Mortgage Tax Deduction Targeted

In the category of a really ill-conceived idea, this comes from Michigan:

"Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) recently confirmed his plans to roll out legislation in September to wipe out an existing tax break for owners of large houses. Under the measure, owners of residences measuring 3,000 square feet or bigger — as many as 8.6 million residential properties nationwide, according to 2003 federal government data — no longer would be able to claim a tax deduction on mortgage interest. Dingell's aim is to discourage wasteful energy use and help curtail pollution tied to climate change. But housing industry officials warn that the current slump in the sector makes now a particularly challenging time to tinker with the deduction." Source: Deseret Morning News (Utah) (08/27/07)

A challenging time to tinker? There is no good time to tinker with this deduction at all. If Congressman Dingell were at all concerned about wasteful energy or pollution, he might want to look at the major product of his own State - gas-hogging, air-polluting land yachts. Perhaps he could influence the manufacturers in his back yard to produce more fuel efficient, pollution-free products instead of playing with taxes. Japanese car manufacturers proved years ago that the American public will buy quality, fuel-efficient vehicles all day long - Congressman Dingell and his constituency just missed the message. Many large homes (and virtually all new homes) have modern, energy conserving systems engineered into them, resulting in less energy consumption than older homes half their size. The Congressman is way off base here.

Congressman Dingell has suggested in the past that energy conservation legislation not get bogged down in discussions about miles per gallon. Of course not - that would actually have a positive impact upon energy conservation. Instead, he would eliminate a program that helps put families into homes. Enough silliness. Perhaps over 50 years (yes, over 50 years in that office) in Washington is enough?

Anti-Shiver Device, Doggy Style

Some time ago, I promised to post pix of our baby from time to time. Here is one of my favorites from last winter:

She was pretty small at the time and shivered miserably on walks, so one of the boys' sweaters knit by grandma in Russia really did the trick. She is now up to 50 pounds, so the cold-weather shivering is much less of a problem, but she has certainly outgrown the sweater! Where is grandma when you need her?

Home Loan Market Update

This just in today from Kathy Harrison at Bell Mortgage (FinancingHelp.com) in her weekly "Market Watch" newsletter:

"Interesting Notes - To date - Over 120 mortgage companies have closed their doors due to reduced liquidity. The result - borrowers who want to take out non-conforming loans have fewer, more expensive options. Many media outlets have incorrectly added fuel to the fire by stating mortgage lending has stopped altogether and borrowers can't get a loan without 20% down payment. - not true. Conforming rates actually may see the loan limits raise in the near future. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are talking about that right now so that may help our market. In addition rates for conforming loans have actually improved. The Fed is looking likely to cut the Fed Funds rate which would affect prime and could have an impact on home loan rates in the September Meeting. All good news."

Kathy has over 25 years in this industry and is well worth listening to. I'll keep you posted with other insights from time to time.

Value of You Tube Realized

The success of the CNN You Tube interviews (NOT debates – just interviews) showed me some value for You Tube – value that I had overlooked to that point. It took the concept of a town hall meeting national and could easily have been conducted internationally (the United Nations could benefit from the experience). Up to that point I felt that You Tube promoted dangerous behavior – causing people to take risks for the sake of becoming a “most watched” video to some end that I could not grasp.

The particular benefit, to me, was the ability of the common citizen to get a common sense question / concern / issue out on the table in front of millions of others, and to hear the nomination wannabes ad lib answers instead of delivering rehearsed speeches in response to predictable media-prepared questions. It was refreshing, down to earth and well, just plain real. I look forward to more use of this technology in a variety of applications that could benefit the masses.

I also look forward to the eventual narrowing (or elimination) of the field of nomination wannabes so that the interviews can transition to true debate (or agreement) among the real candidates.

Put An End to Their 15 Minutes of Fame

For a moment, let's rethink embedding the media into the war in Iraq.

In World War II, journalists were actually a part of the military service (rifle in one hand, camera in the other) and film would make it's way back stateside eventually, typically shown before movies in the theaters. In Vietnam, network journalists got their stories and film out quickly - we actually saw the previous day's activities on the next morning's news. During the Gulf War, we sat spellbound watching live theater from Kuwait hotel tops - Scuds being shot down by Patriot missiles with commentary by cable journalist Wolf Blitzer.

So now we go off to war with civilian cable and network journalists assigned (embedded) within specific military units capturing the action from the trenches. This is an odd strategy at best - I would prefer our soldiers focus on the enemy rather than protecting the journalists - I believe that is what our tax dollars are intended to do. I, for one, did not check a box on my tax return last year to designate a portion of my taxes to protect a journalist with military resources so that he/she might sensationalize a story to enable their cable/network employer to charge more money for advertising and influence my buying patterns. Whew - that was a mouthful, but I hope I made a point.

But wait - we aren't fighting a traditional army this time. The enemy is a culture - a culture of terrorism - not an army dressed in uniform carrying a flag. Instead we are faced with suicide bombers - folks with explosive devices strapped to their bodies or cars who have pre-recorded a farewell message to their heirs as they go off to commit suicide, all to have their sponsors pay a life insurance benefit to those very heirs under the veil of performing some heroic act.

I have visited, lived and/or worked in 10 countries on 3 continents in my life - not a bad cross-section of humanity - and I am here to say that this is insanity. Our media is providing, on a real-time basis, 15 minutes of fame for folks committing suicide for hire. Listen, folks. Really - stop for a second and listen. If we were to dis-embed the media and take away the opportunity for 15 minutes of fame, don't you think there would be the possibility of seriously reducing those suicides - those senseless acts that take the lives of undeserving, peace-loving Iraqis and their defending soldiers as well? Stand up - be heard -

DIS-EMBED THE MEDIA & SAVE SOME LIVES!

Isn't it at least worth a try?

Why Do We Change Oil So Often?

Okay - the simple answer is to minimize engine wear in our automobiles and make them last longer. That is at least easy to rationalize. However . . . . do you remember when . . .

-- Auto manufacturers recommended oil changes every 5,000 miles?

-- Technology & quality improvements caused manufacturers to raise the 5,000 to 6,000 miles?

-- More technology & quality improvements caused manufacturers to raise the 6,000 to 7,500 miles?

Well, I do. It was called the '60s & '70s. So where did we go wrong in this country? It is difficult to imagine that we have worse technology & quality today than we did in the '60s & '70s - don't we purport to be world leaders in technology & quality? That being the case, why are we now pushed to change our oil every 3,000 miles? If we went back to changing oil at 6,000 mile intervals, how many fewer barrels of oil would we need to import? Really - think about it -

HOW MANY FEWER BARRELS OF OIL WOULD WE NEED TO IMPORT?

I'll just let that question linger without an answer - but please do think about it. And while you are at it, think about this one, too:

WHY HAVE WE CHOSEN TO BE A WORLD LEADER IN OIL IMPORTS INSTEAD OF TECHNOLOGY & QUALITY?

Who is gaining through this choice? The general American public? I think not.