That's a politically effective gotcha but only if it is combined with Obama himself getting behind Hillary's proposal.  Because people care about the policy a lot more than they care about the politics, and if it's a good idea, Obama will not benefit by opposing it.

But if it's not done now, it will loom and continually destabalize all the economic sectors.  

After some reflection, and sweeping up bits of my brain, it occurs to me that this is also a clever way for McCain to neutralize some of the bleeding in PA that's going to happen when the Clintons stump for Obama here.

I don't really like the sound of this though.

its quite nice actually.

Some analysts have foolishly proposed house price support systems to end the fall. House prices supports makes no more sense than farm price supports and are considerably less workable. However, there is a better way to stop house prices from falling: bring them down.

If house prices can quickly be brought down to their trend levels, then prices can stabilize. This would allow for banks to resume normal lending in the mortgage market. If house prices stabilize at their trend level, it would also allow homeowners to make plans based on the true value of the equity in their home.

This rapid price reduction could be brought about through policy actions. The key factor is simply information. It is possible to produce rough estimates of the trend level of house prices based on past movements in house prices, rents, and long-term relationships between sale prices and rents. Dan Alpert, of Westwood Capital, used this information to calculate the extent to which house prices can be expected to fall in each of the 20 cities in the Case-Shiller house price index.    

This information can be publicized to quickly bring prices back down to their trend levels. For example, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke can use this information to highlight the problem of a continuing housing bubble in his testimonies before Congress and other public appearances.

Although I like HOLC, Mccain really is unstable

I think Baker has been saying any house price stabilization above the long term trend rates for houses is a bad idea and will necessarily incur some sort of price support, either through fixed mortgages, or artificially low mortgage rates.

And while I'm venting, please tell me why Obama is against a credit for health insurance, other than the obvious "I can't agree because its my opponents position".  Yes you health insurance will be taxed.  But he does not tell anyone the rest of the story and for some unknown reason McCain can't seem to explain it.  Its fairly simple - you have 3 individuals each paying in $10,000 in premiums but each is in a different tax bracket (33%, 25% and 0%).  Under current tax law each is allowed to exclude these payments from their wages if done thru an employer program or deduct it from taxable income either on the face of the return or thru itemized deductions.  The tax benefit of the exemption is $3,300, $2,500 and $0 respectively.  Now tax the premiums and give each a $5,000 credit.  The individual in the 33% bracket would net $1,700 ($5,000 credit less $3,300 in tax) the individual taxed at 25% would net $2,500, and the individual paying zero tax will take home $5,000 (or maybe little less if the inclusion actually puts them in a taxable position).  Democrats are usually against exemptions because they favor those in higher tax brackets.  Obama has promised more refundable credits than any candidate before him, yet he is against this one.  The only answer is that its political.  Which also sems to be the only reason why he is against any sort of HOLC.

This isn't really very hard, so why don't we get a grip and get behind Obama?

I'm worried about how this will play out.