By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer

MCLEAN, Va. (AP) — The average rate on a 30-year U.S. mortgage fell this week to its lowest level in nearly 10 months, giving prospective homebuyers a sorely needed boost in purchasing power that could help inject life into a stagnant housing market.

Related Articles

Big Tech keeps Wall Street steady, even as most US stocks fall

3 steps to save money when you’re tempted to spend

US consumers face possibility of higher beef prices in 2026

US applications for jobless benefits fell last week and remain in historically healthy range

US producer prices surge in July as Trump tariffs push costs higher

The long-term rate fell to 6.58% from 6.63% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. A year ago, the rate averaged 6.49%.

Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, popular with homeowners refinancing their home loans, also fell. The average rate dropped to 5.71% from 5.75% last week. A year ago, it was 5.66%, Freddie Mac said.

Elevated mortgage rates have helped keep the U.S. housing market in a sales slump since early 2022, when rates started to climb from the rock-bottom lows they reached during the pandemic. Home sales sank last year to their lowest level in nearly 30 years.

This is the fourth week in a row that rates have come down. The latest average rate on a 30-year mortgage is now at its lowest level since Oct. 24, when it averaged 6.54%.

Mortgage rates are influenced by several factors, from the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy decisions to bond market investors’ expectations for the economy and inflation.

The main barometer is the 10-year Treasury yield, which lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans. The yield was at 4.29% at midday Thursday, up slightly from 4.24% late Wednesday.

The yield has come down the last couple of weeks after weaker-than-expected July U.S. job market data fueled speculation that the Fed will cut its main short-term interest rate next month.

A Fed rate cut could give the job market and overall economy a boost, but it could also fuel inflation just as President Trump’s tariff policies risk raising prices for U.S. consumers.

Higher inflation could push bond yields higher, driving mortgage rates upward in turn, even if the Fed cuts its key rate.

Economists generally expect the average rate on a 30-year mortgage to remain above 6% this year. Recent forecasts by Realtor.com and Fannie Mae project the average rate will ease to around 6.4% by the end of this year.

“Homebuyers who have been relegated to the sidelines by high financing costs got some encouragement in the past two weeks, but it remains to be seen if it’s enough to get more of them back in the game,” said Joel Berner, senior economist at Realtor.com.

Mortgage applications jumped 10.9% last week from the previous week as rates eased, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

But much of the increase was due to homeowners applying for loans to refinance their mortgage. Such loan applications made up nearly 47% of all applications and led to a 23% surge in overall in refi applications compared to a week earlier — the strongest week for refinance applications since April.

Meanwhile, applications for adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, soared 25% to their highest level since 2022, MBA said.

A St. Paul woman on vacation died during a water emergency in St. Louis County, Minn.

The St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call at 5:55 p.m. Wednesday, reporting an 80-year-old woman had been found unresponsive in Lake Vermilion. Family members had started CPR.

First responders arrived at the scene on Blueberry Island and transported Marit Smaby-Nowlin back to land and then by ambulance to Cook Hospital.

“Life saving efforts at the scene and at the hospital were unsuccessful,” the sheriff’s office said in a Thursday statement.

Related Articles

Forest Lake detective remembered for positive spirit, going the extra mile

Don’t scan QR codes on unsolicited packages delivered to your house, FBI warns

Woman, 21, dies in Arden Hills crash; passengers injured

With upcoming closure of Stillwater prison, inmates’ legal documents at risk, group says

FACT FOCUS: Trump exaggerates, misstates facts on Washington crime

By FATIMA HUSSEIN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 90 years ago this week, he vowed it would provide economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. “an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”

Today, the program provides benefits to almost 69 million Americans monthly. It’s a major source of income for people over 65 and is popular across the country and political lines.

It also looks more threatened than ever.

Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential “Ponzi scheme.”

Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

Here’s a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program.

The go-broke date has been moved up

The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded.

The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers.

Republicans’ new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“They haven’t laid out an idea to fix it yet,” he said.

The privatization conversation has been revived

The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed “ Trump accounts ” may serve as a “ backdoor to privatization,” though Treasury has walked back those comments.

The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public.

Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush’s White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.

Related Articles

Trump’s nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success

As Canada wildfires choke US with smoke, Republicans demand action. But not on climate change

Melania Trump demands Hunter Biden retract ‘extremely salacious’ Epstein comments

Trump’s friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit

Judge weighs whether Trump violated federal law by deploying National Guard to Los Angeles

“We will have to make a choice,” Hubbard said. “If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we’re going to have to raise everyone’s taxes a lot. And if that’s what people want, that’s a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on.”

Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it’s done over time.

“It’s really a political choice,” he said, adding “Neither one of those is pain free.”

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s effort to reduce the size of the government.

Martin O’Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper.

“There is no openness and there is no transparency” at the agency, he said. “And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.”

A Social Security Administration representative didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Concerns persist

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren’t confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire.

“So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,” said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded.

“In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,” she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change.

Some call for shrinking the program

Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age.

Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account.

She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear.

“When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don’t have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,” Greszler said. “We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.”

“A person who is unhoused before incarceration is no less vulnerable after release. But our current policy treats time in jail as if it erases their homelessness. It doesn’t—it makes it worse.”

A dormitory at Fortune Society’s transitional housing program Manhattan. (Adi Talwar)

Every day, New Yorkers with mental illness or substance use disorder are discharged from Rikers Island with no place to go. Too many of our neighbors are trapped in a revolving door of homelessness, incarceration, and emergency hospitalizations. Each of these issues is deeply connected: homelessness is 10 times more prevalent among formerly incarcerated individuals than it is for the general public, and 50 percent of individuals on Rikers Island have been diagnosed with a mental illness.

Despite the well-documented link between housing instability and incarceration, most supportive housing programs in New York City currently require applicants to meet the federal definition of being chronically homeless. This definition mandates that an individual be homeless for 12 or more months in the past three years, or have four or more separate episodes of homelessness that total 12 or more months in the past three years—a timeline that can easily be interrupted by detention or incarceration. 

In an effort to end and prevent homelessness, city agencies have mainly focused on helping people who are chronically homeless. However, being homeless for a long time is not the only sign that someone needs help. Even a brief jail stay can disqualify someone from supportive housing, especially people with serious mental illness or addiction.

When they’re released, they often have nowhere to go but the streets or a shelter. From there, they’re likely to return to jail, trapped in a cycle of harm. City law must catch up with reality. A person who is unhoused before incarceration is no less vulnerable after release. But our current policy treats time in jail as if it erases their homelessness. It doesn’t—it makes it worse.

An estimated 2,600 individuals detained on Rikers each year could greatly benefit from supportive housing, which is a proven model to reduce recidivism, decrease reliance on emergency services, and cut public spending.

That is why alongside advocates and those with lived experience, we have worked with experts in supportive housing to put forward Introduction 1100-2024, which would amend eligibility criteria for wholly city-subsidized supportive housing projects to include time spent incarcerated toward time spent homeless. This simple yet transformative change would remove barriers that keep thousands of vulnerable New Yorkers from achieving the stability they need to build their lives. 

The evidence in favor of expanding supportive housing eligibility is overwhelming. Studies have consistently shown that stable housing reduces reentry into the criminal justice system, minimizes reliance on costly emergency medical care, and improves long-term health and social outcomes. 

For example, Corporation for Supportive Housing has demonstrated that access to supportive housing significantly reduces the likelihood of re-incarceration and prolonged shelter stays, saving millions in public funds while fostering community stability. Furthermore, providing supportive housing for 2,600 individuals on Rikers annually who could qualify for programs would cost approximately $108 million per year—far less than the staggering $1.4 billion it costs to incarcerate these individuals. 

Expanding access to supportive housing is also essential to meeting New York City’s legal and moral obligation to close Rikers Island by 2027. Without adequate housing options, the city risks perpetuating the very conditions that contribute to high jail populations and repeated cycles of incarceration. 

The Independent Budget Office reported that one-third of individuals admitted to New York City jails in 2023 were experiencing homelessness before their incarceration. That same year, over 40 percent of people released to New York City from state prisons were discharged directly into city shelters. Without stable housing options, many of them will continue cycling through jails, shelters, and emergency rooms, at enormous costs.

A jail is not a home. It is a destabilizing, dangerous, and deeply expensive response to unmet needs. When individuals have access to safe, permanent housing, they are less likely to return to jail or rely on emergency services. 

Passing Introduction 1100 and ensuring that supportive housing is accessible to justice-involved individuals diagnosed with mental illness or substance use disorder is an investment in a safer, healthier and more just city. We must reduce our over reliance on incarceration and cannot afford to maintain policies that prioritize putting people in jail cells over housing. We can help break the cycle of homelessness and incarceration by ensuring that everyone who needs supportive housing can access it.

Carlina Rivera represents the 2nd Council District which includes Greenwich Village, Union Square, East Village, and Kips Bay.

Lauren Velez is the director with the Metro Team at the Corporation for Supportive Housing, focusing on advancing supportive housing initiatives in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The post Opinion: Enhancing Access to Supportive Housing is Key to Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on City Limits.