Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings

The final update to the November 2007 case of a man who shot two burglars in his neighbor’s yard.  I don’t think there was much doubt over the grand jury’s outcome.

/cb

 

June 30, 2008, 1:08PM
Joe Horn cleared by grand jury in Pasadena shootings
Panel issues no-bill after two weeks of testimony

By BRIAN ROGERS and RUTH RENDON
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.

Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.

Horn called authorities after hearing breaking glass and seeing two men climb through a window into his next-door neighbor's home in the 7400 block of Timberline.

The 911 operator urged Horn to remain inside, but he went outside with his 12-gauge shotgun and came face-to-face with Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38.

According to a transcript of Horn's 911 call, which he made about 2 p.m., the operator repeatedly urged Horn to stay in his house, but Horn said he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn can be heard telling the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

The operator replies: "Don't go outside."

Then the tape records Horn warning someone: "Move and you're dead!" Two quick shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then a third shot.

Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said a few weeks after the shooting that a plainclothes detective had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He said the detective saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

It appeared that neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present, Corbett said.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

Ortiz and Torres died a short distance from Horn's house, both shot in the back.

As the grand jury began hearing evidence in the case this month, Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said recently that Horn regrets his decision to confront the men.

"Was it a mistake from a legal standpoint? No. But a mistake in his life? Yes," Lambright said. "Because it's affected him terribly. And if he had it to do over again, he would stay inside.

"I don't think anybody can really appreciate the magnitude that something like this has on a person's personality."

Lambright said Horn didn't expect to be involved in a shooting, but rather expected to see the two men running or driving away.

"He thought he was gathering evidence for the police department," Lambright said.

The shooting brought hundreds of protesters to the Village Grove East subdivision where Horn lives with his daughter and her family. One protest included supporters of Houston activist Quanell X and motorcyclists countering his remarks. The protest which brought hundreds to the neighborhood led to the Pasadena City Council to approve a city ordinance banning protests in front of a residential home.

Aside from the shooting itself, the national debate revolved around the fact that Ortiz and Torres were illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres had been sent to prison for dealing cocaine and was deported in 1999.

 

Cato Post on Speculators

Greedy Speculators?

by Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

Added to cato.org on June 26, 2008

This article appeared in the Washington Times on June 25, 2008.

Are you aware that without speculators, most food and physical products would cost a whole lot more? Many members of Congress have been looking for the villain who is causing gasoline prices to soar (they seem to be mirror-less). A large number, mostly, but not exclusively, Democrats, have decided that speculators, or at least "greedy speculators," are the villains.

Many members of Congress make up "solutions" to things they do not understand and cause problems where there are none or make real problems worse, which explains the current run-up in gasoline prices. There are "futures" markets in most basic agricultural, metals and energy products. In a futures market, it is possible to buy or sell things for delivery at some specified date in the future. The reason the futures markets developed formally a couple of hundred years ago, and are so important to the world economy, is that they enable producers and consumers to offset the risk of price changes to those willing to take the risks.

Assume you are a farmer and estimate that you can produce corn this year for $5 a bushel, and at the moment corn is selling for $7 a bushel. At $2 a bushel profit, corn is the most lucrative crop you can produce, so you plan to expand your corn plantings. You rightly fear that other farmers will also plant more corn. But this additional corn could cause the price to drop, especially if Congress sensibly reduces the foolish, corn-based ethanol mandate it passed. If the price falls to $3 a bushel, you will go bankrupt.

Fortunately, futures markets exist, which enable farmers to sell a portion of their crop for future delivery (e.g., September, when the crop is in) at today's high prices. This will protect them from a large drop in prices - known as "going short." The other side of the bet might be made by breakfast cereal companies who fear that if corn prices continue to rise, they will not be able to pass the price increase to their consumers, so they want to protect themselves by locking in the current price of corn - known as "going long." Both the farmer and the cereal companies are "hedging their bets" about the future price of corn. There are many corn market speculators who provide liquidity to the market and fill the void if the numbers of short and long hedgers do not match up.

The same principles hold for oil. If you are a small oil producer and know that if you drill an expensive but possibly low-producing well, oil will have to sell for more than $60 a barrel for it to be profitable. Thus, if you can sell some of your future expected oil production at a price higher than $60 in the oil futures market, it will likely be profitable and, hence, you are willing to take the risk of the costly investment in expanded production.

On the other side, assume you are the manager of your city's municipal bus system. You must provide the city council with an estimate of what your diesel fuel costs will be next year so it can properly allocate the city budget. If there is an unexpected price rise in diesel fuel, you will not have enough for all of your buses and will have to curtail bus service. This will anger the citizens, the council members, and also may cost you your job. Fortunately, you can "go long" on the diesel oil futures market, safeguarding the city in case of a price rise of diesel fuel, protecting your job and the bus-riding citizens.

As with the corn example, oil speculators, some of whom have "gone long" and some of whom have "gone short," provide the necessary liquidity and mismatch between the various hedgers.

The current political charge is, "the speculators are driving up the price of oil." But think about it for a moment. If the price of oil is being driven above the market clearing price where supply equals demand, demand will fall and the speculators will be stuck holding huge, unintended stocks of oil. Holding oil in tanks and ships is costly, and speculators will not incur these costs for long, so the price will drop. Some in Congress want to curtail the activities of the speculators by increasing regulation. This will only drive more of the energy markets to other countries, thereby hurting the U.S., and will do nothing to reduce the price of oil.

The price of oil is higher than it would be in a totally free, private global market, because other countries' state oil companies own 88 percent of the proven reserves and many of them are part of the OPEC cartel. Much of the oil that could be produced in the U.S. and elsewhere by private parties has been made off-limits by governments. Speculators are not the problem; they are part of the solution, by reducing the risk for producers, refiners and other oil market participants. This risk reduction results in more production of oil, other fuel, food and metals where futures markets exist.

Victory for Gun Owners

The Supreme Court has served their country and Constitution masterly in reaching their decision on the illegal gun ban in Washington D.C.

 

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Thursday , June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — 

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

 

 

Celebrate Mediocrity

There's something wrong with our society when we begin pushing mediocrity and protecting poor examples.  There's nothing wrong with being a single parent, but why would a single mom be offended if other students are making father's day cards?  What's wrong with the world?

Father's Day cards banned in Scottish schools

By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor

Last updated: 8:57 AM BST 23/06/2008

Thousands of primary pupils were prevented from making Father's Day cards at school for fear of embarrassing classmates who live with single mothers and lesbians.

The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools "in the interests of sensitivity" over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households.

It only emerged after a large number of fathers failed to receive their traditional cards and handmade gifts.

Family rights campaigners last night condemned the policy as "absurd" and argued that it is marginalising fathers, but local authorities said teachers need to react to "the changing pattern of family life".

An Office for National Statistics report in April found that one in four British children now lives with a lone parent - double the figure 20 years ago.

The Father's Day card ban has been introduced by schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Clackmannshire.

Tina Woolnough, 45, whose son Felix attends Edinburgh's Blackhall primary school, said several teachers there had not allowed children to make Father's Day cards this year.

Mrs Woolnough, a member of the school's parent-teacher council, said: "This is something I know they do on a class-by-class basis at my son Felix's school. Some classes send Father's Day cards and some do not.

"The teachers are aware of the family circumstances of the children in each class and if a child hasn't got a father living at home, the teacher will avoid getting the children to make a card."

The making of Mother's Day cards and crafts, in the run-up to Mothering Sunday, remains generally permitted.

But the Father's Day edict follows a series of other politically correct measures introduced in primary schools, including the removal of Christian references from festive greetings cards.

Matt O'Connor, founder of campaign group Fathers For Justice, said: "I'm astonished at this. It totally undermines the role and significance of fathers whether they are still with the child's mother or not.

"It also sends out a troubling message to young boys that fathers aren't important."

Alastair Noble, education officer with the charity Christian Action, Research and Education, said: "This seems to be an extreme and somewhat absurd reaction.

"I would have thought that the traditional family and marriage are still the majority lifestyles of people in Scotland. To deny the experience of the majority just does not seem sensible."

Local authorities defended the change, saying teachers needed to act "sensitively" at a time when many children were experiencing family breakdown and divorce.

A spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council said: "Increasingly, it is the case that there are children who haven't got fathers or haven't got fathers living with them and teachers are having to be sensitive about this.

"Teachers have always had to deal with some pupils not having fathers or mothers, but with marital breakdown it is accelerating."

Jim Goodall, head of education at Clackmannanshire Council, said teachers are expected to behave with common sense but be sensitive to "the changing pattern of family life."

South Ayrshire Council said children should not feel left out or unwanted, while City of Edinburgh Council said the practice on Father's Day cards was a matter for individual schools.

Why Copy the Continent?

I saw this article by Thomas Sowell today on National Review.  It’s a short piece, but gets direct to the point. 

/cb

 

Why Copy the Continent?
To imitate Europe is to aspire to the mediocre.

By Thomas Sowell

It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word “recession” that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.

Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.

The definition of a “recession” is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.

The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.

We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.

The American economy produces the largest output in the world — more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.

Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.

There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are “technically countries but are more like large suburbs.”

Luxembourg’s total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.

Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.

Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico.

Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by “the rich” have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.

Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.

None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media, and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time — households, families, income brackets — even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.

Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.

That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household- and family-income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.

Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing — whether in the economy, in foreign policy, or in other areas.

We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

 

Harvesting ACORN

Here's a great piece from the National Review on ACORN, our tax dollars and Obama's real fight for change:

 

June 25, 2008, 0:00 a.m.
The ACORN Obama Knows
Spreading socialism on the taxpayer’s dime.
By Michelle Malkin

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter-registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called

ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”
The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter-fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio, and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.

Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing-counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since George W. Bush took office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new exposé, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling, and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. That’s the Chicago way.

— Michelle Malkin is author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

Chavez and Venezuela's Economy

It's hard to believe that Hugo Chavez doesn't see the irony and hypocrasy in his new policy of reaching out to capitalists to help with his socialist agenda.

 

A funny way to beat inflation

Jun 19th 2008 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition

Hugo Chávez invites the private sector to help him build socialism

TO BUILD his promised socialist revolution, Hugo Chávez seems to have concluded that he needs the help of capitalist businessmen. Earlier this month he invited a handpicked group of captains of finance and industry to the presidential palace. He lectured them about the imminent demise of capitalism, but then proceeded to offer them cheap credit and joint ventures to “reactivate” production.

That such efforts are needed is at first sight odd. Although it sells at a discount because much of it is heavy and sulphurous, the price of a barrel of Venezuelan oil recently topped $120. This year, Mr Chávez says, oil will contribute $75 billion to government revenues, up from $43.5 billion last year and only around $7 billion when he came to power in 1999.

Nevertheless, the economy slowed sharply in the first quarter of this year (see chart). That came as a surprise to the planning ministry, which had forecast growth of 6.7%. To make matters worse, the government's inflation forecast of 12% for this year has proved even more wildly optimistic. This is particularly bad news for the poor, Mr Chávez's main constituency. The price of food is rising faster than the overall index. According to the Centre for Documentation and Analysis (CENDA), a group linked to the trade unions, the cost of feeding a family of five rose by 2.4% in May and stands some 60% higher than the minimum wage, even though this was recently increased. For the first time in the past three years, the living standards of ordinary Venezuelans are declining.

After losing a referendum on constitutional change last December—Mr Chávez's first electoral defeat—the government has made efforts to tackle the sources of popular discontent, including food shortages. It has used its oil wealth to import more food. But as fast as one gap is plugged another appears. CENDA reports that staples such as black beans, rice, maize flour and meat were missing from the shelves of many shops in May. Butchers have staged protests, complaining that price controls oblige them to sell some cuts below cost. The government's consumer watchdog accuses them of hoarding and speculation, complaining that they are selling under the counter to restaurants at a higher price.

Officials rightly point out that the shortages arise partly because Venezuelans are consuming more. But they also reflect big economic imbalances. The government has channelled much of its oil wealth into handouts and subsidies, while its socialist policies have provided little incentive to increase production. Private investment has all but dried up. Businessmen have been scared by Mr Chávez's recent nationalisations of the cement and iron and steel industries, and some dairy companies. Most industries are producing “at the limit” of their capacity, admits Andrés Izarra, the information minister.

The president has tacitly recognised the problem. As the inflation rate climbed above 3% a month late last year, he silently applied the brakes: the government raised interest rates and slowed the rate of increase in public spending. It also managed to narrow the gap between the official exchange rate and the price of the dollar in the free market. It did so partly by stepping up the sale of bonds, which can be legally traded for dollars, but it helped that political tension subsided somewhat after the referendum.

The government's new-found appetite for austerity has strict limits. In November Mr Chávez faces regional elections which many Venezuelans will see as an unofficial referendum on his rule. He has made it clear that he will not cut social spending. There is little sign that the private sector will respond to Mr Chávez's appeals to help to build socialism. All this suggests that the battle against inflation will be hard. To wage it, the president this week named as his finance minister Alí Rodríguez, a veteran official who has close ties to Cuba, Venezuela's closest ally. Perhaps he has noticed that Cuba's communist government has recently concluded that private farming, rather than socialism, is the best way to feed the people.

Joe Horn's case to be heard by Grand Jury

Joe Horn's self defense shooting is about to be heard by the Harris County Grand Jury.  Good luck to Joe.

 

Grand jury could decide on Horn case this week, DA's office says

Life Hacker

I recently subscribed to the RSS feeds from a blog titled LifeHacker.  The blog gives great tips for reducing the time it takes to do everyday things.  From computer programs to tips and tricks in the real world, there's lots of good info at this site.

I thought I would share.

New Trend?

People have lost their minds… these individuals must be libs as they don’t take any responsibility for anything. 

 

Buy and bail, the newest trend in housing shenanigans

Today, June 11, 2008, 1 hour ago | Housing Wire staff

It turns out that prices have fallen enough in some housing markets that existing homeowners can finally afford that second home — and then promptly stop paying on the first. The Wall Street Journal gives us anecdotal evidence of the so-called “buy and bail,” in which we see borrowers trading a new mortgage for a defaulted one:

Next month, Michelle Augustine plans to walk away from her four-bedroom house in a Sacramento, Calif., subdivision and let the property fall into foreclosure. But before doing so, she hopes to lock in the purchase of another home nearby.

“I can find the same exact house as what I live in right now for half the price,” says Ms. Augustine, 44 years old, who runs a child-care service out of her home. She says she soon will be unable to afford her monthly payments, which will jump to $4,000 from $3,300 in August, and she doesn’t want to continue to own a home that is now worth $200,000 less than what she paid for it two years ago.

Nothing like admitting fraud publicly, we suppose. The WSJ notes that the practice isn’t yet widespread, but with agents and brokers on the case it likely won’t be long until everyone is doing it, right?

Sayeth the Journal:

In some cases, homeowners are coached through the buy-and-bail process by real-estate agents and brokers who see nothing wrong with it. Some blame the phenomenon in part on lenders’ unwillingness to cut deals or restructure loans made when home prices were inflated. “It’s just a business decision,” says Linda Caoili, a Sacramento real-estate agent who is working with Ms. Augustine and others who are considering walking away from their mortgages. “If you’re upside-down $250,000, why would you keep it? It just doesn’t make sense.”

Of course, what the Journal doesn’t say is that Caoili could give a rat’s you-know-what about the existing mortgage; she only cares about the commission she earns by putting the borrower into that other house, and making that next sale. From an agent’s perspective, it’s probably not much of a leap to go from pushing stated-income option ARMs with a straight face one day to telling a borrower to default — and buy! — on the next.

Lenders are taking steps to keep this from happening: the Journal notes that Fannie Mae is about to put policies in place that limit what a borrower can buy if they already own a residence; and IndyMac requires borrowers buying a second home to demonstrate income/resources to pay on both mortgages.

What’s really hilarious, with that in mind, is this little tidbit, buried in the article:

Realtors say the new guidelines could put further pressure on sales …

To which we can only say this: Production is dead! Long live production!