SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (278667)3/6/2006 11:46:48 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1572124
 
On security, it's Congress vs. Bush By Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Mon Mar 6, 3:00 AM ET


Republican lawmakers are moving into open confrontation with the White House on everything from its conduct of the war on terrorism - at home and abroad - to its vision of American power.

It's a shift that reframes the final 35 months of a presidency that has counted on the Republican-controlled Congress to follow its lead, especially on issues of national security.

The GOP-controlled Congress has sparred with the White House before, on issues like spending restraint and Social Security reform. But since the Katrina debacle and, more recently, the Dubai ports deal, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are taking on the president over what has been his strength: national security.

So far, most of the fireworks have been in the Senate, where lawmakers last week forced changes in the USA Patriot Act, blasted the Dubai ports deal - including calls for a congressional veto - and held a second hearing to help craft a new law to curb domestic spying without a warrant.

This week, the revolt spills into the House, where GOP leaders have traditionally given President Bush his most dependable support.

Monday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record) (R) of California, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, will propose legislation that not only axes a Dubai firm's takeover of terminals at six American ports but also would require all foreign owners to divest management of US port facilities and other assets deemed critical to national security.

"We can't trust Dubai with our critical infrastructure," he says, citing reports that United Arab Emirates officials moved components of weapons systems through Dubai, including high-speed electrical switches to Pakistan, 70 tons of heavy water to India, and gas centrifuge parts to Iran. Neither the president nor congressional leaders have been adequately briefed on the matter, he adds.

Later in the week, the International Relations Committee is expected to begin tough hearings examining Mr. Bush's proposed US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which provides American assistance to India's nuclear power industry but does not require concessions on its nuclear weapons program.

It's a side deal that allows India to ramp up its production of weapons-grade plutonium, encouraging other nations to violate nonproliferation agreements at a critical time, congressional critics say. US law prohibits the sale of nuclear technology to any nation, such as India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In a short statement, International Relations chairman Henry Hyde (R) of Illinois said that his committee will "thoroughly examine the specific provisions of this agreement and its potential consequences for US interests and those of the international community."

Like many of his colleagues, Chairman Hyde has been simmering over the priorities of foreign policy under the Bush administration. In an opening statement in hearings over the International Affairs budget request for FY 2007, he challenged whether the Bush administration's commitment to worldwide promotion of democracy makes sense without a commitment to "long-term presence of American power" that the nation can't afford.

"There is no evidence that we or anyone can guide from afar revolutions we have set in motion. We can more easily destabilize friends and others and give life to chaos and to avowed enemies than ensure outcomes in service of our interests and security," said Hyde, who is retiring.

Reps. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts and Fred Upton (R) of Michigan have already launched a coalition to oppose congressional approval of the nuclear deal with India.

"There is bipartisan opposition to this deal in the Congress, and when the full story is known it will be a bookend to the Dubai port deal - another case of the Bush administration announcing a commercial deal without due regard for its impact on national security interests," said Mr. Markey in a statement last week.

Most of the opposition on Capitol Hill is still focused on the Dubai ports deal, which caught members off guard during the last congressional break.

At the end of a closed briefing last Monday, Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) (R) of Maine, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said she was "more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed." GOP senators are discussing whether to press for a vote on the deal.

But however strongly Republicans disagree with the Bush White House, they are also not eager to see the president slip still further in public opinion polls, especially in the runup to fall elections that could tip control back to Democrats.

"While Republicans are taking the president on more these days, they don't want him to fail," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. With most of the public attention focused on ports, the nuclear deal with India may yet squeak through the Congress.

"Improving relations with India gives the president a win when he's beleaguered at home," he says.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (278667)3/6/2006 3:18:29 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Respond to of 1572124
 
Jim or anyone else, I've heard of talk about cancelling the 2006 World Cup because of the bird flu. Anyone got links? I could Google if necessary ...

Tenchusatsu



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (278667)3/6/2006 4:34:13 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572124
 
I don't think people realize how much prices can decline. Right now we are in the early inventory build phase. It will be a year before people really start to panic sell in the areas of high investor ownership.

Housing Slowdown Ripples Through Economy By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer

The five-year housing boom is indeed over, judging from growing statistical evidence and the performance of some of the nation's leading builders, and the slowdown is already rippling through the economy.

In the last week, the Commerce Department reported that January sales of new single-family homes fell 5 percent — the fourth decline in seven months — and the backlog of unsold new homes hit a record. And the National Association of Realtors said used home sales slipped 2.8 percent in January, the fourth straight drop and 5 percent below January 2005.

Builders also reported a few hiccups. Upscale Toll Brothers Inc. said signed contracts in the November-January period fell 21 percent from a year ago, and KB Home reported more buyers backing out of contracts.

Still, the prospect of a housing slowdown appears less frightening than it did a few months ago, according to those who track the industry. There seems to be little concern that a much-touted housing bubble will lead to a collapse in sales and prices.

New Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last month housing would enter a moderate slowdown but not a crash.

William Mack, a housing analyst for Standard & Poor's, predicted "a soft landing. The overall market is just taking a step back."

Explanations for the recent cooling-off vary. Many people bought homes during the past five years and are staying put. Some analysts blame a decline in consumer confidence. And interest rates have been rising, especially for adjustable mortgages that allowed people to buy more expensive homes than they could have afforded with a 30-year loan.

"We started to see the strain in July and August, and by the fourth quarter the market definitely had slowed," said Layne Marceau, president of the Northern California region for Shea Homes, one of the nation's largest private builders.

Rising prices and interest rates pushed more buyers out of the market. When prices finally did cool, sellers couldn't command a high enough price on their old house to buy the new one, said Marceau, who believes the slowdown is temporary.

Builders don't like to cut prices — it angers customers who paid more — but last week, Centex Corp. advertised $25,000 off on select homes in the Dallas area after making a successful similar offer in California. Around the country, builders are throwing in incentives ranging from financing help to free upgrades like swimming pools and granite countertops. Some equal 10 percent of the home's list price.

The median price of an existing single-family home has declined since peaking at $219,700 in July to $210,500 in January, according to the National Association of Realtors. Few analysts expect a sharp drop in national averages, although they say there could be further declines in some areas that have been among the hottest markets in recent years.

David Seiders, chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, said California, Las Vegas, Florida and the Washington, D.C., area "have the largest potential for a price slowdown."

The rising prices in those markets were fed by speculators who bought homes intending to "flip" or sell them for a quick profit, Seiders said. "The biggest fear I have is investor-owned units coming back on the market in large numbers," he said.

Analysts said markets in Florida and the Carolinas seemed to be holding up well. Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. reported last week that home contracts jumped 61 percent in the Southeast but fell nearly 11 percent in the Southwest and 37 percent in the West during the November-January period. The builder's profit was flat with a year earlier.

The slowdown that is showing up in national statistics hasn't reached all parts of the country.

"I've never seen a market as good as this," Mike Mishler said as he took a break from making finishing touches on a $1.6 million lakeside home near Dallas. "Maybe it will slow down in a couple years, but right now we have lots of California folks coming in, and empty-nest people looking for new homes."

Mishler, president of the local builders association, says Texas markets are holding up because they are affordable — the median price in Dallas is $145,000 compared to the national average of $213,000. But even in Dallas, the inventory of unsold homes rose to a record in the fourth quarter.

By price, the middle and upper ends of the new-home market did best in 2005, with solid increases in everything above $200,000, reflecting strongest markets were in high-priced areas along both coasts. That pattern mostly continued in January, although there was a dip in the $400,000 to $750,000 segment compared to January 2005.

Housing has played a major role in the economic recovery since 2001, so even slower growth in home sales and prices could have major repercussions.

Asha Bangalore, an economist for The Northern Trust Co. in Chicago, estimates housing created 43 percent of all new jobs from late 2001 until mid-2005. That included the obvious, such as jobs in construction and mortgage services, but also retail and service jobs that were created because consumers tapped their rising home equity to buy more things.

"The housing slowdown that we are seeing is very modest, not alarming, but I think the ripple effects are going to be enormous because of the employment factor," she said.

For now, home builders are busy finishing the houses that customers ordered last year. In a sense, their 2006 results are already on the books, and they expect another good year.

"This will either be our most profitable or our second-most profitable year in the company's history," Joel Rassman, chief financial officer of Horsham, Penn.-based Toll Brothers, told investors this week. Its profits rose about 50 percent in 2004 and nearly doubled last year.

Investors, however, have been bidding down the stocks of home builders since July, prompting executives to complain that their companies are undervalued despite record earnings. The nine largest publicly traded builders have seen their shares fall 14 to 44 percent since their peaks, with Toll Brothers and Hovnanian the biggest losers.

Alex Barron, an analyst in San Francisco for JMP Securities, said builder stocks have been trading at relatively low multiples of their earnings since the late 1990s because investors always believed the strong housing market was too good to last.

"Investors kept saying, 'Next year housing will go down,'" Barron said. "I guess they're finally right."

___

On the Net:

National Association of Realtors: realtor.org

National Association of Home Builders: nahb.org