Owning vs Renting

Posted on by
Reply

The cost of renting a house or apartment continued to rise last month.

Shelter costs, which account for about 40% of the core inflation increase, rose 0.4% for the month and are up 7.8% over the past year.

This emphasizes, for me anyway, one advantage of owning a home over renting it that gets little attention. That’s the advantage of locking in the “rent” rate, the cost of having shelter.

Having bought the house (assuming it’s done with a regular mortgage rather than one with a balloon payment after a few years), the owner now is protected from much of the damages of inflation: unlike rent rising (and it’s usually an annual increase, even with low inflation), the owner’s mortgage payment remains static—it cannot rise. Further, as inflation takes its toll, that mortgage gets paid with increasingly cheaper dollars, a phenomenon that’s made more apparent as pay raises occur—also, in the main (though not always), annually—even as inflation does not rise as quickly—which periods occur fairly often: those periods between recessions or stagnations.

And this: as interest rates fall, which they do relatively frequently, it’s usually possible to refinance the mortgage to a lower rate, and so to a lower monthly payment. Rents almost never fall (except in the most extreme economic conditions), and that increases the advantage of owning vs renting.

Of course, during times of high inflation, it’s much harder to buy a home in the first place—prices are much higher and rising, and interest rates tend to be high and rising. Once that upfront cost is met, though, the advantage is established. Rents are much higher, too, and rising, and so it’s also much harder to get into a rented home, but even after the renter is in, that cost continues to vary steadily upward.

Lastly, even in today’s government-diktated renting environment, it’s still harder to get thrown out of an owned home through mortgage default than it is from a rented home through rent nonpayment.

And none of that reaches the “investment for retirement” aspect of owning vs renting that is at the center of the most common form of the debate.

Activist Judges

Posted on by
Reply

There are three of them on the 4th Circuit, those who unanimously ruled that construction on the Mountain Valley Pipeline must stop pending those judges’ personal review of the Interior Department’s record of decision for permitting pipeline construction in the national forest.

These judges don’t care that the 4th Circuit has no jurisdiction over the pipeline or cases related to it. The recently concluded debt ceiling law explicitly stripped the 4th Circuit of jurisdiction, limited questions about the pipeline to constitutional questions, and placed those questions solely within the jurisdiction of the DC Circuit.

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors concluded their editorial with this:

Three willful judges have improperly usurped the power of Congress and the executive branch. Judges who refuse to honor proper orders from the political branches are begging to have the political branches ignore their rulings.

These three judges also have violated their oaths of office and have thereby rendered themselves vulnerable to impeachment and removal from the bench.

Security Guarantees

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial regarding this week’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, The Wall Street Journal‘s editors dropped this line:

A debate is underway over whether Ukraine should benefit from a formal Western security guarantee, or perhaps join NATO.

A Western security guarantee for Ukraine is utterly worthless, as the Budapest Memoranda demonstrate. Marginally better would be NATO membership. Ukraine has some security and government integrity criteria to meet, but it’s working to meet them and would benefit from assistance in that direction.

Better for Ukraine, and the West generally, would be a separate mutual security treaty that would include Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland, and the rest of the Three Seas Initiative nations, along with the US and Great Britain (and, perhaps, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway to strengthen Western control over Russia’s ability to leave the Baltic Sea). For all of the editors’ claimed NATO “improvement,” it still lags heavily in satisfying its own mutual defense obligations, much less doing anything to defend Europe at large.

Along with that, it’s necessary to make clear to Russia that, so long as it insists on playing the barbarian, it will continue to be isolated and contained and that the containment will be rapidly tightened.

Russian paranoia needs also to be corrected. No one in the civilized world has any desire to run over Russia or conquer it. Its vast resources are much more cheaply obtained—to mutual benefit—through free trade than through conquering and occupation. The history of Russian-world relations make such convincing deucedly difficult, but they do not make the convincing impossible.

“Undemocratic”

Posted on by
Reply

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (D) used his “line-item” veto power to veto part of a legislatively-passed law regarding public school funding. His veto authority actually is less a line-item veto authority than it is a words and phrases veto authority.

Evers, a Democrat, used his veto pen Wednesday to strike out text intended to increase funding for the 2024-25 school years, crossing out the “20” and the hyphen. The updated language allows K-12 schools to raise their revenue per student by $325 a year until 2425.

Lucas Vebber, Deputy Counsel for the Wisconsin Institute of Law & Liberty, says his organization is considering suing the State over the governor’s inherently undemocratic move.

Evers’ move was assuredly undemocratic, but existing law allows the move. Vebber expanded on his beef, and with that expansion, he has a case—and with that case, he may be able to get the law struck down as unconstitutionally (under Wisconsin’s constitution) vague.

Here you have the people who elected the legislature and are represented here in Wisconsin, in the Senate Assembly to write laws, have written a law they intended. The governor’s veto makes it something completely different.

In Wisconsin, as in each of our States and at the Federal level, it’s the legislature that writes the law(s). A governor’s authority, in this context, begins and ends with signing the legislature’s bill into law or vetoing it. Or, as is the case in a few States, a governor’s authority can include vetoing specific parts of the bill and signing the rest into law. Wisconsin allows a governor to veto words and phrases. However, in no State is a governor allowed to rewrite the bill before signing it.

That’s what Evers has done with his carefully chosen words and phrases veto: he’s rewritten a one-year funding law into a 400 year funding law, and that is plainly unconstitutional. Evers’ move also illustrates how flexible is a Wisconsin governor’s words and phrases veto authority: it’s so flexible as to be too vague to pass muster.

The matter likely will end up in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that court has an activist liberal Justice majority.

More Progressive-Democratic Party Racism

Posted on by
Reply

This example is breathtaking in its explicitness. California Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D, 59th District) has proposed a piece of openly racist legislation:

Whenever the court has discretion to determine the appropriate sentence according to relevant statutes and the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council, the court presiding over a criminal matter shall consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised and system-impacted populations.

Because the way to eliminate racial discrimination in sentencing is to engage in racial discrimination in sentencing.

This is how steeped in victimhood Party has become. Its members no longer can…discriminate…right from wrong, can no longer discriminate being racist from not being racist.

These Special Ones cannot even perceive the “disparate impact” on crime victims or discriminate the criminal from his crime’s victim.