Bill Bonner (The Daily Reckoning, UK):

Poor Goldman Sachs. Everyone is on its case. Criticizing. Carping. Jealous. Envious.

So, today we rise in defense of the Wall Street giant. Yes, the Goldmen may be shysters. But they are honest shysters…

Besides, it was another slow day on Wall Street. Investors are still mulling the news. As we all know, the recession is over. But… what kind of strange recovery is this?

A survey showed that only 1 in 10 workers says his income is going up. This is the lowest reading since 1946.

Meanwhile, the news two days ago was that homebuilding took a dive in October. Work began on 11% fewer houses than the month before. On multi-family dwellings, the figures were worse – down 35%.

Why would homebuilding go down when the economy is supposedly gathering strength? Well, builders were wondering what would happen when they finished the houses. The new house tax credit was due to expire; they weren’t sure the politicians would be witless enough to renew it.

They need not have worried. Give the politicos a chance to do something stupid and they will come through every time. Since the end of October, Congress passed and President Obama signed an extension of the housing credit. Until next April, at least, first time buyers will get an $8,000 credit.

You’d think that would have revived animal spirits a bit in the residential construction industry. But today’s news tells us that mortgage applications are falling – even with lower interest rates.

How come interest rates are falling? Well, here again, we see the heavy hand of the feds. The “quantitative easing” has come to a halt… that is, the Fed is no longer buying US Treasury debt (it doesn’t need to). But its buying of mortgage backed securities continues. That program will last until March of next year.

Still… housing is not cooperating.

This news hasn’t had much impact on Wall Street. All that can be said is that investors have seemed to hesitate for the last couple of days.

Stocks fell softly yesterday, with the Dow down only 11 points. Oil stayed at $79. Gold rose to $1,141. And the euro remained at $1.49.

Investors must still believe in what the Washington Post calls a “lukewarm recovery.” It is like finding a body on the street. You feel for a pulse and discover that it has not quite reached room temperature. It is tepid… Not quite alive. Not quite dead.

Too close to the quick to bury… too close to the grave to boogaloo.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Bonner’s commentary at The Daily Reckoning, UK edition.

Existing home sales rose 7.2% to a 5.24 million annual rate in July, the most since August 2007 and the fourth straight month the figure increased, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said Friday. Year-over-year sales grew 5%, the increase since September 2007, just before the markets came crashing down the following month.

“The housing market has decisively turned for the better,” said NAR chief economist Lawrence Yun. “A combination of first-time buyers taking advantage of the housing stimulus tax credit and greatly improved affordability conditions are contributing to higher sales.”

Rising sales numbers in the past few months may have triggered previously discouraged sellers to re-list their homes, according to Yun.

Total housing inventory at the end of July grew 7.3% to 4.09 million existing homes available for sale, representing a 9.4-month supply at the current sales pace. However, the raw inventory totals are 10.6% lower than they were last year.

Sellers are responding to rising inventories accordingly: The national median existing home price was $178,400 in July, 15.1% lower than a year ago. But the fact that buyers are dipping their toes back into the murky depths of the housing market doesn’t necessarily mean the sector is trending toward a full-blown recovery.

Turn of the Year Makes for Uncertain Future

One in three homes sales last month came from first-time buyers who benefited from the Obama administration’s $8,000 tax credit, which ends after November. First-timers accounted for almost the same amount in June with 29%. That means there could be a significant drop in purchases when that program expires.

The real estate industry is lobbying Congress to extend the first-time buyer tax credit, and Nevada Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters earlier this month an extension is “something we can get done.”

With or without a tax break, consumers in this economy are looking for a bargain much like they are with retail sales and auto sales. The bulk of the first-time tax credit sales have come from lower-priced homes, and NAR data supports that. Sales of homes that cost less than $250,000 were up almost 17.8% year-over-year through June. Meanwhile, sales decreased 13.3% in the $250,000-$500,000 bracket, 18.6% in the $500,000-$1 million range, and 32.7% in the $1 million – $4 million range.

Lost pricing power in the more expensive homes wasn’t lost on Pulte Homes Inc. (NYSE: PHM), which last Tuesday finished its acquisition of value-priced homebuilder Centex Corp.(NYSE: CTX), making Pulte the largest homebuilder in the United States.

“I’m not seeing a tremendous amount of good news on the job or economic front, so I do think it’s important that the [tax] credit get extended,” Pulte Chief Executive Officer Richard Dugas told The Associated Press.

The turn of the year isn’t likely to yield much good news on the job front. Most economists are expecting the unemployment rate to top out around 10%, and although July’s rate dipped one-tenth of a percentage point, the latest weekly initial unemployment insurance claims were discouraging, rising 15,000 to 576,000 for the week ended August 15.

“The improvement in the labor market has stalled,” Scotia Capital Inc. economist Derek Holt told Bloomberg News following the latest jobless claim figures. “Consumer spending will be pushed back on its heels for a longer time than markets are expecting.”

When the bleeding of jobs does peak, an upturn in employment could take some time as the United States experiences a jobless recovery. With an unemployment rate at or around 10%, home inventory levels could creep back in to 2008 territory.

“[The unemployment rate projection] indicates that the level of labor market slack would be higher by the end of 2009 than experienced at any other time in the post-World War II period, implying a longer and slower recovery path for the unemployment rate,” Fed economists wrote.  “This suggests that, more than in previous recessions, when the economy rebounds, employers will tap into their existing work forces rather than hire new workers. This could substantially slow the recovery of the outflow rate and put upward pressure on future unemployment rates.”

Source: Home Sales Will Struggle to Rebound Without Tax Credit Extension

Last week, the February Housing Starts report handily beat estimates. While this may only be a temporary spurt, it was a positive surprise. The growth was primarily focused in the Northeastern states, but again, any increase in this dismal sector is a positive.

On Monday, I surmised that the Existing Home Sales report for February would beat estimates when announced, and sure enough it did. Foreclosures are driving down prices to the point that the market is now ‘affordable’ again to first-time buyers.

This past weekend I spoke with my father. He is a realtor in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and he mentioned something that is being overlooked, the first-time homebuyer tax credit. This year the rebate doesn’t have to be re-paid, and is worth up to $8,000. The company he works for feels this will be a significant driver of sales this year, as homes are finally affordable again to those priced out a few years ago, and the tax credit makes purchasing all the more appealing.

Something else I thought about too: with the moratorium on foreclosures and the Obama administration’s never-ending search for a solution, we may see the number of foreclosures slow significantly. This means less inventory, a slowing in the price declines, and eventually, an up-tick in prices.

Combine all of this with mortgage rates that are the lowest since WWII (albeit difficult to qualify for) and we may be starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Source: Is The Porch Light On In The Housing Market?

The nomination of Geithner to succeed current U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. was leaked over the weekend, and was reported by Money Morning yesterday.

Geithner (pronounced: GITE-ner) obtained a Master of Arts degree in International Economics and East Asian Studies from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in 1985. He also has studied Japanese and Chinese and has lived in present-day Zimbabwe, India, Thailand and China.

As the nation’s top financial authority, Geithner will inherit oversight of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout for Wall Street and a U.S. economy struggling with recession.

He will be flanked by former Treasury chief Lawrence Summers, who will head Obama’s National Economic Council. Analysts say this appointment puts Summers in line to succeed Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve in 2010.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who ran against Obama in the Democratic primary, will take over the Commerce Department, and Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag will head the Office of Management and Budget.

In other key appointments, economist Christina Romer will be the director of his Council of Economic Advisors, which provides economic analysis and advice to the president, and Melody Barnes will be the director of his Domestic Policy Council (DPC). Before being tapped by Obama, Barnes was executive vice president for policy at the Center for American Progress.

“I’ve sought leaders who could offer both sound judgment and fresh thinking, both a depth of experience and a wealth of bold, new ideas, and most of all who share my fundamental belief that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street without a thriving Main Street,” Obama said at a press conference in Chicago.

Obama’s economic team will be faced with the grand task of restoring confidence to Americas stricken financial sector, and may have to wrestle the U.S. economy out of its worst downturn in decades. President-elect Obama made it clear that the first priority for he and his team will be to pass an economic stimulus package.

“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. “That’s where we’re going to be focused in January.”

Obama’s 2009 Stimulus

Obama and his aides remain vague on exactly what that package will look like. Over the weekend, however, the incoming president outlined a plan to create or save 2.5 million jobs by 2011.

“It will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation,” Obama said of the plan. “We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels.”

Tax cuts will also be a critical fixture in the stimulus. And they’d be preferable to rebates because they would have a more immediate impact on the economy. Of course, the question is who will receive those tax benefits.

Obama has repeatedly sounded calls for middle-class tax relief, but he also hinted that he might refrain from repealing tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush that favored the wealthy – those who make more than $250,000 a year.

Other measures that Obama has proposed in the past include:

• Suspending penalties and income tax on early withdrawals from IRA and 401(k) accounts.
• Offering a temporary tax credit of $3,000 to companies for each new full-time employee hired in the United States.
• Extending unemployment benefits by a period of 13 weeks and temporarily suspending income taxes on those benefits.
• Requiring a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners.

Clinton Stretch, a tax principal at accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP, told Bloomberg that two other Obama tax proposals could be good candidates for inclusion in a stimulus package.
The first is Obama’s “Make Work Pay” tax credit, which would provide a partial Social Security payroll tax holiday for most taxpayers, worth up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples.

The second would be an extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which favors low-income workers.

Of course, the pending stimulus package could include any of these measures, or none at all. The only certainty is that the stimulus will be costly. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said the amount set aside for a new stimulus package could equal or surpass the $700 billion designated for the TARP fund, more than half of which has been used to shore up U.S. banks and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG).

Martin Baily, who was the White House’s chief economist under President Bill Clinton, told Bloomberg that the stimulus could exceed $1.2 trillion. That would dwarf the $175 billion package Obama proposed just one month ago, and even the $168 billion tax-break stimulus package President Bush issued earlier this year.

“We’re out with the dithering, we’re in with a bang,” Austan Goolsbee, a senior Obama economic adviser, said on CBS’ Meet the Press.

Source: Obama Unveils Economic Team, Plans 2009 Stimulus Package

One of Obama’s prime campaign planks has been his promise to mercilessly raise taxes on the “rich,” a group initially defined as those making more than $250,000 per year. This was later dropped to $200,000 per year, and more recently has been defined as those Americans making more than $150,000 annually.

Setting aside the precipitous downward slide in the definition of “rich,” there is ample reason to suspect that Obama’s tax changes portend much higher, if not confiscatory, taxes on the most productive Americans. Obama has strongly argued for higher taxes as a way of employing government to alter the pre-tax distribution of income, which he believes has concentrated too much of the gains from productivity in recent years in the hands of the very rich.

He seems to think that the “very rich” are a closed caste of more or less fixed membership, which changes little from year-to-year. This figures in his concept of “fairness,” which supposes that it is perfectly just to burden a small fraction of the population with a majority of the costs of running the Federal government. This was detailed in a New York Times article on “spreading the wealth” by David Leonhardt. He wrote of Obama:

“He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center’s comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners – those making an average of $9.1 million – by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year. ‘It’s hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it’s also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy – about $500,000 of that $800,000 – would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.’

“To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama’s plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama’s proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it burdensome on the young entrepreneur who was making his first millions as it would on the aging plutocrat who actually had enjoyed the prosperity of the past-quarter century since Reagan cut marginal tax rates.”

An October 13 editorial in The Wall Street Journal clarifies the mysterious arithmetic of Obama’s sweeping claims to cut income taxes for millions who currently have no income tax liability and pay no taxes:

“For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase ‘tax credit.’ Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

“- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to ‘make work pay’ that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

“- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

“- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

“- A ’savings’ tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

“- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

“- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

“- A ‘clean car’ tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be ‘refundable,’ which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer – a federal check – from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this ‘welfare,’ or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a ‘Demogrant.’ Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

“The total annual expenditures on refundable ‘tax credits’ would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as ‘tax credits,’ the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.”

After all the sloppy definitions are parsed, one point remains clear. The top 5% of U.S. income earners, who presently pay 60.14% (2006 figures) of all income tax, are destined for a huge federal tax increase under Obama.

One of Obama’s specific proposals is to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%, which will sharply increase capital confiscation as increasing percentages of “gains” will reflect inflationary depreciation of the currency. In the U.S., an investor must pay tax on the difference between the sales price of an asset and it purchase price, with no adjustment for inflation. Consequently, when the tax rate and inflation are high, a large portion of the “capital gain” is illusory. Any asset that appreciates by less than the rate of inflation will result in its owner losing purchasing power and having to pay taxes on the illusory gains. At Obama’s higher tax rates, (he has suggested that capital gains and dividend taxes should be hiked to as much as 25%,) capital confiscation would result from modest levels of inflation.

And the Great Credit Crunch implies that inflation will be far higher than in recent experience.

Setting aside whether it is moral or equitable to force a small fraction of the population to essentially pay for the whole cost of government, much of which entails the shuffling of checks to purchase votes of various aggrieved groups, there is a bigger question. Can it be wise for the whole fiscal regime to stand on the shoulders of a small group, like a pyramid tottering on its point, so that any tribulation which undermines the prosperity of those who pay would promise to bankrupt the state?

It is a worthwhile question to ask if you have considerable assets. In light of the worldwide credit crunch, which has deflated assets of all kinds, the prospect of burgeoning prosperity at the magnitude required to enable one-in-20 Americans to become “Super Rich” benefactors of Big Government is vanishingly small. There won’t be enough rich people to fill the role assigned to them in Obama’s scheme. The result to be expected, in addition to confiscatory taxation, is a dramatic shortfall of revenues. This, in turn, implies surging deficits and deficit financing requirements that will rapidly swamp the capacity of the Treasury to borrow.

Source: Playing the Tax Credit Card