text:
I have another new Dying Days zombie short story in this release!
Armand's 2014 Year In Review
2014 was another fine year for me and my writing, as well as other things in my life… as I've done for the last couple of years, I'll spell it all out for ya… I also do this so I can go back and see what I've actually accomplished. I especially like to re-read these yearly posts when I'm struggling to write and feeling like I haven't amounted to much so far. You know… typical manic writer stuff.
Here goes the Year In Review for 2014
The first day of the year saw the Kokomo's Cafe Complete audiobook released. Narrated by the wonderful Jack De Golia (who will end up doing the entire Flagler Beach Fiction Series), it is still one of my favorite set of stories I've written. And Jack's voice adds so much more to each character.
Also released on the first of the year was my movie adaptation of the zombies vs. Navy SEALs story Zulu Six: Origins in paperback, ahead of the movie (actual movie release sometime in early 2015 as far as I know). I'm looking forward to seeing how the film matches the book, as i wrote it while they were filming and got to see the dailies to see the actors and action.
January 2nd was the release of the beginning of the fifth book in the Flagler Beach Fiction Series with Nerdz Comics And More Part 1. It follows the rest of the series with the two opening shorts.
January 7th the Epic Apocalypse – Apocalyptic Horror Box Set was released. I'm proud to be a part of this massive collection, with fellow authors Mark Tufo, Heath Stallcup, John O'Brien, Joe McKinney, Shawn Chesser and James Cook.
January 9th I released Nerdz Comics And More Part 2, with 2 more short stories to add to the growing series.
A week later, on January 16th, Nerdz Comics And More Part 3 was released.
On January 20th the audiobook version of Darlene Bobich: Zombie Killer was released. Narrated by Carolyn Nicely, who did an excellent job.
January 24th saw another audiobook release, this time Golden Lion Cafe Complete, the second in the Flagler Beach Fiction Series and again narrated by Jack De Golia.
January 27th was the release date for Zombie Football, another book for the movie company. Surprisingly enough, it's about zombies attacking during a football game. Hopefully at some point they'll get around to making the movie version of this one.
The next day the movie company released Football Espionage, another book I wrote for the movie guys. This one has no zombies (wild!) and pits the Russians vs. Americans trying to manipulate the Big Game.
January was a busy month for releases for me, with 10. What a great start to the year, right?
On February 18th the third short story in my horror erotica series (released by Hazardous Press) came out: Holiday In The Sun. Lots of sex and horror once again.
February 20th the audiobook version of Keyport Cthulhu was released. Narrated by Mike Chadwick, who was able to capture the gloom that is an homage to Lovecraft.
Not a busy month as far as releases, but I got in some great writing in the small month. Stories that would see the light of day before the end of the year, too.
On March 2nd I released Dying Days: Siege 1 And 2 Box Set. Both novellas I'd written with author Tim Baker in one handy eBook, and all for the great price of 99 cents (as of this writing… get it before it goes back to $2.99, still a bargain)
Lets Scare Cancer To Death was released on March 8th, a charity anthology I had a Dying Days story in. Proceeds go to the V Foundation for Cancer Research.
March 10th I released another box set, this time Dying Days: Double Set 1, which combined Dying Days: Origins with Still Dying: Select Scenes From Dying Days. A bargain at $2.99 for both releases.
March 25th the third Flagler Beach Fiction Series audiobook was released, J And J Fitness Complete. Once again narrated by Jack De Golia with his unique voices.
Also in March: The Authors Supporting Our Troops event technically came to an end. We collected 2,500 author-signed books for the soldiers in remote areas of the world. Want to learn more about the even bigger 2015 event about to begin? https://www.facebook.com/groups/ASOT2014/
Not an April Fool's joke, the Horror Within: 8 Book Boxed Set was released. Featuring my first Dying Days novella as well as books from Travis Tufo, Tony Baker, Eric A. Shelman, Ian Woodhead, Robert Chazz Chute, Mark Tufo, Scott Nicholson and JT Warren. And it is currently 99 cents so grab a copy!
April 2nd saw Nerdz Comcs And More Part 4 released.
The next day Flagler Fish Company Complete audiobook (the fourth in the Flagler Beach Fiction Series) was released with another excellent job from narrator Jack De Golia.
April 14th and Nerdz Comics And More Part 5, the final release for this book, was out.
On April 18th Nerdz Comics And More Complete was released with all ten stories in one print book.
The rest of the month was spent writing and playing too much on social media.
May 30th I released the Dying Days 2 audiobook, narrated by Amanda M. Lehman, who did a great job on this and the first audiobook in the series.
And that was it for May! Of course I was writing and doing fun stuff like going to the World Horror Convention with Special Gal the beginning of the month. Yeah, it's a dirty job but somebody has to hang at the bar with Mark Tufo, Joe McKinney and Brian Keene and look interesting…
June 19th Dying Days 4 was released, right in the middle of my annual Summer of Zombie Blog Tour. I even planned it this way, if you can believe it. I'll chat more about the blog tour on my Arm Cast: Dead Sexy Horror Podcast episode #28. I swear.
June 23rd the fourth Necromance horror erotica short from Hazardous Press was released, Downtown. More horror and more erotica and what more could you ask for?
Another slow month as far as actual releases were concerned.
On July 4th the Arm Cast: Dead Sexy Podcast made it's debut, with interviews with Mark Tufo and John O'Brien. 2014 will end with episode #28 (the Year In Review episode) and 2015 should still see new episodes every Friday.
A month almost passed before A Quick Bite Of Flesh: An Anthology of Zombie Flash Fiction was released on eBook from Hazardous Press, giving me an actual release for the month. One of my flash fiction shorts kicks it off. The print book has been out for a long time, so I'm not sure if July 30th is the actual date this version was released but according to Amazon it was, so…
More writing in July without any real releases. I can distinctly remember wondering if all the work I was doing would ever see the light of day, as several short stories for invite-only anthologies were finished in these weeks without definite release dates. Some of them saw the light of day by the end of the year and a few are scheduled for 2015.
On the 3rd of August Change Jar Books Part 1, the beginning of the sixth book in the Flagler Beach Fiction Series.
August 6th the Fairly Wicked Tales anthology from Angelic Knight Press was released, featuring my short, "The Wolf Who Cried Boy."
August 11th Change Jar Books Part 2 was released.
On August 19th the eBook version of the soon-to-be-released zombie vs. Navy SEALs movie, Zulu Six: Origins, went live.
August 23rd saw the State of Horror: Illinois anthology from Charon Coin Press get released, with a new Dying Days short story.
The following day (according to Amazon) State of Horror: New Jersey anthology from Charon Coin Press was put out. It featured another new Dying Days short story.
August 28th I had yet another new Dying Days zombie short story in a new anthology, namely Fading Hope. This story is really, really dark.
It looks like some of those stories I'd been writing finally got released…
On September 3rd an interview I did was added to the Interviewing Authors Anthology Volume 1 from Tim Knox, where I talk about writing zombie stories.
September 8th brought out the audibook version of Nerdz Comics And More Complete, once again ready by Jack De Golia.
Also on the 8th my debut full-length traditional horror novel, Chelsea Avenue, was released by Ragnarok Publications. After having written so many shorts and novellas, it was great to have a longer piece published after all this time. I'm damn proud of this story, too.
september 11th another short I'd been working on, a creepy horror tale, made it into Suspended In Dusk anthology, with an introduction by Jack Ketchum. How cool is that?
September 16th Change Jar Books Part 3 was released.
On October 6th Change Jar Books Part 4 was released.
October 17th the final part was put out: Change Jar Books Part 5. You can expect the audiobook version (once again narrated by Jack De Golia) in 2015.
Hallowed Horror was another box set I got to be in in 2014. On October 21st it was released and is currently only 99 cents so grab a copy asap! Featuring Mark Tufo, Christine Sutton, Scott Nicholson, Lisa Vasquez, Eric A Shelman, Chantal Noordeloos, Heath Stallcup, Jaime Johnesee, Eden Crowne, and featuring my "Tool Shed" horror novella you can't find anywhere else!
November 11th saw Dying Days: Origins 2, featuring David Monsour (the character in the book and the real man on the cover), released right in the middle of the Winter of Zombie Blog Tour. More on the tour in the podcast.
Change Jar Books Complete came out November 16th, with all ten stories in it.
Most of November was spent writing several projects, including another movie adaptation that should be filmed in early 2015 and then the book will be released as well.
December 15th the audiobook version of Highway To Hell was released, and read by none other than Jack Wallen. Why did it take so long to get released? That's a story for the podcast.
Even by my standards December was a slow month. I worked mostly on a movie adaptation novel as well as a few short stories for upcoming anthologies in 2015. I wrote a big chunk of the first draft of Dying Days 5 as well.
* * * * *
43 more releases in 2014!
What will 2015 bring? Hopefully many more releases and many more new readers
Here's to another great year coming up!
To hear the podcast version of this Year In Review, visit
Arm Cast: Dead Sexy Horror Podcast Episode 28
Jaime Johnesee Guest Post for #WinterZombie2014
Let me start off by saying that I really appreciate you giving me some time on your blog today. My name is Jaime Johnesee and I'm here today to talk about something that is very important in a zombie story –the characters.
If readers don't care about the characters, then the storyline is really nothing more than a moot point. Would Harry Potter have been as successful if Harry was an annoying brat? Probably not. Would any best selling book –throughout history– have done as well as it did if it was created with characters that nobody gave a flying fig about?
Having well fleshed (yeah, I went there), realistic, and relatable characters is a necessity in all stories. Especially seeing as how in today's most popular zombie fiction the characters are what is most important to the story while the zombies become merely a backdrop for that tale to unfold. There is a similar theme running throughout all zombie fiction but what keeps these stories so fresh and popular are the people that the author drops into the stories –the ones who have to fight the zombies.
Zombies are an awesome monster, one of my favorites, the lore and history that surrounds them is absolutely amazing to read. If you have time I highly recommend delving into the historical and cultural significances zombies have had on society. There are some fantastic papers out there on the undead. Not to mention some wonderful blogs that discuss zombies in both fiction and history.
As for me, I made a very different choice with my zombies and I used them as the main characters and the humans as the backdrop. The people I was hanging around with caused me to change the way I saw zombies and so I decided to head down another path with my world. It so happened that my path was more humor than horror. I know many folks, me included, who love the vicious flesh hungry monsters. Yet with my own work I felt the need to go another direction. I wanted to capture the friends I have that love to role-play as zombies. Every time I sat and talked with these pals of mine I came away feeling lighter and happier. I saw a challenge in taking a well known monster and making it human.
My character, Bob, is just a regular guy (with really bad luck) who died and was raised by a necromancer. He is the same fellow he was before his death. He has the same feelings and emotions it's just that he happens to be rotting. Occasionally, bits of him fall off but he can quickly reattach those with a stapler or a special glue.
I went a more comedic route with my zombie because I felt like that's the sort of guy Bob is. He jokes a lot and is self effacing with his humor. He finds something funny about almost every situation and, because of that, he doesn't ever give up no matter how bad things are for him. Basically, he's the Clark Griswold of the supernatural world.
I even decided to put a little piece of my own life into every Bob story. For each novella, or short story, there is one scene, or anecdote, where my real life merges with Bob's. Most of the stuff is too comical to not include it somewhere, and these events just fit with his bad luck.
At any rate, I am of the opinion it is the characters that make a book either great or one you will never remember in a million years. Plot is the cornerstone, sure, but the building surrounding that plot –making it so impactful– are the characters.
If you can write a character that is believable, and can be well and truly loved (or loathed) so completely, then you've done a good job as an author. With current zom-poc books the characters are even more important because the monster is familiar and the theme of survival is the same. You need the characters, and their interactions, to take center stage. They are what the book is truly about. Not the zombies, not the apocalypse, not even the survival; it's about the people thrust into those situations and their reactions.
That's my two cents on the matter. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments below. I hope you guys have a fantastic day and I just want to take a moment to again thank my wonderful host for having me on their blog today.
* * * * *
The stench of frozen rotted meat is in the air! Welcome to the Winter of Zombie Blog Tour 2014, with 10 of the best zombie authors spreading the disease in the month of November.
Stop by the event page on Facebook so you don't miss an interview, guest post or teaser… and pick up some great swag as well! Giveaways galore from most of the authors as well as interaction with them! #WinterZombie2014
AND so you don't miss any of the posts in November, here's the complete list, updated daily:
Jack Wallen Teaser for #WinterZombie2014
Cry Zombie Cry
Jack Wallen
chapter 3 | exit light, enter Rizzo
"Oh my God, turn that fucking thing off!" Joshua shouted over the Obliterator.
"What's the matter, tough guy?" Morgan chided.
Jamal leaned forward, his head between the front seats, to address Josh and Morgan. "Tell me you have an ETA on your unit."
"Aren't you having fun? It's like Camp of the Damned." Joshua laughed at his attempted humor.
"Yeah, I've seen that film; it doesn't end well—at least not for us."
Morgan leaned over and smacked the back of Joshua's head. "Stop being such a goofball, Josh. Tell the poor man how soon the cavalry will arrive."
Josh laughed and glanced at his watch. "They should be here any minute."
The distant sound of moans wafted up from the darkening sky.
"Please don't get dark yet," Echo whispered, as if to hide her plea. I wrapped my arms around her tiny frame and pulled her into me.
"Don't worry, I won't let anything hurt you."
The words took me back to broken promises from the past. Susan—another young girl I'd promised to protect. That failure would eat at my heart for eternity. The only thing to be done was to finally make good on a similar promise and ensure nothing happened to Echo.
So far, so good.
"By the way, what's the plan once we're gassed up and on the road?" Jamal spoke softly. I loved that about him, how he always knew when to effect peace in a room—one of his many gifts.
"The plan hasn't changed," I started. "We hunt down and kill the Zero Day Collective and reclaim Jacob."
Echo shuddered. "Jesus, when you put it that way it makes Jacob seem more property than prophet."
The sentiment cut sharply. The thought that Jacob would ever be seen as a commodity to be tossed back and forth between enemy lines was insane. He was my baby, my joy, my hope for life. The idea threatened to spiral me down into emotional withdrawal. I had to change the subject before I reached critical psychological mass.
"Speaking of which," I added, as I focused my attention back to the laptop, "I need to see if the tracker has any hits."
It has always been rumored that technology would eventually be the ultimate demise of man. The singularity would occur and machines would take over. The tiniest fragment of my intelligence begged me to consider it possible the singularity had finally arrived—in human form. The lowest common denominator had won out and would overtake the planet with predictable stupidity and greed. Ignorance and power were the new currency.
I propped the laptop back on my lap and minimized the Obliterator application. In its place came the tracker. The application ran in the background, collecting tons of data from the network at large. Any time specific suspect words were captured, traveling across the global network of connected computers and communication satellites, a flag would be raised and the data packets logged. Once the tracker had collected enough data, I could sift through the information and begin piecing together the location of the Zero Day Collective and Jacob. It was only a matter of time before they appeared on my radar. The NSA and Sherlock Holmes had nothing on me.
As soon as the tracker window was open, Jamal peered over my shoulder, his eyes wide and his mouth agape. I could feel his warm breath on my neck as my eyes ripped through the information. A pattern started to develop.
Mobile unit.
Zero Day Collective.
40.0176 degrees North.
105.2797 degrees West.
"Bethany," Jamal whispered, "that's Boulder, Colorado. But what does it mean by "Mobile unit"?"
"Well, Jamal, I would assume it means that whoever is sending out these communications happens to be on some sort of mobile Zero Day Collective biological unit. In other words, it's moving."
Jamal sighed. "So getting a fixed location isn't likely."
I nodded.
Jamal grinned. "Yes, but…if you get a number of consecutive coordinates, you can at least predict where the unit will be at a given time. Of course, that would require knowing what type of unit and at what speed they were traveling."
Before Jamal could continue, I silenced him with a palm to the lips.
"Joshua, how quickly can you get us to Boulder?"
Josh laughed. "At this rate it'll take, oh, forever!"
Again, Morgan smacked Josh across the back of the head.
"I'm just fucking with you. We get back up to speed soon, and I can have you there in a day…tops."
"B, what do you have in mind?"
Before I could answer Jamal, a soul-destroying roar ripped through the truck. The prehistoric release was followed by the shattering of glass and a pale arm reaching into the truck. Dirty, blood-soaked fingers tangled deep into Echo's hair and yanked hard. Echo released a cry that was almost too high in pitch to hear as the arm pulled her head toward the shattered glass.
"What the hell? The Obliterator is running strong." Josh shouted, as he gave the volume knob for the Obliterator one last turn.
"Oh my God, look at its ears," was all Morgan needed to say.
Blood was caked around both ears. A thick, viscous liquid bubbled from the holes on the side of his head.
"The fucker cracked his skull on the cement until he went deaf," Joshua added. "Perfect immunity to the power of the Obliterator."
The beast gave another tug that pulled Echo's head nearer the shattered window. Echo's arms flailed outward to thwart the thing's attempts at commandeering her skull.
* * * * *
The stench of frozen rotted meat is in the air! Welcome to the Winter of Zombie Blog Tour 2014, with 10 of the best zombie authors spreading the disease in the month of November.
Stop by the event page on Facebook so you don't miss an interview, guest post or teaser… and pick up some great swag as well! Giveaways galore from most of the authors as well as interaction with them! #WinterZombie2014
AND so you don't miss any of the posts in November, here's the complete list, updated daily:
Joe McKinney Guest Post for #WinterZombie2014
Why I Write the Dark Stuff
Joe McKinney
In my day job, I'm a patrol supervisor for the San Antonio Police Department. I work the west side of town. The police officers who make the calls, who make the arrests, who keep the peace in the busiest part of the city, they work for me. I'm the one they call when they have major crime scenes that need managing or when something just doesn't look right.
What that means is that I have to see a lot of dead bodies. And I mean a lot of them.
Like last week. One of my officers called because he had a decomp (police parlance for a body that's been rotting in place for a good long while) and he wasn't sure if it was suicide or homicide. So I showed up to the apartment and there was the dead guy, seated on the floor (or almost on the floor, his butt was about two inches off the carpet). He had a noose around his neck, though you could barely see it because his skin was so bloated and gummy with rot that it had sort of oozed over the rope.
"So, what do you think?" the officer asked.
"Suicide," I told him.
"But he's sitting down. Wouldn't he have rolled over or something when he started to choke? That's like an instinct or something, isn't it?"
"No," I said. "What you're looking at is an act of will power. If you want to do something bad enough, you'll see it through."
He looked from me to the body and shook his head.
"Besides," I added, "look at all that medication in there in his bathroom. Those drugs are for hepatitis and cancer. He did this because he was hurting pretty bad. And look up there." I pointed to the ceiling where our dead guy had nailed the rope to the rafter. "He did that because he didn't want the rope to slip off. And look at where he chose to do this, here in the bedroom, so his relatives coming in the front door wouldn't have to see him. I bet if you look around here, you'll find a note. Probably in the other room, out of sight of the bedroom."
The officer nodded.
We both stood there, staring at the body. The apartment didn't have air conditioning, and it felt like standing inside an oven, even though it was the middle of the night. The smell was really bad.
The officer kind of chuckled and said, "So, Sarge, I guess this is one for your next book, huh?"
I offered him a bland smile. Cops develop their gallows humor long before they learn that it's actually a defense mechanism against the horror of confronting your own mortality, and this officer was one of the young ones. He still had a lot to learn.
"Go look for the note," I said.
He stiffened. "Yes, sir."
When he was gone, I found myself looking at that dead man's face. Suicides always get to me. Something about standing in the presence of someone so desperate to take control of their pain and their emotional devastation that they would resort to this makes me feel numb.
In the other room, the young officer was clumsily knocking around. Something fell over and broke. I almost called out to him to be careful, but held my tongue. You see, my mind had drifted from my day job to my night job. I was thinking about what he'd said about my next book. So many people seem to have that opinion about horror, and about zombie fiction in particular. To them, a book about shambling dead things eating the living must be nothing but gratuitous violence and gore. What else could it be?
Well, I take exception to that.
I started writing because I was scared of the future. My wife and I had just gotten married. Then we had a daughter, and the world suddenly seemed so much more complex. In the wink of an eye, I went from a carefree young cop—a lot like the one in the other room knocking stuff over—to a man with more responsibilities than he could count. I had obligations and commitments coming at me from every angle.
I'd been writing stories for a good long while at that point, starting sometime in my early teens, but never with the intention of doing anything about them. I would write them out on a yellow legal pad, staple the finished pages together, and leave them on the corner of my desk until the next idea came to me.
Never once did it occur to me to do something with what I'd written. I just threw those stories away and forgot them. But then came adulthood, and parenthood, and I found myself groping to put the world in order, to regain some of the control I felt I had lost. I realized that writing could help me with that. I realized that I could focus my anxieties and make something useful of them.
And so I started writing a science fiction novel. It was a big space opera epic, and it was pure trash. Every word of it was awful.
The reason? Well, it wasn't authentic. It wasn't me.
The real me, the kid who sat at his desk filling up yellow legal pads rather than going out bike riding with his friends, was a horror junkie. I was crazy for the stuff. Horror was my first literary love, and I figured, seeing as love was what drove me to return to writing, that I should write what I love. I was feeling like the world was rushing at me from every side, so I wrote a zombie story about characters who had the living dead rushing in at them from every side. That's when things started to click. That's when it all made sense.
But it wasn't just that simple. You see, I sincerely believe that fear is the most authentic, and the most useful, emotion available to the storyteller. It is as vital as love, and indeed, gives love its profundity, for what makes love, and family, and everything we treasure so valuable but the fear that it could all go away in the blink of an eye. For me, fear goes far beyond monsters. It is the catalyst for my creative process, and without that creative process, I'm afraid I would wither up inside. I'm not saying I'd end up like that suicide I just told you about if I couldn't write anymore, nothing that melodramatic, but absence of that creative outlet would be a hole that nothing else could fill.
So that's why I write the dark stuff.
Joe McKinney
San Antonio, Texas
September 11, 2012
* * * * *
The stench of frozen rotted meat is in the air! Welcome to the Winter of Zombie Blog Tour 2014, with 10 of the best zombie authors spreading the disease in the month of November.
Stop by the event page on Facebook so you don't miss an interview, guest post or teaser… and pick up some great swag as well! Giveaways galore from most of the authors as well as interaction with them! #WinterZombie2014
AND so you don't miss any of the posts in November, here's the complete list, updated daily:
#NaNoWriMo Day Three of Bleh
This post will be short and sweet, filled with excuses and then a bold statement which may or may not come to fruition (I love using fruition whenever possible)
Since the calendar flipped over to November 1st I have:
1. Been very, very sick. I know I've been very, very sick by the amount of times I've complained loudly to Special Gal by saying 'I'm very, very sick' to the point she keeps quiet but stares at pillows and other items and imagines putting them over my face to shut me up.
2. I went to a very cool surprise birthday party and met special people in Special Gal's life. Only it was a 4 hour car ride (damn you, Orlando traffic!) and I felt like crap the entire time. Luckily, I hardly ever drive. Another reason Special Gal sometimes stares overlong at pillows and my face.
3. The hotel room on Saturday night took turns being too cold and then too hot and the bed was horrible. Would it kill a good hotel to spend an extra buck on pillows that don't fold down to paper-width as soon as my head hits them? Even if Special Gal wanted to kill me with these pillows I think I'd survive. If I got 3 hours of sleep I'd be surprised.
4. The ride back to Jacksonville sucked because… yep… now we were both sick. We spent Sunday in different rooms moaning and napping on and off. Oh, and Thug Life was also sick when we got home. Three sick people. Not cool.
5. I woke up this morning to the neighbor delivering fill to his yard. At 8 am on a Monday. Loudly with giant trucks. Of course, behind our house is a wetlands you're not supposed to build on. The builders were very specific. You can't build on it. The neighbor is obviously special, because he cut down about thirty feet behind his home to put in his own pool. I hope it sinks into an evil burial ground while he's in the pool.
6. I have 3 Arm Cast: Dead Sexy Horror Podcast interviews to do today. I can kinda breathe and can talk for short bursts and can cut out the hacking up a lung parts (I hope). I also have e-mails and Winter of Zombie Blog Tour 2014 things to get done and catch up on… and a million other things, like finding socks because my feet are cold right now and this is Florida and ridiculous I might need to put on pants another day and…
Bold Statement
By the end of November I WILL have my 50,000 words in on this thriller novel. You'll see. But now I am 3 days in the hole and need to catch up…
Winter of Zombie Post List #WinterZombie2014
Here is the complete list and link to every post for the Winter of Zombie Blog Tour 2014… updated daily!
Saturday November 1st
Sunday November 2nd
Monday November 3rd
Tuesday November 4th
Wednesday November 5th
Thursday November 6th
Friday November 7th
Saturday November 8th
Sunday November 9th
Monday November 10th
Tuesday November 11th
Wednesday November 12th
Thursday November 13th
Friday November 14th
Saturday November 15th
Sunday November 16th
Monday November 17th
Tuesday November 18th
Wednesday November 19th
Thursday November 20th
Friday November 21st
Saturday November 22nd
Sunday November 23rd
Monday November 24th
Tuesday November 25th
Wednesday November 26th
Thursday November 27th
Happy Thanksgiving!
Friday November 28th
Saturday November 29th
Sunday November 30th


text:
Controversial test 'can stop prostate cancer'
Steve Connor
Steve Connor is the Science Editor of The Independent. He has won many awards for his journalism, including five-times winner of the prestigious British science writers' award; the David Perlman Award of the American Geophysical Union; twice commended as specialist journalist of the year in the UK Press Awards; UK health journalist of the year and a special merit award of the European School of Oncology for his investigative journalism. He has a degree in zoology from the University of Oxford and has a special interest in genetics and medical science, human evolution and origins, climate change and the environment.
Monday 30 July 2012
Three times as many men would end up with advanced prostate cancer if a controversial blood test widely criticised for unreliable diagnoses did not exist, a study suggests.
The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is commonly used in Britain and other countries to identify men at risk of prostate cancer. But critics argue that it frequently results in aggressive treatments which carry a risk of serious side-effects, even though the cancer may be benign and harmless.
Concerns about the accuracy of the PSA test have led to it being used on a case-by-case basis, usually involving men who have already complained of symptoms, rather than as a general screening.
The study, published in the online journal Cancer, analysed the incidence of advanced prostate cancer in the early 1980s, before the PSA test was introduced. It found that the test has resulted in a significant improvement in the early detection of cancers that would otherwise spread to other parts of the body.
The scientists said that doing away with the PSA test would likely result in three times as many men than at present developing an advanced stage of the disease, which spreads beyond the prostate gland before being diagnosed.
The study estimated that about 17,000 American men each year are being saved from progressing to advanced prostate cancer by the early detection of their disease with the help of the PSA test.
"Not doing the PSA test will result in many men presenting with far more advanced prostate cancer. And almost all men with metastasis at diagnosis will die from prostate cancer," said Edward Messing of the University of Rochester Medical Centre in New York, a co-author of the study.
The test measures the amount of a protein called prostate-specific antigen in the bloodstream. Prostate cancer cells and normal prostate cells both produce the antigen, which varies in concentration between individuals and age groups, factors which make a definitive diagnosis difficult.
Prostate cancer is newly diagnosed in 41,000 British men each year and kills more than 10,000 patients annually. It is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and the most common in men, accounting for a quarter of all new cases of male cancers.
The incidence of prostate cancer has increased significantly in recent years, helped by better diagnosis and reporting, partly as a result of using the PSA blood test.
Medical authorities in both the US and Britain have advised against using the PSA test for general population screening because they say it would lead to unnecessary treatment of non-aggressive forms of the cancer in men who as a result would be at risk of side-effects, such as incontinence or erectile dysfunction.
Owen Sharp, chief executive of the charity Prostate Cancer UK, said: "Although recent research does suggest that screening for prostate cancer may reduce the number of deaths from this disease, we still believe that the potential negative impact of screening outweighs its potential positives. As screening can potentially lead to over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment we do not currently support the introduction of a national screening programme."
- 1 Husband and wife die holding hands within hours of each other after 67 years of marriage
- 2 What color is The Dress, white and gold or blue and black? An eyewitness gives a definitive answer
- 3 The remarkable archaeological underwater discovery that could open up a new chapter in the study of European and British prehistory
- 4 'Jihadi John': CAGE representative storms off Sky News accusing Kay Burley of Islamophobia
- 5 Madonna claims jokes about her age tantamount to racism: 'No one would dare to say a degrading remark about being black'
Husband and wife die holding hands within hours of each other after 67 years of marriage
Mohammed Emwazi: Nine things we know about Isis militant 'Jihadi John'
What color is The Dress, white and gold or blue and black? An eyewitness gives a definitive answer
'Jihadi John': Mohammed Emwazi – from British computer programmer to Isis executioner
Madonna claims jokes about her age tantamount to racism: 'No one would dare to say a degrading remark about being black'
Oscars 2015: Birdman beats Boyhood as Eddie Redmayne and Patricia Arquette win big - as it happened
New theory could prove how life began and disprove God
Half of Ukip voters say they are prejudiced against people of other races
'Cash for access' scandal: Sir Malcolm Rifkind says 'unrealistic' for MPs to live on £67,000 salary
This is what it's like to be dead, according to a guy who died for a bit
'Jihadi John': CAGE representative storms off Sky News accusing Kay Burley of Islamophobia
Crowdfunding: The end-end solution for business success.
Calling all entrepreneurs! See how crowdfunding can provide you with a full-circle, end to end solution for your business.
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Independent Dating
iJobs General
Sauce Recruitment: Retail Planning Manager - Home Entertainment UK
salary equal to £40K pro-rata: Sauce Recruitment: Are you available to start a...
Ashdown Group: Front-End Developer - London - up to £40,000
£35000 - £40000 per annum: Ashdown Group: Creative Front-End Developer - Claph...
Recruitment Genius: Product Quality Assurance Technologist - Hardline & Electric
£18000 - £24000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: The role in this successful eco...
Ashdown Group: QA Tester - London - £30,000
£28000 - £30000 per annum: Ashdown Group: QA Tester - London - £30,000 QA Tes...

subset: commoncrawl


text: Mr Roscoe sings the blues. By Randan Roscoe knows whats up and lets you know he is not having it. Published March 10, 2011 46 views More Info » Full Credits Randan Uploader Additional Credits Additional Credits: 2011 Randan Stats & Data 2 Funny Votes 5 Die Votes 46 Views Published March 10, 2011 Categories: Animals Being Awesome Keywords: puppy cute singing dog funny roscoe randan Up Next: The Pizza Review AUTOPLAY Up Next In: 10 Dave Chappelle "MTV" Cribs Super Troopers...Shenanigans "Weird Al" Yankovic – Sports Song Aries Spears Rapper Medley Follow Facebook Twitter Tumblr Instagram Browse Related Comments 6+ more View All ▶ Randan Vaguely Related Videos Vaguely RelatedPics & Words Advertisement Advertisement From Around the Web ZergNet


text:
Apple's disappointing update this week sent shares in most of its suppliers tumbling, but smartphone parts maker Laird got City approval after its strategy update yesterday.
Severn Trent
Like this page on Facebook for updates
Biffa dumps managers in private equity restructuring
Sunday 30 November 2008
The private equity backers of Biffa, the waste management group, are restructuring the group's key collection unit with a raft of middle-management redundancies and the creation of two call centres with 70 new jobs.
Investment Column: Splash out on defensive Severn Trent
Wednesday 26 November 2008
The Week Ahead: DSG investors excitement may be shortlived
Monday 24 November 2008
DSG International, the retailing group that owns Currys and PC World, is due to publish interim results on Thursday. It finished last week strongly with its shares spiking by nearly 21 per cent to 13p after analysts at Credit Suisse issued a positive update. The watchers, in something of a volte face, said that the group is likely to outperform the sector, adding: "In our view the market has overreacted to concerns about the group's sustainability in the medium term. After our long-term negative stance on the stock, we move to outperform with a target of 25p."
The Week Ahead: Hopes rise Wolseley can build on US bailout
Monday 22 September 2008
Nervous investors will have their fingers crossed for Wolseley, the construction materials group, which is due to publish its final results today.
Huge rise in complaints about water companies
Tuesday 09 September 2008
A small number of water companies were responsible for an 11 per cent overall increase in complaints last year, the Consumer Council for Water said.
Market Report: Sainsbury's soars on hopes of Qatari approach
Friday 29 August 2008
Late rumours propelled J Sainsbury to pole position on the FTSE 100 yesterday, boosting the stock by almost 8 per cent or 25.25p to 344p in the final hours of trading.
Further misery for householders as water firms plan 22 per cent bill rise
Tuesday 12 August 2008
Consumers face year after year of inflation busting rises in water bills after companies submitted plans for increases of up to 22 per cent over a five-year period to 2015.
Inflation-busting water bill rises revealed
Monday 11 August 2008
Households today learned of proposed above-inflation water bill hikes after firms submitted their draft business plans to regulator Ofwat.
Severn braced for rise in bad debts
Wednesday 23 July 2008
Severn Trent warned yesterday that Britons would find it increasingly hard to pay their water bills as the credit crunch heaps pressure on consumers.
Severn Trent Water is fined £2m over false leakage data
Wednesday 02 July 2008
Severn Trent Water escaped with a lower-than-expected fine of £2m yesterday after it pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to lying about leakage information for two years.
Water firm fined £2m for lying about leaks
Tuesday 01 July 2008
Severn Trent Water, Britain's second-biggest water company, was fined £2 million at the Old Bailey today for lying about water leaks.
Court hears details of water firm's dishonesty
Tuesday 03 June 2008
Executives, current and former, at Severn Trent Water have been hastily distancing themselves from accusations of dishonesty, as sentencing on convictions for deliberate falsification of leak statistics was adjourned until next month.
The Week Ahead: Positive update expected from WM Morrison
Monday 02 June 2008
The supermarket chain WM Morrison is due to publish a first-quarter trading statement on Thursday and analysts are expecting a positive update.
£35m fine for Severn Trent
Sunday 13 April 2008
Severn Trent Water is facing a £35.8m fine for deliberately providing false information to a regulator and offering a poor service to its customers.
Severn Trent fined record £36m after misreporting water leakages
Wednesday 09 April 2008
Severn Trent, the Midlands water company, is to pay a record £36m fine and pledged to cut customer bills after it pleaded guilty yesterday to orchestrating one of the largest customer overcharging scandals ever perpetrated in the UK.
New theory could prove how life began and disprove God
Half of Ukip voters say they are prejudiced against people of other races
'Cash for access' scandal: Sir Malcolm Rifkind says 'unrealistic' for MPs to live on £67,000 salary
This is what it's like to be dead, according to a guy who died for a bit
'Jihadi John': CAGE representative storms off Sky News accusing Kay Burley of Islamophobia
Aqsa Mahmood branded a 'disgrace' by her parents after claims she recruited three UK girls flying to Middle East
- 1 Forget 'The Dress': Here are five of the biggest news stories you might have missed
- 2 The black and blue dress: Makers considering a white and gold version
- 3 Prince Harry leaving the armed forced to pursue conservation projects in Africa
- 4 PornHub turns masturbation into energy in bid to save the planet
- 5 The remarkable archaeological underwater discovery that could open up a new chapter in the study of European and British prehistory
Crowdfunding: The end-end solution for business success.
Calling all entrepreneurs! See how crowdfunding can provide you with a full-circle, end to end solution for your business.
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.


text:
Date: February 28, 2015 For: Elders, Deacons & Financial Leaders Location: Burlington, MA
PNNE provides Clerks, Churches and Clergy with numerous resources to assist and guide you throughout the year.
The e-Connections is a weekly publication from the office of the Presbytery of Northern New England each week.
Stay informed on PNNE's upcoming Training, Meetings, Retreats and more! Some events require registration.
More >


text:
Pushkar Bisht
Here lies a poet dead
Here lies a poet dead,
After going through deep melancholy of life
In the bed of death
Sorrow doesn't engulf the poet any more,
And silence takes him in its core,
The poet does not cry now,
The world mourns to lose a shining star,
Which always shined in all dark……
Who will come again to love? The sad world ponders
But I must come in the other form again to love
And compose beautiful poems
For my beautiful world that has shed its tears in my memory…..
A man of thoughts,
No more poetry he pens down
But he sleeps peacefully
In his grave,
And the grass grows green, the dew fallen upon
What a beautiful morning
To a poet,
We wakes up with the Mother Nature
The sun shines bright upon that,
And the poet smiles to feel all this
Over his grave
The birds sing their song
In the early morning
And the poet rests at peace for long
The stars like the little drops of rain twinkle,
In the sky…..
With a poet they all mingle
And the night hugs him tight
In its sweet dreams…..
I miss all the creatures,
As they gather near my grave to make a prayer
Their crying makes me sad,
But I can't touch them
As I know that my soul is touching them…….
A poet lies dead today, but all his wishes still with the world, he will come again to the world to love more, He just says "Thanks to the world"
Pushkar Bisht
Pushkar Bisht's Other Poems
Related Poems
Read this poem in other languages
This poem has not been translated into any other language yet.
Comments about this poem (Here lies a poet dead by Pushkar Bisht )
Saurabh Jakhar (6/16/2013 12:34:00 PM)
I am impressed by the effort's put up by Poet bisht. I think Here lies a poet dead is one of the best art work's by an artist.
God bless you and i hope you are going to have a long run in this Poetry universe.
Keep the good work going.
Hoping you a very bright future...
Jakhar (one of your reader's) (Report) Reply
Famous Poems
Phenomenal Woman
Maya Angelou
Still I Rise
Maya Angelou
The Road Not Taken
Robert Frost
If You Forget Me
Pablo Neruda
Langston Hughes
Annabel Lee
Edgar Allan Poe
I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings
Maya Angelou
Rudyard Kipling
Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Robert Frost
A Dream Within A Dream
Edgar Allan Poe
Maya Angelou
(4 April 1928 - 28 May 2014)
Robert Frost
(March 26, 1874 – January 29, 1963)
Langston Hughes
(1 February 1902 – 22 May 1967)
Pablo Neruda
(12 July 1904 – 23 September 1973)
Emily Dickinson
(10 December 1830 – 15 May 1886)
Edgar Allan Poe
(19 January 1809 - 7 October 1849)
Walt Whitman
(31 May 1819 - 26 March 1892)
William Blake
(28 November 1757 – 12 August 1827)
William Wordsworth
Charles Bukowski
(16 August 1920 – 9 March 1994)
- Still I Rise, Maya Angelou
- Dreams, Langston Hughes
- The Road Not Taken, Robert Frost
- Phenomenal Woman, Maya Angelou
- If You Forget Me, Pablo Neruda
- I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, Maya Angelou
- A Dream Within A Dream, Edgar Allan Poe
- Annabel Lee, Edgar Allan Poe
- As I Grew Older, Langston Hughes
- Alone, Edgar Allan Poe


text:
Vauxhall Corsa B 1.2 16v
Vauxhall Corsa b 1.2 16v. 7 months M.O.T with no advisories. Car has been really well looked after with regular services including service history and a service that was carried out only 3,000 miles ago. Car is good to drive, doesn't use a lot o


text:
Personal Products
Company Overview of Kanebo Cosmetics Inc.
Company Overview
Nihonbashi Kayabacho Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 103-8210
Founded in 1887
Key Executives for Kanebo Cosmetics Inc.
Kanebo Cosmetics Inc. Key Developments
Kanebo Cosmetics Inc. announced earnings results for the year ended December 31, 2014. For the year, the company reported net sales slightly less than ¥180 billion against approximately ¥180 billion a year ago. Profit slightly more than 7% against slightly less than 5% a year ago.
A 41-year-old woman who has suffered white blotches on her skin since using a Kanebo Cosmetics Inc. product has sued the company for a total of 48 million yen. The lawsuit, filed with Tokyo District Court, is believed to be the first among a number of women who have experienced white blotches on skin after using skin-whitening products made by the Japanese cosmetics company. According to her written complaint the Tokyo woman started using a product containing Rhododenol, a skin brightening ingredient developed by Kanebo, in July 2011. Around September of the same year, she began developing a number of symptoms, such as itchy skin and white blotches on her face, neck and arms. The woman is demanding compensation based on the product liability law and other legal provisions. She argues the symptoms could have been prevented from worsening if Kanebo had recalled the products or given warnings sooner. She still has the white blotches on her skin, also according the complaint. The company has already started paying the medical expenses of some victims, as well as compensation based on symptoms and the length of time required for recovery.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Company Name | Region |
Nail Labo Japan, Inc. | Asia |
Styla Inc. | Asia |
Sunstar Inc. | Asia |
TOKIWA Corporation | Asia |
Sanaru Co., Ltd. | Asia |
Recent Private Companies Transactions
Type Date |
Target | |
No transactions available in the past 12 months. |
Most Searched Private Companies
Company Name | Geographic Region |
NYC2012, Inc. | United States |
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law | United States |
Bertelsmann AG | Europe |
Rush University | United States |
Greater Houston Partnership | United States |
Sponsored Financial Commentaries
Sponsored Links
To contact Kanebo Cosmetics Inc., please visit www.kanebo.com. Company data is provided by Capital IQ. Please use this form to report any data issues.
Our data partners will research the update request and update the information on this page if necessary. Research and follow-up could take several weeks. If you have questions, you can contact them at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Find a Hospital Near You
Our Specialties
3, Persiaran Anggerik Eria
Bukit Rimau, Seksyen 32
40460 Shah Alam,
General Line: +603 5125 9999
Bukit Rimau
Columbia Asia Hospital-Bukit Rimau is a multi-specialty hospital in the vastly populated residential area of Shah Alam. Launched in October 2010, this hospital caters to the medical needs of communities in Bukit Rimau, Kota Kemuning, Klang, Shah Alam and Subang Jaya. It is easily accessible from Subang Jaya and USJ via the Kesas Highway.
Event Date: December 15, 2014
Columbia Asia Hospital - Bukit Rimau is organizing an antenatal class. We invite parents-to-be to come join us and learn more about the journey of having a new baby into your family. |
Event Date: December 15, 2014
Heart Centre at Columbia Asia Hospital - Bukit Rimau will be opening soon! |
Event Date: November 30, 2014
Children Coloring Contest & Gingerbread Decorating Workshop |
Event Date: November 1, 2014
Columbia Asia Hospital - Bukit Rimau is having its 4th Anniversary Celebration with various activities; fun & games booths, cake decoration demonstration, blood donation campaign and health product promotions. |
Event Date: August 18, 2014
August Sessions - 18 & 20 August 2014 |
Event Date: April 14, 2014
April Sessions - 14 & 16 April 2014 |


text:
Hello, We recently discovered one of our hosted web sites was hacked,, and it was sending spam / fishing trough phpmailer i followed a howto to log sendmail.. : http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-log-emails-sent-with-phps-mail-function-to-detect-form-spam it doesn't work even when i change /tmp/mail_log patch .. still no log ... is there a better way to log php mailer's ? how can i force my users to use the smtp server with login and credential instead of this? thank you btw i found this because email sent bounced back , and landed inside /var/mail/webX
Like Till said, if you are running php>5.3 try this: http://www.howtoforge.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53617 You can also disable mail function in php globally, then each user must use smtp auth to send mail but not always is a good idea because maybe they are using software without smpt auth support. Anyway you can disable the mail function where is necessary (using the "custom php.ini settings" field in ispconfig->sites->web domains->webdomainname->options Example: Code: disable_functions = exec,passthru,popen,ini_set,system,show_source,shell_exec,proc_open,mail Cheers
yes using PHP Version 5.3.3-7+squeeze8 i followed guide on other page, chown the file to root:adm and even tried chmod 777 nothing is writing in phpmail.log where can i find trace of error?
no dice, this is my test sendmail script: PHP: <?phpmail('firstname.lastname@example.com','This is a test message subject','This is a test message body');echo 'Mail sent.';?> i receive test mail... here is my config of /etc/php5/cgi/php.ini and /etc/php5/apache2/php.ini Code: mail.log = /var/log/phpmail.log the file /var/log/phpmail.log is root:root and 777, Code: -rwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Apr 3 10:31 phpmail.log no idea why it doesn't log anything yet
now i need to secure the log? because its not login unless i 777 the file is this file write by client like webx/clientx ? or by apache itself? cause all my log files are 640 root:adm ... but doing so to phpmail.log not working
If this log is used by just one website, you can use webx/clientx (if you use PHP via FastCGI/SuPHP/CGI) or the Apache user/group (mod_php) as the owners of the log. Otherwise only 777 will work, I guess.


text:
- Blue line (President Obama's Budget): Table S-1 of the President's budget.
- Gray line (historic debt): Historical Budget Data from January 2015 Baseline from CBO, Tab 1. The parenthetical about pre-crisis average debt/GDP between 35 and 40% similarly comes from this table.
- Yellow line (CBO long-term baseline): July 2014 Release from The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook from CBO, Tab 6. This is their "extended alternative fiscal scenario," roughly CBO's view of a current policy baseline rather than a current law baseline.
- Green line (Bowles-Simpson proposal): Report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Figure 4 and Figure 16. I interpolated the intervening years in table 4 to fill in the long-term line to fit the 5-year intervals they specified.
- Red line (House Republican 2014 proposal): House Budget Committee's Summary Tables S-1 and S-6. I interpolated the intervening years in table 4 to fill in the long-term line to fit the 5-year intervals they specified.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Will the last moderate fiscal Democrat please turn out the lights?
In his new budget President Obama once again proposes to flatten debt/GDP, to stabilize it over the next decade at a high level.
But wait, you say. That's not stabilizing. That's not "flat" debt/GDP, that's a declining path. And it doesn't look like a high level. If we zoom out we gain additional perspective. Let's add 10 years of historical data and CBO's projected long-term baseline forecast.
Now you see why I said "at a high level." Under both a current policy baseline and the President's budget, debt/GDP is in the mid-70s for the next five years, more than twice as large a share of the economy as it was pre-financial crisis. (The same is true if we go back even farther in time. The pre-crisis average debt/GDP varies between 34 and 40% of GDP for any start year from 1965 through 2007.) While the long-term baseline starts to climb about five years from now, the President proposes to keep it roughly flat through the next decade.
Let's see what a "real" declining debt/GDP path looks like. I am going to add what Messrs. Bowles & Simpson proposed in 2010.
Now you can see why I use "stabilize" and "flat" to refer to the President's proposed debt/GDP path. Technically both President Obama and Bowles-Simpson propose declining debt/GDP paths, and it's just a difference of degree. But the difference is so quantitatively significant that they are fundamentally different proposals, representing different underlying premises about what is the preferred path of future government borrowing. Arithmetically, the President's proposal would reduce debt/GDP by two-tenths of a percentage point per year. That's basically a rounding error.
Bowles & Simpson said that debt/GDP in the 70s is too high, and that significant policy changes should be implemented to bring debt back down to its historic share of the economy. They proposed specific policies to back up this proposed debt path.
President Obama in contrast is implicitly saying "Now that the recession is over and high cyclical deficits are no longer increasing debt relative to the economy, my work is done. We do not need to bring debt down relative to the economy. I have higher [spending] priorities."
That yellow line should terrify you. What's even scarier is that I think the President's blue line would start growing in parallel with the yellow line after ten years. He has not specified what he would do to keep the blue line flat beyond 10 years, so I can't prove it. But as best I can tell, in addition to choosing not to reduce debt from its current high level, President Obama has no answer for how to continue to hold debt/GDP stable in the long run when entitlement spending pressures keep pushing it up.
The key question provoked by the blue and green lines is therefore "Is stabilizing debt/GDP in the 70s OK? Or should policymakers cut spending and/or increase taxes to put debt on an aggressively declining path relative to the economy?"
For five years President Obama and his team have argued that aggressive deficit reduction would jeopardize the recovery. This was always a red herring argument, because nothing precluded policymakers from immediately enacting into law deficit reduction that would not have taken effect until after the recovery was well underway. Team Obama misdirected the public debate by conflating the date of enactment with the dates of first implementation and effect.
But never mind that now. The recovery appears well underway and the "stimulus vs. austerity" false choice is receding into the past. Although the President's proposed debt/GDP is similar to that which he has proposed in his last four budgets, it takes on a different meaning today. With the weak economy excuse behind him, this year President Obama is choosing not to take advantage of a recovering economy to begin repairing the federal government's fiscal balance sheet. He seems to think debt/GDP is OK where it is now, or at a minimum that he'd rather use his proposed higher taxes to offset new spending increases rather than to pay down debt.
Some on the left argue that there is nothing magic about debt/GDP in the mid 70s, that the U.S. government can borrow much more without risking investors losing confidence and triggering a new kind of financial crisis. That's a judgment call that can be neither proven nor disproven, but let's set that debate aside for the moment. There are other costs to high government debt.
- High debt means high interest payments, especially once interest rates return to historic norms. Higher government interest payments either crowd out other government spending or create pressure for even higher taxes or more government borrowing. These are the real, quantifiable, and immediate costs of not reducing debt.
- For fans of fiscal stimulus there is less room to do another round if (when?) another recession hits, since policymakers would be starting from a higher/weaker starting point.
- Left unchecked, entitlement spending pressures will soon cause debt and deficits to begin climbing again. A higher debt starting point means bigger future deficits, which will divert capital away from productive new investments and toward financing past government consumption. Capital formation and productivity growth will slow, resulting in slower real wage growth over time.
OK, who else wants to reduce debt/GDP dramatically from where it is now? House Republicans. Here is what they proposed in the budget resolution they passed last year.
Let's not get too carried away in precise comparisons of the red and green lines. They were done four years apart from different baselines, so it's not fair to say that House Rs would reduce debt/GDP faster than Bowles-Simpson, or to precisely compare the percentages shown on the graph. Instead, you should conclude that House Republicans (last year) and Bowles-Simpson (in 2010) expressed the same rough policy preference about present-vs-future: both groups said that stabilizing debt/GDP in the 70s was insufficient, and both groups proposed significant fiscal policy changes to dramatically change the path of future debt, to bring it down over time to its historic share of the economy.
This does not mean that House Republicans and Bowles-Simpson proposed similar means to reach that common goal. Quite the opposite. House Republicans allowed taxes to climb to 19% of GDP but held them there, relying on spending cuts to achieve the rest of their proposed debt reduction. In contrast Bowles & Simpson proposed higher taxes even than did President Obama, combined with less aggressive spending cuts than proposed by House Republicans. These are quite significant differences, and I do not want to belittle the policy gulf between the paths proposed by the centrists and by House Republicans.
I know that many left-of-center folks also (a) hate the House Republicans' proposed spending cuts; and/or (b) think they are absurdly unrealistic. In my view both are critiques of the particular path chosen by House Rs, not their choice of a debt goal. Given the option I would hit the shared Bowles-Simpson-House Republican debt path with a package of fiscal policy changes different from either of their proposals.
But the centrists and the House Republicans at least share a common judgment about how much government borrowing is too much, and a common goal for how rapidly to reduce that future borrowing. Both propose to radically change the path of future borrowing relative to current policy. And President Obama's debt goal is fundamentally different from the shared debt goal of the centrists and House Republicans. Agreement on a debt goal is a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for reaching a significant fiscal policy agreement, and the debt goal gap between President Obama and the centrists is a fundamental problem.
In effect there are four possible paths:
1. the current policy path of stable debt/GDP for the next five years, followed by ever-increasing debt;
2. President Obama's path to stabilize debt/GDP for the next ten years, [followed by ever-increasing debt?];
3A. the Bowles-Simpson path to rapidly and sharply reduce debt/GDP to historic levels through a mix of higher taxes and spending cuts; and
3B. the House Republican (2014) path to rapidly and sharply reduce debt/GDP to historic levels almost entirely through spending cuts.
I know that in the current partisan environment one's temptation is to focus on the contrast between President Obama and House Republicans. I also know that the President's defenders correctly point out that House Republicans rejected the Bowles-Simpson recommendations as did President Obama. But while the gulf between Republicans and the centrists on the path to the shared goal is large, the disagreement between President Obama and the centrists on the underlying goal is more basic.
Elected Democrats who plan to be making policy after President Obama leaves office need to decide whether they are for the blue or the green debt line. If they hate the entitlement spending cuts proposed by Bowles and Simpson, they need to decide whether they will propose other policies (tax increases, mostly) to reduce debt/GDP to match the centrist/House R debt path. Or are future Democratic leaders going to agree with President Obama that debt/GDP is OK where it is now, that it does not need to be reduced from the 70s?
This is therefore not a decision for President Obama. He haalready made his choice. It is instead a decision for any remaining moderate Democrats in Congress: Are you going to plot a third way, a path that agrees with Republicans on reducing debt but disagrees with them on how to do it? Or are you going to use your minority party status as an excuse to duck saying what you're for and let Sen. Bernie Sanders, President Obama, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren represent your views as being the party of high and ever-increasing debt?
Here's what I think happens if future Democratic policymakers allow President Obama's goal of stabilizing debt in the short term rather than reducing it to become the unified position of the entire Democratic party.
- They will tee up an advantageous policy and political contrast with centrists and especially with Republicans who will be proposing specific painful fiscal policy changes.
- But they will be forced to defend the specific policy costs of higher debt described above: higher interest costs crowding out other government spending and eventually slower wage growth.
- And they will sacrifice to Republicans the political turf of being "for less borrowing from future generations." Republicans will claim the mantle of lower debt and greater fiscal responsibility toward younger generations. Democrats will argue they are protecting seniors while Republicans will show they care more about the Nation's fiscal future and long-term wage growth.
- Finally, by splitting with the centrist debt hawk point of view, future Democratic policymakers risk alienating the substantial communities of fiscally conservative, socially moderate Democratic voters and supporters outside the Beltway.
DC Democrats used to be split, with a sizable and influential fiscally moderate minority fighting a larger and stronger liberal base. Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, Sam Nunn, Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic Leadership Council, Robert Rubin, Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, John Spratt, Erskine Bowles, Leon Panetta, Alice Rivlin, Tim Geithner, and Bruce Reed all fit this profile.
None of these moderate fiscal Democrats are in power today and I see no successors. The Democratic party's fiscal policy shift away from debt reduction results from a combination of (1) the retirement of these moderates, (2) the rise of the progressive base and its strong new leaders, and (3) President Obama's rejection of the Democratic moderates' traditional debt reduction goal.
Will the last remaining moderate fiscal Democrat in Washington please turn out the lights?
Data sources and further detail on the charts are here.
Elmendorf for CBO
The new four year term of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office begins soon. Now that Republicans will have majorities in the House and Senate, this job is entirely their call. The President is not involved. Incoming House and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price and Jeff Sessions will make this choice.
While at first blush it may seem counterintuitive, the best move for fiscal and economic conservatives is to reappoint Doug Elmendorf. If Chairmen Price and Sessions won't do that, then I recommend they choose Kate Baicker. If any key Hill Rs want to know why I think Dr. Baicker is the best new candidate, please contact me privately. Here I'm going to focus on why I hope Chairmen Price and Sessions reappoint Dr. Elmendorf.
Dr. Elmendorf is not a conservative. He was originally chosen to head CBO by Congressional Democrats. He came from the left-of-center Brookings Institution. I think he is registered as an independent. I don't know how he votes but I'd bet he's a moderate/centrist Democrat.
I want to move economic policy to the right, not to the center-left. I think Dr. Elmendorf is the best pick for CBO because (a) he is unbiased and intellectually honest; (b) his background insulates his rulings and the Congressional Republicans who choose to reappoint him from accusations of bias; and, most importantly, (c) this combination greatly disadvantages the progressive Left who both dominate current economic debate within the Democratic party and who cannot refrain from intellectual overreach.
There are two ways to move economic policy debate to the right. One is to make stronger free market and small government arguments. The other is to rebut the wackiest arguments made by the Left. Congressional Republicans should do the former and lean on Dr. Elmendorf and CBO for help with the latter. Over the past few years an Elmendorf-led CBO has weakened a few key support pillars of the Left's big government intellectual edifice, not because Elmendorf leans right but because the Left is dominant and nuts and their most outrageous arguments just beg to be debunked by a neutral referee.
- Team Obama overreached, arguing that a minimum wage increase would result in no job loss, that an increase to $10.10/hour would benefit millions and harm no one. Under Elmendorf CBO destroyed this claim, pointing out that the President's favored policy would reduce the labor supply by about half a million workers. For once economic conservatives were on strong ground not just because we had facts and logic on our side, but also because the press repeatedly wrote that "the nonpartisan CBO said the President's minimum wage increase would reduce the labor supply by half a million workers." We won those debates in part thanks to an assist from a CBO that was and was described as unbiased and nonpartisan.
- Elmendorf's CBO analyzed the reduced labor supply that would result from ObamaCare, a 1.5-2 percent reduction in hours worked. CBO applied routine analysis straight out of a microeconomics textbook. In doing so they rebutted absurd free lunch claims made by the Obama White House and their allies on the Left. And again, the press (even all the biased ones) had no choice but to report these findings as definitive, since they had no opportunity to accuse the director of Republican bias.
Had CBO been led at the time by a director chosen by Republicans, the exact same conclusions would have been dismissed or caveated by many (most?) of the press. The press coverage and public debate would have instead been about how "Congressional Republicans and their hand-picked conservative CBO Director said ______________." The identical conclusions from a director chosen by Republicans would have had far less impact on the public debate. That is unfair. It is also an unavoidable consequence of a biased press corps that free market and small government conservatives would be foolish to ignore.
I am not arguing that Republicans should always choose a Democrat to run CBO, or that only a Democrat can have this public credibility, or that the press credibility of choosing a Democrat is worth appointing someone biased to the left. I think Dr. Kate Baicker would quickly build Elmendorf-like credibility if chosen to lead CBO. And I think Dr. Peter Orszag, chosen by Democrats to head CBO before he became President Obama's OMB Director, ran CBO as an advocate and policy entrepreneur, not as a neutral referee.
Just as I sometimes disagree with and even yell at the fairest football and basketball refs, I disagree with some of the judgment calls Dr. Elmendorf and CBO have made. But I don't want the ref to be biased right or left. I don't even think a right-leaning ref would be that valuable to winning these debates, given the higher press hurdle that would be set by a biased press corps. I also think fiscal and economic conservatives benefit from an institutionally strong CBO, as the Left far more often wants to ignore arithmetic and cost-benefit tradeoffs than do the Republicans now taking the helms of the key economic committees in Congress.
I think CBO is too wedded to assuming large and unproven short-term Keynesian multipliers, but their approaches to estimating long-term tax, debt, labor, and health insurance policy changes support those of us who prioritize increasing the supply of labor and capital. As I noted earlier, an Elmendorf-led CBO showed that ObamaCare and a minimum wage increase would both reduce employment. Under Elmendorf, CBO said that increasing marginal tax rates dampens economic growth because it reduces incentives to work, save, and invest. Elmendorf's CBO said that transfer payments reduce work incentives and shrink the labor force. In contrast to President Obama and Dr. Krugman, Elmendorf's CBO warned that high and rising debt levels will lower future income, increase pressure for higher taxes or less defense spending, and increase the risk of a fiscal crisis at some uncertain future date. In contrast to the Piketty Fan Club, CBO's distributional analysis showed that the burden of financing government is even more distributed toward the high end than is income, and they integrated into their analysis the effects of both taxes and transfer payments.
Many Congressional Republicans need to learn how to use CBO better. They need to actually read what CBO writes and to figure out how to ask questions of CBO and of Dr. Elmendorf that will highlight the ways in which left-wing dogma contradicts straight-up-the-middle economic analysis. If Hill Republicans learn how to do this more effectively, the debate will move rightward as the Left's case weakens.
I hope Congressional Republicans who want smaller government and freer markets think strategically about this post. Keep CBO strong and unbiased both in fact and in appearance. Win the economic policy debate by keeping the valuable asset they now have, the public and press credibility of a fair ref who often rebuts wacky dangerous arguments made by the Left. Learn to use CBO's analyses more effectively and to ask them the right questions. Reappoint Dr. Doug Elmendorf to head the Congressional Budget Office.
I'm with Stupid —>
A few days ago I wrote about MIT's Dr. Jonathan Gruber's honesty about lying to enact ObamaCare. Today I want to focus on a different part of this quote, his reference to "the stupidity of the American voter."
In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.
In 14 years of policymaking I encountered this word "stupid" and this attitude many times. I am certainly not arguing that all Democrats or all progressives think like this. I hope it's only a tiny fraction. In my experience it's a mindset that reveals itself every once in a while from a small but influential set of progressive policymakers and outsiders who participate in and comment on the policy process.
At the same time, the progressive idea of "stupid Americans justify paternalism" is a composite concept. Let's try to unpack that composite. Here are six variants I have seen expressed by some of my policymaking counterparts who reside on the far left of the spectrum.
- "The American voter is stupid because he is less well educated or less credentialed than I am." This one is self-explanatory, a combination of arrogance + entitlement. Educational credentials are of course highly imperfect measures of intelligence. False positive and false negative errors abound. This variant is sometimes combined with a regional component, a coastal big city elitism embodied in snarky terms like "fly-over country" and bias against those with rural upbringings or southern accents.
- "The American voter is stupid because she ignores scientific evidence by opposing progressive policy X." Popular discussion of this variant often begins with the progressive habit of seeing scientific ignorance only on the right, ignoring parallel problems on the left from those who reject scientific consensus on, among other issues, the safety of vaccines and of genetically-modified food and the environmental safety of fracking. While the issues and causes differ, scientific ignorance exists across the full range of the policy and political spectrum. A deeper flaw occurs when some progressives reframe a value difference as a rejection of a scientific conclusion. I can accept certain widely held scientific conclusions about greenhouse gas emissions and still believe that a particular cap-and-trade proposal is bad policy. This doesn't make me anti-science or stupid, it just means that my values lead to a different view on what is good policy.
- "The American voter is stupid because he doesn't know what's in his own best interest. I, the progressive policymaker, therefore must enact a policy that will give me the power to make decisions for him." This logic underlies many paternalistic expansions of government–benefit mandates in ObamaCare, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, outlawing Super Big Gulps in New York City. Sometimes using behavioral economics as intellectual cover, this logic creates a slippery slope whereby progressives start imposing policies that represent not just what they think is best for us stupid people, but what they think is best for us even when we might disagree if fully informed. The policy question is not whether people make stupid decisions every day. Many do. The policy questions are whether substituting a centralized, bureaucratic, and politicized authority subject to interest group pressure will result in fewer mistakes than we would make on our own, and whether we value the freedom to control our own lives, even when that freedom will lead us to make mistakes. I am for letting the American people make their own mistakes.
- "The American voter is stupid because, if he had the same information and understanding of the situation as I do, he would support less redistribution of society's resources than I would." This, of course, is not stupidity, it's simply a different value choice. And it provokes a hard question for honest, well-intentioned and ethical progressives who believe in democracy: Are you willing to tell the truth to, honestly inform, and then accept the will of the American people, as expressed though our highly imperfect representative democracy, if it results in less redistribution than you would prefer? Which is more important to you: democracy or redistribution? Are American voters stupid if they don't want quite as much redistribution as you?
- "The American voter is stupid because she was unable to see through my efforts to obfuscate the true redistributive effects of my policies." It's not just the malevolence behind this view that frustrates me. It's the arrogance. Dr. Gruber may be the only one to have admitted to this line of thinking, but he is far from the only policymaker to use it.
- "The American voter is stupid for trusting that I believe in democracy, that I will use the policy power I am granted only to enact policies that reflect broad American values when they differ from my own." This is why Dr. Gruber and those who think like him should not be trusted with power. It is especially true for those who hold power but were not elected by a popular vote: staff, appointed officials, and outside advisors. It is also an argument for smaller government. The greater the reach of government into our lives, the more tools and opportunities exist for those who cannot be trusted with power to abuse it.
If American voters are stupid because they think academic credentials do not perfectly equate with intelligence…
If they are stupid because they think policy decisions should be informed both by sound science and values…
If they are stupid because they would rather let people make their own mistakes than allow government to make different mistakes for them…
If they are stupid because they support less redistribution than certain progressive policymakers and their allies in academia…
If they are stupid because they don't spend all their time trying to sift through policies intentionally designed to deceive them…
If they are stupid because they trust that elected and especially appointed American officials will not abuse the power temporarily granted to them…
… then I'm with stupid.
(photo credit: Andres Musta)
Dr. Gruber's honesty about lying
MIT Economist Dr. Jonathan Gruber, widely cited as "the architect of ObamaCare," recently committed a Kinsley gaffe, "when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it's written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It's a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
This provokes four questions:
- Is Dr. Gruber right that lack of transparency was a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare?
- Do Dr. Gruber's allies in Congress and the Obama White House agree that ObamaCare cross-subsidies were intentionally obscured to avoid politically unpopular votes?
- Do they agree with the more general principle, that some large, explicit, and transparent subsidies will be unpopular, and that the only way to enact them is to hide and obscure them?
- If so, is it ethical to hide and obscure large cross-subsidies (or large costs), in ObamaCare and elsewhere, so they can be enacted into law? Does the end of greater redistribution justify the means of obfuscation, of lying to voters?
Here are my answers.
- Yes. Dr. Gruber is right that lack of transparency provided a huge political advantage in enacting ObamaCare. He is correct that the cross-subsidies within that bill would have doomed it had they been explicit, transparent, and well understood. If your goal is to enact unpopular subsidies then hiding them is an effective means to doing so.
- Yes. I would bet heavily that both Team Obama and key Congressional Democrats involved in enacting the Affordable Care Act intentionally obscured these policies as Dr. Gruber described and for the reasons he gave. I think this logic permeates the construction, drafting, and enactment of this law.
- Yes. I think this tactic is core to progressives' long-term success in expanding government's function as a massive income redistribution machine. This logic underlies hidden cross-subsidies in many of our largest government programs and the taxes imposed to finance them. It is on occasion embraced across the political spectrum, but it's a tool used far more often by the Left to redistribute society's resources behind our backs.
- No. I think this tactic is repulsive and unethical in a representative democracy.
Here are a few areas where American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs, I believe intentionally.
- As Dr. Gruber points out, in ObamaCare the healthy cross-subsidize the sick. He does not point out that embedded within this the healthy subsidize the sick for the portion of their sickness related to unhealthy behaviors. A Congressional floor vote to defend such a value choice, if made transparent and explicit, would certainly fail.
- ObamaCare also forces young people to subsidize older people by limiting the width of premium "rating bands" for insurance sold in the individual market. This was the result of closed-door lobbying by AARP. This one might pass Congress if voted upon explicitly, but the ACA's architects hid it to avoid admitting that they were shafting young people.
- Social Security conflates forced individual retirement saving, insurance programs, and massive cross-subsidies, in part to hide the latter.
- So does Medicare. The biggest cross-subsidies are across birth year cohorts but there are plenty of others as well. Don't get me started on trust fund accounting.
- The employer-side half of FICA payroll taxes that finance most of Social Security and part of Medicare are often framed as if they "are paid by the employer" when their true economic burden is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages. If all FICA taxes were imposed on the employee-side they would be more transparent and less popular.
- A minimum wage increase forces low-skilled unemployed workers to subsidize the wages of the low-skilled employed. Expanding the earned income tax credit is a more transparent way to help the low-skilled unemployed but it puts the costs on budget and in full view. The Left pushes to hide the costs and lies, claiming it's a free lunch.
- CAFE fuel economy requirements are less transparent than a gas tax that would achieve a similar goal. But gas tax increases are wildly unpopular while raising CAFE standards appear only to make things harder "on the auto companies."
- A global CO2 cap-and-trade system would have obscured the redistribution of global economic growth from developed economies to developing economies. An explicit and transparent carbon tax imposed only on developed economies would achieve a similar endpoint but would have made explicit this massive proposed global redistribution.
- For years policymakers used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize homeowners through hidden credit subsidies. The Left pushed this for low-income homebuyers through affordable housing goals, while elected officials across the political spectrum supported the same thing for all homebuyers through special advantages conferred by government on these two firms.
I could go on. Corporate incomes taxes hide the costs imposed on the people who work for, own, and buy from these firms. Many agricultural subsidies are intentionally obfuscated to enhance their bipartisan support.
Apparently Dr. Gruber thinks it's OK to lie to American voters when his allies are in power to enact policies that he wants but the voters wouldn't. He then says American voters are "stupid" both for not agreeing with his value choices and for not figuring out the deception.
I disagree.
When you strip away all the complexity, economic policy is ultimately an expression of elected officials making difficult value choices. If over time these officials make value choices that do not reflect the values of the people whom they represent, they can, should, and will be replaced.
When these same elected officials, and those who advise them, deliberately construct policies to hide value choices that would be unpopular were they transparent and explicit, we end up with two terrible outcomes. We get policies that do not reflect our values, and we re-elect representatives who are lying to us.
President Obama's odd economic campaign message
President Obama's economic campaign message is odd. Here is what he's saying at most campaign events.
"There's almost no economic measure by which we're not doing better than we were when I took office."
"But people are still anxious. And they're anxious for three reasons."
- Overseas uncertainty: ISIL + ebola + Russia/Ukraine;
- "Although the economy is doing better, wages and incomes have not gone up. And the vast majority of growth, productivity increases, profits, wealth has accrued to folks at the very top of the economic pyramid, and we have not seen wages and incomes for ordinary folks go up for a couple of decades. And that makes people feel, even if things have gotten better, that they're still concerned about not only their future but their children's futures."
- "[T]here's a sense that things simply don't work in Washington, and Congress, in particular, seems to be completely gridlocked."
While true, his first point is a self-centered perspective for someone whose job this month is to support the reelection of his party's Congressional candidates. If President Obama were running for re-election it might be important to compare today's economy to that when he first took office. But your typical Democratic candidate for Congress isn't running on President Obama's economic record, and that six year time frame is irrelevant to candidates like Michelle Nunn and Alison Lundergran Grimes who have not been part of the past six years of governance+stalemate in DC. President Obama's analysis centers on progress made during his tenure, while many Democratic Congressional candidates want this campaign to be about anything other than him.
President Obama also implies that because the economy is stronger than it was six years ago it is strong today. That does not necessarily follow, especially given the depth of the 2008-2009 recession. The U.S. economy has been climbing out of that hole for five years but it still has a long way to go.
From the President's perspective, voters feel economic anxiety principally (only?) because of the decades-long maldistribution of economic growth. But if these distributional trends have been building for decades then it is unlikely they can explain a recent change in sentiment.
I suggest instead that voters' economic anxiety is justified.
- In my judgment the U.S. economy is still quite weak (I won't get into a statistical cherry-picking battle here) and voters know or can sense it. It can of course be simultaneously true that the economy is at the moment weak and that it is nevertheless stronger than it was six years ago. I think that's the case.
- The rate of economic recovery over the past five years has been tepid and voters can feel it. Macroeconomists (including President Obama's first NEC Director Larry Summers) are debating why the rate of recovery has been so surprisingly slow while the President is boasting about the length of the recovery but ignoring its abnormally slow pace.
- While GDP growth accelerated significantly in Q2 of this year to a 4.6% annual rate, that's after a 2.1% decline in Q1. Should a simplistic straight-line projection of the trend assume the 4.6% rate will continue? If so then the future GDP path should look much brighter than it has over the past five years. Should it instead assume the 2.5% average rate over the past two quarters will continue? That would be moderate growth but nothing to write home about given how far we still are from our maximum potential output. Should we be even more pessimistic as Europe and China weaken? Voters might not be as willing to assume strong growth going forward as a President trying to draw an economic happy face the month before Election Day.
I think voters are anxious about the economy because despite five years of GDP growth the recovery has been too slow to make voters feel good. Today the economy is still weak, employment is still low, real wages aren't growing rapidly, and stronger future growth, while possible, is by no means certain. In short, voters have good reason to feel economic anxiety.
The upside of all this is that ongoing economic weakness creates an opportunity for sound policies to substantially improve medium- and long-term U.S. economic growth. Policymakers have lots of room to improve policy and plenty of upward potential for a much stronger economy if only we can get the right combination of leaders in Washington and policies in place. The downside is we probably have to wait two more years to have a shot at such a leadership arrangement no matter what happens this November 4th.
(photo credit: The White House)
Return of the low down payment zombie
Mr. Melvin Watt runs FHFA, the Federal Housing Finance Agency charged with regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yesterday Mr. Watt said:
To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA is also working with the Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent. Through these revised guidelines, we believe that the Enterprises will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower-down payment mortgages … [this] is yet another much needed piece to the broader access to credit puzzle.
Mr. Watt wants to return to the good old days when you could buy a house with 3% down, and in particular he wants poor people to be able to buy a house leveraged 33:1.
This is the return of a terrible idea, a zombie I thought was destroyed when the housing bubble burst. Many homeowners, of all income levels, were too highly leveraged and bought more home than they could afford. They gambled that housing prices would rise forever. Many lost that gamble. They were hurt, their neighbors were hurt, and the financial institutions that held their mortgages were hurt. When the housing bubble burst and financial institutions collapsed, the global economy tanked. Over leverage and tiny down payments (and not just for the poor) contributed significantly to the housing bubble, the financial crisis, and the resulting severe recession.
In May of last year I wrote:
By nominating Mr. Watt the President signals a return to the pre-crisis philosophy of regulating housing finance risk. That is a huge mistake. Mr. Watt should not be confirmed to head the FHFA.
There is a tradeoff you get when policies encourages expanding credit. More people are able to buy things they could not otherwise afford, but at the same time more people end up in credit trouble. This balance clearly went too far in the easy credit direction in the late 90s through the late 00s.
In their never-ending quest to be "pro homeownership," for more than two decades policymakers and elected officials on both sides of the aisle took every opportunity to expand credit and subsidize home buying. The GSEs' regulatory structure allowed them to ignore the costs and risks of these actions until it all imploded.
The usual left-right DC housing debate centers on whether one should distort policy to give preferential treatment to poor borrowers. The far left says yes, and many on the right say no. Mr. Watt's announcement is consistent with the left's view in that he appears to be considering lowering the down payment requirement for poor borrowers (technically "lower-wealth" borrowers, who will be highly correlated with lower-income borrowers).
But many on the right (including those who opposed aggressive GSE reforms and were quite friendly with Fannie and Freddie pre-crisis) were just as supportive of low down payments as long as they were available to middle- and upper-income homebuyers as well. Think carefully, Congressional Republicans, before you cast stones at your progressive friends on the left. Mr. Watt wants to make it easier for poor people to buy too much house. The problem is the too much house part, not the poor part.
My complaint is not particularly with lowering the GSEs' down payment requirement for poor borrowers, it's making this policy change for any borrowers. Policy should not be encouraging or subsidizing (explicitly or implicitly) anyone who buys a house leveraged 33:1, whether he is poor or rich. If policymakers want to encourage homeownership they should encourage responsible homeownership, which means that you have been patient and wise enough to save for a significant down payment.
For many poor people a larger down payment requirement will mean that they either have to buy a smaller house, or work and save longer to afford a bigger down payment, or rent rather than buy. I think all three outcomes are better than encouraging people to buy homes they cannot afford, than gambling (again) that housing prices will always go up, than inflating a new housing bubble, and than creating a new batch of toxic housing-related financial assets based on bad mortgages.
Mr. Watt's announcement reinforces my view that the GSEs and their regulatory structure should be completely replaced by a purely private housing finance market. Any replacement regulatory structure that allows the government a role in determining the structure of mortgages will be subject to distortion like that which Mr. Watt is about to revive. If the balance of legislative power requires that housing for poor people be subsidized, then the right way to do it is to combine a free market in mortgages with explicit on-budget subsidies for the poor, and with those subsidies targeted at income rather than at making down payments cheaper.
Let's remember the recent past and not repeat those mistakes anew.
(photo credit: Andrew Becraft)
Defense v. ObamaCare
DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL: To close these gaps, the President's budget will include an Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. This initiative is a detailed proposal that is part of the President's budget submission. It would provide an additional $26 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2015.
Source for $88 B number: Congressional Budget Office, "Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act–CBO's February 2014 Baseline," Table 1 (Net cost of coverage provisions for FY 2015).
Message to Governors: Biden v. Obama
Here is VP Biden, speaking this morning to all Governors:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's great to see you all. And I don't know about you all, I had a great time last night and got a chance to actually do what we should be doing more of — talking without thinking about politics and figuring how we can solve problems.
And here is President Obama, speaking at a dinner last Thursday night to just the Democratic Governors:
THE PRESIDENT: Now, unfortunately, state by state, Republican governors are implementing a different agenda. They're pursuing the same top-down, failed economic policies that don't help Americans get ahead. They're paying for it by cutting investments in the middle class, oftentimes doing everything they can to squeeze folks who are bargaining on behalf of workers. Some of them, their economies have improved in part because the overall economy has improved, and they take credit for it instead of saying that Obama had anything to do with it. I get that. There's nothing wrong with that. But they're making it harder for working families to access health insurance. In some states, they're making it harder even for Americans to exercise their right to vote.