not particularly surprising that one groom, disappointed with his wedding photos, decided to sue. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss, the groom, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan, said.

But what is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remis’s wedding took place in 2003 and he waited six years to sue. And not only has Mr. Remis demanded to be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography, he also wants $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer.

Frodo