Social Justice and the Nevada Housing Market

Rattlesnake near Chilnualna Falls, Yosemite N.P. - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.
Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.
Wikipedia

Historically low interest rates coupled with one of the recession’s most severely impacted housing markets should make Nevada a paradise for bargain hunters trying to escape California’s high taxes.  With the Silver State’s excessive home inventory, and many owners unable to make payments, how can there be too few houses for sale?

In March of this year Steven Miller wrote an article in the Nevada Journal about the effects of Nevada law AB 284, which makes it prohibitively difficult for banks to foreclose on delinquent owners.  From 2009-2011 Nevada averaged 5411 foreclosures per month, but since implementation of AB 284 the rate has dropped to 211 per month.  Banks simply have ceased foreclosing, since the law makes it a felony punishable by at least a year in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine for the slightest deviation from procedures.  Attorneys, defaulted owners, and the social justice entourage hail AB 284, but for the majority of Nevadans it is a bad law which has unnecessarily deepened and lengthened the recession.

The reasoning behind the law is convoluted and consistent with the philosophy of social justice.  Nevada Assembly leader Marcus Conklin, the main sponsor of the bill, stated categorically, “This bill is not about recovery.  It is about justice, plain and simple.”  Mr. Conklin got his way; housing prices continue to fall, and banks are unable to evict owners who are years behind in their house payments.

Contrast the situation with that in Phoenix, another hard hit area during the housing crisis.  As opposed to Nevada, housing prices are on the rebound and inventory is ample, since banks are able to sell distressed property to new owners who can make their mortgage payments.

We can thank Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Marcus Conklin’s of the world for making and prolonging a housing crisis for which they are in large part responsible.  Their quixotic attempts at social engineering are lauded in the press for righting the great wrongs of the world, but their efforts are misguided and of great cost to society.  Six trillion dollars have been spent since the War on Poverty was declared in 1965 with only a 3% improvement to mark the effort.  Social justice is a euphemism for wealth redistribution and equality of result, not opportunity.  Laws and programs based on this utopian concept do not allow the market place to correct itself and pave the road to widespread economic stagnation and a lower standard of living for all.

Flies in the Ointment

Arches in Hassan II Mosque Casablanca, Morocco - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

When the Founding Fathers established our Constitutional republic, careful attention was paid to devising a form of government which could change – but not too fast. The constructionists rightfully were wary of the emotional component of governance where brash, unreasoned politicians pursue agendas detrimental to the long term viability of the country. The system of checks and balances was adapted to prevent these large philosophical variances. Equally as crucial to the founders was the balance of power between the federal and state governments. The Tenth Amendment speaks to this concern: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This delicate interplay between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government and the relationship between the national and state governments no longer exists. For all their genius how could the framers of the Constitution not foreseen the grave threat that in two hundred years threatens the republic? The Constitution was ratified at a time when the nation was predominately rural and strong Judeo-Christian values permeated the culture. Quite simply, it was a polity based on self reliance with a profound distrust of powerful government whose personal interactions were based on ethical precepts. It was a time when individual rights were paramount, and inherent social mores made it unnecessary for government to legislate morality. As society became more urban and moral ambivalence acceptable, the populace looked to the federal government to address problems which historically would have been solved locally. Three issues unanticipated by Madison and his collaborators transformed the country into the very situation they painstakingly meant to avoid:

Federal income tax
Career Congressional politicians
Congressional committee chairmen

From a constitutional perspective a direct tax is either a capitation or head tax or a tax on real or personal property. Indirect taxes are classified as excise or event taxes such as gift, estate, or income taxes. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution mandates direct taxes levied by the national government to be apportioned among the states based on individual populations

In 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution became law. It stated: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It became irrelevant whether an income tax is direct or indirect. The purpose of the amendment was to exempt all income taxes from the requirement of apportionment and the consideration of the source where the income was derived.

Money equates with power, and the income tax shifts control from the states and municipalities to the federal government. The Sixteenth Amendment insured the preeminence of the national government by providing a tool to levy limitless taxes. It established the right to transfer wealth from individuals at the discretion of Congress and determine social conduct by establishing tax exemptions and spending tax revenue on programs deemed worthwhile by Congress. In essence the federal income tax in its present form authorizes the government to decide who to tax, how much to tax, where to spend tax revenues, and the type of economic activity to be rewarded and penalized.

The second determinate which undermines the precarious balance of power is the pernicious influence of detached career politicians whose personal success out weighs the welfare of the electorate. Barring death, retirement, or some horrendous scandal, the power of the incumbency virtually insures life long tenure. To insure reelection the senator or representative must divert as much money from the federal treasury to the home state. Squandering tax revenue to the detriment of the country is incidental to “bringing home the bacon.” So entrenched and smug are most careerists that is it comical to see them squirm when they are forced to make judicious decisions. Every so often controversial, highly publicized legislation captures public interest. Like moles exposed to the light, politicians are forced to make choices which place their career in jeopardy. The case of health care reform is one such example. Senator Mary Landrieu's antics come to mind when she realized defying the wishes of the voters of Louisiana could well cost her job in the next election. It is fascinating to contrast the conduct of senators who were elected in the last election cycle as opposed to those who stand for reelection in 2010. The latter group actually has to pay attention to the voters while the former know they can act with impunity since when they run for reelection in 2014 their constituents will have forgotten their actions in 2009.

Committee chairmen in both houses of Congress are extraordinarily powerful. Since the committees craft specific legislation to deal with complex problems which effect all of us for long periods of time, one would expect the chairperson to possess unique skills, yet the only qualification to lead is seniority. Length on the job trumps intelligence, experience in the field, and integrity. The most prestigious committee chairmanships are award as a prize to long serving party stalwarts. Consider the recent financial crisis which caused the banking industry to fail and cost the country billions of dollars, millions of jobs, and a large percentage of our savings. During the debacle who was in charge of the Senate Banking Committee? The same person remains in charge - Christopher Dodd, the son of a wealthy former United States Senator, an English literature major, and an attorney of modest credentials. As far as the voters of Connecticut are concerned his resume is good enough to send him to the Senate for the last twenty-nine years, but as a result the country has paid a terrible price.

Next: RX for Success