Feb
18
I got this text in an email but it is verified by outside sources. The reason why I am writing about his portion of the bill is because I think housing and credit is what got us into this mess and stabilizing the housing market will do more to help the recovery than most of the other provisions.
Read more at: http://www.recovery.gov/
|
“Below are summaries of key housing provisions of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. Housing help that’s not in the Recovery Act explicitly but seems likely to fall in the “Protecting The Vulnerable” category (unless it is part of the Treasury plan) is a $50b investment plan for borrowers who haven’t yet been late on mortgage payments but are struggling. This is great for individual homeowners and critical for housing overall to stop the foreclosure spiral and stabilize home prices—foreclosures are estimated to top two million this year nationwide.
“$729,750 Loan Limit Returns: FHA and FNMA Conforming loan limits we saw last year for high-cost areas (including the SF Bay Area) have been restored. But please note that this change will take a few weeks for lenders to implement and price. Remember: the spreads between $417k-cap and $729k-cap loans were a lot wider than the current $417k vs $625k spreads. Note also that reverse mortgage limits have been increased from $417,000 to $625,500.
|
DM’s comments: This is a really good mechanism for people to get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.
| “First-time Home Buyer Tax Credit: The tax credit for first time home buyers was increased from $7500 to $8000 for homes purchased between January 1, 2009 and December 1, 2009. A tax credit is equivalent to money in your hand, whereas a tax deduction just reduces taxable income. The credit no longer needs to be paid back as long as you live in the home without selling it for 3 years. The $7500 version of the credit expired on July 1, 2009, and required home buyers to pay the funds back over a 15 year time frame. If you bought the home in 2008, the credit remains $7500, and it still needs to be paid back over a 15 year timeframe beginning in 2011 when you file your 2010 returns.
“The credit phases out for couples making over $150k or singles making over $75k. The credit remains refundable. This means that first-time home buyers who owe less than $8000 in taxes for the year are still eligible for the full $8000 credit when they file their tax returns. In that case, the IRS will write you a check for the difference between $8,000 and your actual tax bill. The credit can be claimed on your 2008 tax returns that you file by April 15, 2009, even if you buy the home in 2009. |
DM’s comments: What first time home buyer could afford to purchase a home on their own in the bay area with only making $75K a year? I guess only people with a large down payment i.e. with either an inheritance or a rich uncle.
| “Home Improvement Tax Credit: The tax credit for making energy efficient home improvements is now 30% of the cost of the improvements up to a maximum of $1500. Eligible improvements include energy efficient exterior doors and windows, insulation, heat pumps, furnaces, central air conditioners and water heaters. Generally, your home improvement contractor and/or the manufacturer selling the improvements issues a certification that clarifies whether the improvements meet the necessary standards for energy efficiency. Most modern windows, furnaces, and air conditioners meet these requirements. |
DM’s comments: The little eco-warrior in me is tingling with delight.
Further reading: http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/gapublic/american_recovery_reinvestment_act_home?lid=ronav0019
Nov
3
Here is what I am thinking about for November 4 on a state level. The propositions can be found at the Secretary of State web site http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.
Download a calendar reminder to vote: vote.vcs.ics
| Prop |
Decision |
Reason |
| 1A |
Maybe. |
SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.
Phase I of the train project is the corridor between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim. If the authority finds that there would be no negative impact on the construction of Phase I of the project, bond funds may be used on any of the following corridors:
- Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno
- San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno
- Oakland to San Jose
- Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union Station
- Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego
- Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine
- Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the Altamont Corridor
It is really greener alternative than flying and certainly faster than other land trasport. Although I don’t quite see the benefit to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union Station with so many cheap (and struggling) airlines with flights but the rest of it would dramatically reduce peoples commutes. Also it is a little rediculous that they will start with a SF to LA. Why not do the local services first whch would have agreater impact. |
| 2 |
Yes |
STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. I am concerned that prices will go up and the poorest of us will have to pay for our morality. |
| 3 |
No |
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. Most of the money, 80%, will go to private hospitals that the state does not fiscally manage in anyway, while university hospitals will only receive a fraction of the nearly $2 Billion that the tax payers will end up dishing out over the next 30 years. |
| 4 |
NO! |
WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. How many more times does special interest need to have this same measure put on the ballot! This is nothing more than yet another ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade and inhibit the ability for young people to get a safe and confidential emergency contraception. btw, this one is a constitutional amendment. |
| 5 |
Yes |
NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING,
PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. Rehab works much better than jail, and it costs the tax payers a lot less. |
| 6 |
No |
POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. If it was just funding I would not even consider voting no but this looks to take away rights from people who don’t have the money to fight back. |
| 7 |
No |
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. When a green initiative does not have the support of the green party, the league of conservation voters or most other Eco conscious voting organizations, you have to wonder. |
| 8 |
NO! |
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Taking away right from a minority group in this great state of California benefits no one. |
| 9 |
No |
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. California alread has the Victims’ Bill of Rights which may not be adequate in all situations but I believe it will cost us a lot of money at a time where are spending way too much to begin with. |
| 10 |
No |
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Don’t be fooled. This is corporate welfare for T. Boone Pickens and we will need to pick up the tab. It is was such a good solution, we would not need a ballot measure to raise the funds. |
| 11 |
Yes |
REDISTRICTING.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. It is to no one’s benefit to keep the districts setup to favor incumbents. The only concern here is that this new process could be less transparent than the current redistricting process. |
| 12 |
No |
VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008. I am always in support of our veterans but which veterans would qualify? We are in fiscal crisis, isn’t this the Fed’s responsibility to raise these funds? |
What is your opinion?
Subscribe 
twitter/dm247
