This week, we will finish our series on the housing crisis and why it might get worse before it gets better. Included in our series will be information about how the Federal Housing Authority itself could be in trouble.

Toward the end of the week, we’ll provide some good news about when and why the housing market might start to turn around.

So check in each day this week as we tackle the housing crisis.

Here is how bad the housing market has become: bad news is now treated as good news.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/112509dnbuscaseshiller.c4f033.html

Home prices in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are down 1.2 percent from last year. Yet because the drop wasn’t bigger than that, it’s being treated as good news. It’s not.

“We have seen broad improvement in home prices for most of the past six months,” Standard & Poor’s David M. Blitzer said Tuesday in the report. “However the gains in the most recent month are more modest than during the seasonally strong summer months.”

Pardon me if I don’t get excited about more bad news about the economy. I’ll contain my enthusiasm until housing values actually go up, not down.

This week, we are continuing our blog series on the housing crisis facing America.

Today, we are focusing on another shocking statistic: vacancy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704538404574542021776119410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A huge number of houses are sitting empty. Historically, economic recoveries have been accompanied by strong housing numbers. But our vacancy number shows that we don’t have a healthy housing sector.

As the article notes:

“In the third quarter, about 14.2 million housing units, or a record 10.9% of all housing units, were vacant year-round.

The homeowner vacancy rate, measuring the percentage of owned units either empty or for sale, was 2.6%, near a high. Homeowner vacancy rates have averaged 1.4% in past recoveries from steep housing declines.”

So with so many empty houses, the talk from Washington about an economic recovery appears to be empty rhetoric.

Here is more proof that the housing crisis is not yet over: housing starts just reached a new low.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802028.html

In other words, the housing market isn’t back because new houses aren’t being built. As the article notes:

“Housing starts fell 10.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 529,000 in October, according to Commerce Department data. Analysts were expecting an increase. Housing starts were down 30.7 percent compared with the same period a year ago.”

In my business, when your product is down 30.7 percent from this time last year, you are not in a recovery. In fact, in all likelihood, things are going to get worse before they get better. And I think that’s exactly what’s about to happen in the housing market.

So is the housing market back? I don’t think so. It turns out, more people are falling behind on their mortgages than they were a year ago:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091117/D9C18RSG4.html

As the article notes:

“For the three months ended Sept. 30, 6.25 percent of U.S. mortgage loans were 60 or more days past due, according to credit reporting agency TransUnion. That’s up 58 percent from 3.96 percent a year ago.”

And as we discussed in yesterday’s blog, the housing market is connected to other parts of the economy:

“Two things must get better before mortgage delinquency rates start reversing themselves, he said: home values and unemployment. ‘Until we see improvement in both of those areas, it’s possible that it will take longer for delinquency to improve,’ Guarrera [vice president of TransUnion's financial services division] said.”

So with unemployment at its highest level since 1983, don’t look for the housing market to pick up any time soon.

So the housing market is back, right? Not so fast.

Although recent news reports are hyping up some moderately positive housing data, one economic trend is often tied to other economic trends. So what does the rest of the economy look like?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125837665919850337.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

As the article notes: “U.S. retail sales increased 1.4% in October, above the 0.9% rise projected by Wall Street. The jump came on rebounding demand for cars, a sign the economy kept recovering despite climbing unemployment. Aside from automobiles in October, other sales rose just 0.2%.”

In other words, when you factor out cars, sales for other products were almost zero. And if folks aren’t buying inexpensive products, they likely won’t be buying expensive products like houses.

So don’t believe the hype. The housing “recovery” has not yet begun.

This week on our blog, we’ll be taking a look at the housing market. The media seems to think that it’s back. But I’m not so sure.

We’ll take a look at the numbers and compare them to last year. We’ll also look at the broader economic context to see if the conditions have improved enough to encourage consumers to buy homes.

So check back each day this week and to see if the housing market is really back in business.

Today we conclude our series on health care with a look at some ideas that Congress isn’t considering–the health care ideas that would work.

First, to reform health care, Congress could supersede the state laws that mandate that hundreds of medical procedures be covered by insurance plans. I don’t need acupuncture in my plan. But many states require this and other procedures be covered. As a result, the insurance companies pass the cost onto us. Let’s have Congress pass a law that says you can get a basic benefits plan without all the extras. That would save lots of money.

Second, Congress should allow plans to compete across state lines. Right now, a plan in Texas can’t compete with a plan in California. But when the market is allowed to work and plans are forced to compete with each other for customers in different states, they have to be competitive on price.

Third, we need to move the health tax benefit from the company to the employee. Right now, if you get health insurance through a big company, that company can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars. But if you buy the insurance yourself as an individual, you pay with after-tax dollars. This creates an unfair advantage for corporations and an unfair burden for individuals and families.

If Congress would enact these three stops, health care costs would come down. Unfortunately, Congress is not considering these three steps. And I fear health care costs are going to go up.

Here is all you need to know about the Democrats’ health care plan:

Earlier this year, a group of House Republicans tried to pass an amendment that would make anyone who voted for the government-run health insurance option have to sign up for the government-run health insurance option. The idea was to make Democrats practice what they preach.

Not surprisingly, the Democrats wanted no part of that.

But if a government-run health care plan is such a good idea, then why don’t Democrats want to try it out for themselves?

Actually, we already have a government-run health care plan and we know how well it works. It’s called Medicare and it’s going broke in about seven years.

Sounds like government-run health care is a bad prescription.

Mark Warner is not a typical Democratic senator. He’s a smart businessman who made millions of dollars in the high tech industry before entering politics. He knows how to build and market a product. And what does he say about the Obama administration’s health care plan? He thinks it wasn’t packaged very well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/

As Warner puts it:

“I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade. Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate.”

Warner is right. So the question is: why didn’t the administration focus the issue this way? Why has the president spent so much time trying to create a government-run option?

The reason is because the president decided to pursue an ideological version of health care reform that empowered Washington bureaucrats by building a whole new federal government program for health care. Not only is that not needed, it won’t work. And it’s the wrong focus.

I only wish there were more Mark Warners in the Democratic Party.

There has been a lot of talk about what the House Democrats’ health care bill does.

It creates a government-run health insurance option.

It raises taxes on wealthy Americans.

It requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

And prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

But here’s something it doesn’t do: it doesn’t factor in the rising cost of health care. When you hear that the House bill will cost $1.2 trillion, remember that this number does not include health care inflation. And we all know that health care has gone up about 10% a year for many years now. So the real cost of the House bill is likely to be closer to $3 trillion.

So the House Democrats bill does a lot of bad things; but it also doesn’t do the one good thing it was supposed to do: control costs. Of course, only the market can control costs. But the House Democrats weren’t interested in that.

This week we’ll be focusing on the number one issue in Washington: health care.

This past weekend, the House of Representatives passed a bill that will have a terrible impact on health care in this country. Now the bill moves to the Senate.

This week, I’ll be blogging about why this bill is bad, what it will mean for your insurance and how a real health care reform bill might look.

So log on each day this week!

Earlier this week, I cited a study that suggested that the October unemployment numbers would be bad. Today, the Labor Department released the officials numbers. And I was wrong: they’re not bad, they’re awful.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125750615497133489.html

As the article notes:

“The unemployment rate, calculated using a survey of households as opposed to companies, rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2%, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast an increase to 9.9%.”

In other words, the unemployment rate is higher than it’s been in 25 years, and that means the White House needs to put down the champaign bottles and realize there is no economic recovery.

“The unemployment figures for October strengthen the Federal Reserve’s view that interest rates should remain at record lows to bolster a fragile recovery.”

I hate to end the week on a down note.  But we have to face the problem before we can solve it.

Here is some more news that shows the economic recovery isn’t much of a recovery at all.

The Federal Reserve’s main job is to guard against inflation or recession. To guard against inflation, the Fed raises interest rates. It does this when the economy is showing signs of roaring into overdrive and needs to be cooled down. So what did the Fed do this week? It kept interest rates at the same rate they have been.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7IVU8zGXpMZbQ1Z_JpBWhaNkUNA

As the article notes:

“The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee, headed by Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, said that ‘although economic activity is likely to remain weak for a time,’ its policy actions would support the recovery.”

You probably heard in the news that the Fed kept the interest rates low. But what you might not have caught was the phrase, “economic activity is likely to remain weak….” In other words, the Fed kept interest rates low not because the economy is going well, but because it’s not.

So where is this economic recovery we keep hearing about it? It doesn’t exist.

Today we continue our series on why the economy hasn’t recovered. And again, I want to point to out some stats that the media are not telling you about.

For example, did you realize that the economy LOST jobs in October? Check out this research from a highly respected firm:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS109610+04-Nov-2009+PRN20091104

TrimTabs estimates that we lost 284,000 jobs in October. How is the Obama administration managing to spin this as good news? Well, we lost 358,000 jobs in September. So, to Democrats in Washington, that’s improvement. We’re not bleeding to death as fast as we were a month ago!

But for the 284,000 people who lost jobs in October, there is no economic recovery.

Today we get into our new blog series on why the economic “recovery” is not as great as the Obama administration is telling us. One example of this is the much heralded news about the Ford Motor Co.:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ford-econ3-2009nov03,0,2381115.story

Here’s what’s interesting about the Ford story: yes, the company reported earnings and even has plans to build more cars. However, notice one key fact:

“But Ford’s strengthening financials underscore the major weakness plaguing the nascent economic recovery. Ford is gearing up to build more vehicles in the U.S. but has no plans to hire more workers to do it.”

That last line should give everyone pause. The GDP may be increasing; but new jobs are not being created. And as long as the unemployment rate remains near 10%, it’s ridiculous for people to declare the recession over. Economic growth means jobs. And until we have jobs, we don’t have economic growth.

Last week we heard the Obama administration essentially announce the recession is over. This week, I’m going to show you why it’s not. And unlike the folks in Washington, I’m going to use facts.

Each day this week, I’ll point to an interesting fact that you probably haven’t read about it that shows that certain key indicators suggest we aren’t out of the woods yet.

So check in each day this week. And prepare yourselves because we’ve got a ways to go before the economy recovers.