Experts: How Harris and Trump’s plans could impact housing affordability

posted in: News | 0

Andrew Dehan | (TNS) Bankrate.com

The housing market has an affordability problem. During the pandemic, historically low mortgage rates boosted demand, driving home prices to record highs. After decades of underbuilding, construction labor shortages and rising material costs, the supply shortage continues to push homeownership further out of reach. To afford the typical home today, Americans need at least a six-figure salary, according to a Bankrate study.

While the housing market typically isn’t moved by presidential elections, both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have weighed in with varying proposals. While these would need approval in Congress to move forward, here’s what we know about their plans so far, and what the experts think.

Affordable housing

Vice President Harris has shared plans for 3 million new housing units over the next four years, spurred by a tax break incentivizing home builders to create more starter homes. She has also proposed up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for eligible first-time homebuyers, along with restrictions on how landlords determine rent increases and limits on tax breaks for institutional investors who buy single-family homes.

It’s unclear if such plans would work. The rent cap, for example, could have unintended consequences, says Mark Hamrick, Washington bureau chief and senior economic analyst for Bankrate.

“Price controls including constraints on rent can have the impact of limiting supply which, in turn, can exacerbate the problem,” Hamrick says. “Who wants to build or own if they’re constrained from setting prices?

Meanwhile, former President Trump has suggested opening tracts of federal land for housing development, removing restrictive regulations on homebuilding and addressing supply chain disruptions.

“Almost 25% of the cost of a newly constructed single-family home is embedded in regulations at all three levels of government,” says Jim Tobin, president and CEO of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), which lobbies on behalf of pro-business and pro-housing candidates. For a multifamily unit, that share is closer to 43%.

Though Trump hasn’t yet detailed how he’d reduce regulations, his past tenure could hint at what might come. In his first term, he signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which included a lower corporate tax rate and a provision creating Opportunity Zones to encourage investment in lower-income areas.

“Changes in tax policy, if significant, could have a variety of impacts on the economy and the housing market, in particular,” Hamrick says. “A lower corporate tax rate could stimulate housing activity, boost investment and potentially lead to increased housing market activity. Among the potential ripple effects could be a rise in construction, more supply and lower home prices.”

On the flip side, a higher corporate tax rate could have the inverse effect, Hamrick says. Home builders could scale back activity or pass the higher costs onto homebuyers.

“Former President Trump said he wants to lower the C corp rate,” says Bill Kilmer, senior vice president of Legislative and Political Affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), which represents the housing finance industry. “I imagine that, like the Biden budget proposal, Vice President Harris would want to raise the corporate rate as a means of revenue to pay for some other priorities.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In his first term, Trump zeroed in on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) underpinning the U.S. housing finance system. In the wake of the 2008 housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie were placed under government conservatorship to help stabilize the market.

Trump has advocated for taking the GSEs out of conservatorship, which could lead to more competition — in other words, more options — in the mortgage market and minimize taxpayer exposure, Kilmer of the MBA says.

It could also raise mortgage costs, says Chen Zhao, senior manager of Economics at real estate brokerage Redfin.

“When Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, there was this question of, ‘Is there an applied guarantee from the federal government for these mortgage-backed securities (MBS)?’ And the answer turned out to be yes, because the government basically just took them over,” Zhao says. “But once you introduce that question mark about whether or not the MBS are guaranteed, it means that rates have to trade for a little bit higher in order to account for that additional risk.”

For her part, Harris has pointed to a 2015 Moody’s study that found privatizing Fannie and Freddie would add approximately $1,200 a year to the cost of a typical mortgage. ​​

“(Harris) really wants (the GSEs) as permanent, sponsored entities with those professional charters to lean in more to the mission side of their charter and their affordable housing mandate,” Kilmer says. “Not just their goals, but also sort of what they can be doing to increase supply and affordability.”

Immigration

Trump has indicated that, if reelected, he plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants — a move his campaign has said would help lower housing costs.

Yet, approximately 20% of the construction labor force — residential and otherwise — is immigrant labor, according to Tobin of the NAHB.

“The construction industry has struggled with lack of labor supply for years,” Hamrick says.

“The thing about the recent wave of immigrants is that they don’t demand a lot of housing, actually, because they are either housed in public housing or they’re housing with relatives or friends,” Zhao says. “So, there’s not a lot of net housing demand that’s being added.”

Harris has shifted her stance on immigration — circling back to investing in the southern border wall — but continues to oppose mass deportations. During the Democratic National Convention in August, Democrats touted solutions to expanding legal entry and paths to citizenship.

“We’ve got to find a way to create a visa system for immigrants who want to work in the construction sector, to come into this country under a visa and work in our sector,” Tobin says. “We’re hopeful that the next President of the United States will lead into that and solve that problem.”

Interest rates

Trump has also suggested he would lower interest rates if reelected — but the Federal Reserve, not the president, sets monetary policy, and the Fed operates independently of who sits in the Oval Office.

“History has shown that in countries where politics infects monetary policy, it is less effective,” Hamrick says. “Translated, that means there’s a higher risk of inflation when heads of state or government try to muscle their central banks.”

Harris has said she wouldn’t interfere with the Fed, but rather focus on lowering costs.

To that end, mortgage rates have already started retreating, and forecasters expect them to continue cooling into 2025.

“Rates probably are coming down on their own anyways,” Zhao says.

Tariffs and trade

In his first term, Trump imposed a series of tariffs to restrict foreign trade, particularly with China, including on building materials like steel and aluminum. Many of these tariffs are still in place today.

Harris hasn’t said much on trade to date, but it’s unlikely the U.S. would return to the pre-Trump era of free trade.

If elected to a second term, Trump has said he’d impose further tariffs, including a 10% to 20% tax on all imports, and up to a 60% tax on imports from China. That would add to inflation, according to a recent Goldman Sachs report.

“It is well documented that if you increase tariffs, you basically increase prices. So that has a big inflationary impact,” Zhao says.

While housing costs tend to outpace inflation, higher prices overall make it harder for Americans to afford everyday expenses and set aside savings, such as for a down payment on a home.

“Abnormally high inflation does what inflation tends to do, which is to make prices go higher, robs purchasing power and would ultimately coincide with rising or higher interest rates,” Hamrick says. “Does that sound familiar? It should because that’s what we experienced in recent years. Central banks, like our own Federal Reserve, raise benchmark rates in response to high inflation. That ultimately catches up to mortgage rates and typically slows the broader economy.”

(Visit Bankrate online at bankrate.com.)

©2024 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

More women had their tubes tied after Roe v. Wade was overturned

posted in: Society | 0

By LAURA UNGAR Associated Press

More women chose to have their tubes tied after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, a new study shows, and the biggest increases were in states that ban abortion.

A research letter published Wednesday in JAMA examined insurance claims data from 2021 and 2022 for around 4.8 million women who got tubal ligations, which are surgeries to close the fallopian tubes so the patient can no longer get pregnant. The data came from 36 states and Washington, D.C., and researchers categorized these places as “banned,” “limited” or “protected,” based on their abortion policies.

In the 18 months before the Dobbs decision in late June 2022, tubal ligations remained stable in all three groups of states. But in the latter half of 2022, the procedure rose in all three groups. Researchers also looked at sustained change in the numbers over time, finding that tubal ligations rose by 3% each month in banned states.

It’s “not entirely surprising” given the changes to abortion laws, said Xiao Xu, lead author of the research letter and associate professor of reproductive sciences at Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The research letter adds to other findings about a rise in sterilization procedures after Roe was overturned, including a study from researchers published in April in JAMA Health Forum that found an abrupt increase in tubal ligations among women 18-30 years old and vasectomies among men in that age group.

“It looks like the data they used were able to break things down by state, which is nice and something we were unable to do with the data we used,” said Jacqueline Ellison, an author of the April study who works at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Public Health.

Related Articles

Health |


Kamala Harris gives abortion rights advocates the debate answer they’ve longed for in Philadelphia

Health |


Abortion rights questions are on ballots in 9 states. Will they tilt elections?

Health |


Helping a minor travel for an abortion? Some states have made it a crime

Health |


Her life was at risk. She needed an abortion. Insurance refused to pay

Health |


Ballot measures in 41 states give voters a say on abortion and other tough questions

Dr. Clayton Alfonso recalled seeing a rise in tubal ligations in his OB-GYN practice at Duke University in North Carolina, “especially closer to the Dobbs decision.”

Patients who didn’t want more — or any — children were worried about contraceptives failing and becoming pregnant unexpectedly, said Alfonso, who wasn’t involved in either study. Patients told him they would rather be sterilized in case they weren’t able to get an abortion.

North Carolina banned most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy in 2023. Alfonso said the the number of patients seeking tubal ligations has fallen a bit, which he suspects happened when people became more certain about local laws.

He also said he’d like to see research on what happens past 2022, given the “ever-evolving landscape.” Xu said her team is interested in doing such a study when the data becomes available.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Do independent voters support Harris or Trump? New poll finds big shift from month ago

posted in: Politics | 0

Brendan Rascius | (TNS) McClatchy Washington Bureau

Former President Donald Trump now leads Vice President Kamala Harris by 3 points among independents, marking a dramatic shift from one month ago, according to new polling.

In the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, 49% of independent respondents said they are supporting or leaning toward Trump, while 46% said the same for Harris. Three percent said they’re backing a third-party candidate, and 2% said they’re undecided.

In an early August poll, Harris held an 11-point lead over Trump with independents — with 48% support versus his 37%.

In that poll, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was backed by 12% of independents and other third party candidates received 2% support.

Kennedy has since suspended his campaign, endorsed Trump and urged his supporters to back him.

Political experts previously told McClatchy News that his endorsement “could potentially boost support for Trump.”

In August, Harris likely also benefited from a honeymoon period with voters, having only been in the presidential race since mid-July, experts previously said.

The latest poll, conducted between Sept. 3 and 5, sampled 1,529 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points, meaning Trump’s lead is within this margin.

Other findings in the poll:

Trump has similarly seen a significant increase in his support among Latino voters since August, erasing Harris’ lead, according to the poll.

In the latest poll, 51% of Latino voters said they support the former president, while 47% said the same for Harris.

In August, Harris held a 15-point edge over Trump with Latino voters.

The latest poll also found there is a large gender gap in the support for the two candidates, with Harris leading among women by 15 points and Trump ahead among men by 12 points.

Trump is also leading with white voters, with 50% versus Harris’ 47%. However, Harris is receiving a larger share of support from this demographic than her Democratic predecessors. Biden garnered 41% support among white voters in 2020, and Hillary Clinton received 37% in 2016.

Among all registered voters, Harris is leading Trump by one point — 49% to his 48% — narrowing the race from August, when the vice president was up 48% to Trump’s 45%.

And among those who said they definitely plan on voting, Harris outpaced Trump by three points, 51% compared with his 48%.

The poll comes just hours before the two candidates are set to take part in their first — and potentially only — televised presidential debate. The debate, hosted by ABC News, will air live at 9 p.m. E.T.

The majority of respondents, 70%, said they plan to watch most or all of the debate, and 30% of registered voters said it will be an important factor in determining how they vote.

______

©2024 McClatchy Washington Bureau. Visit at mcclatchydc.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

As Trump and Harris spar, ABC’s moderators grapple with conducting a debate in a polarized country

posted in: News | 0

By DAVID BAUDER Associated Press

The ABC News moderators were great. No, actually they were a “disgraceful failure.” They cut off Kamala Harris too much. No, actually they corrected Donald Trump unfairly.

Such is the contentious tenor of the times in 2024’s campaign season. And so it went Tuesday night at Trump’s and Harris’ first — and possibly only — debate.

In an illustration of how difficult it is to conduct a presidential debate in a polarized country, ABC News moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-checked and corrected Trump four times Tuesday and were attacked angrily by the former president and his supporters. The moderators asked about economic policy, the war in Ukraine, abortion, the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection and changes in Harris’ stances since her 2020 presidential run.

It was the only scheduled debate between the two candidates, although Fox News Channel has proposed another one. Trump, following Tuesday’s session, said he’d be “less inclined to because we had a great night.” On social media, Trump echoed many of his supporters in criticizing ABC, saying the debate was essentially three on one.

In the end, Trump logged 43 minutes and 3 seconds of time talking, while Harris had 37 minutes and 41 seconds, according to a count by The New York Times.

Opinions on the coverage were a political litmus test

The debate’s stakes were high to begin with, not only because of the impending election itself but because the last presidential debate in June — between Trump and sitting President Joe Biden, whose performance was roundly panned — uncorked a series of events that ended several weeks later with Biden’s withdrawal from the race and Harris stepping in.

Opinions on how ABC handled the latest debate Tuesday were, in a large sense, a Rorschach test on how supporters of both sides felt about how it went. MSNBC commentator Chris Hayes sent a message on X that the ABC moderators were doing an “excellent” job — only to be answered by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who said, “this is how you know they’re complete s—-.”

While CNN chose not to correct any misstatements by the candidates during Trump’s debate with Biden in June, ABC instead challenged statements that Trump made about abortion, immigration, the 2020 election and violent crime.

During a discussion of abortion, Trump made his oft-repeated claim that Democrats supported killing babies after they were born. Said Davis: “There is no state in the country where it is legal to kill a baby after it was born.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


Experts: How Harris and Trump’s plans could impact housing affordability

National Politics |


More women had their tubes tied after Roe v. Wade was overturned

National Politics |


Do independent voters support Harris or Trump? New poll finds big shift from month ago

National Politics |


Kamala Harris, gun owner, talks firearms at debate

National Politics |


Election officials warn that widespread problems with the US mail system could disrupt voting

Muir pointed out that Trump, after years of publicly not admitting to his defeat to Biden in the 2020 election, had recently on three separate occasions conceded he had lost. Trump replied that he had been sarcastic in making those recent statements.

“I didn’t detect the sarcasm,” Muir said.

After suggesting that crime had gone up during the Biden administration, Muir pointed out that violent crime had gone down during that period, prompting an argument with the former president. ABC also noted, after Trump had repeated a debunked report that immigrants were killing and eating pets in Ohio, that there had been no evidence that had happened.

ABC moderators did not correct any statements made by Harris.

“Could they have done more? Yes,” said Angie Drodnic Holan, director of the international fact-checking network at the Poynter Institute, said in an interview. “Did they do enough? I would say yes. The alternative was none.”

Toward the end of the debate, CNN fact checker Daniel Dale said on social media that “Trump has been staggeringly dishonest and Harris has been overwhelmingly (though not entirely) factual.”

Both candidates didn’t answer some questions

As is often the case in debates, the moderators often saw specific questions go unanswered. Harris, for example, was asked to address Trump’s criticism that the U.S. Justice Department has been weaponized against him. She did not. She also skirted questions about changes to some of her past positions on issues. Muir twice asked Trump whether he wanted Ukraine to win its war against Russia, and he didn’t answer.

The split screen views of both candidates onscreen told different stories. Trump often looked angry or smiled at some of Harris’ statements, while avoiding eye contact with his opponent. Harris looked over at her opponents several times, often in bemusement, sometimes in open amusement, sometimes shaking her head.

Online anger toward how ABC handled the evening began while the debate was ongoing, and quickly became a talking point.

“These moderators are a disgraceful failure, and this is one of the most biased, unfair debates I have ever seen,” conservative commentator Megyn Kelly posted on X. “Shame on ABC.”

Answering online critics who complained ABC stacked the deck in Harris’ favor, Atlantic writer James Surowiecki wrote that “the way they ‘rigged’ the debate is by letting (Trump) hang himself with his own stream of consciousness rambles.”

“It was like a 4Chan post come to life,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said.

On Fox News Channel, anchor Martha MacCallum said after the debate that Harris “was never really held to the fire.” Commentator Brit Hume agreed with her, but said something else was at play.

“Make no mistake about it,” Hume said. “Trump had a bad night.”