I assume the administration thinks they're doing the right thing by pouring billions into the banks, but things seem to be getting worse for everyone else, don't they?

A registered nurse came close to losing her $1,550-a-month apartment on the Upper East Side after being let go from two jobs in three months. A woman found herself dipping into a 401(k) to keep her $3,375 unit in Peter Cooper Village after her husband was laid off in February from his six-figure marketing job. A father of two with an M.B.A. and a law degree owed $5,400 in back rent in Stuyvesant Town after he struggled to find steady work and lent money to his wife’s family.

Lawyers, judges and tenant advocates say the staggering economy has sent an increasing number of middle-class renters across New York City to the brink of eviction, straining the legal and financial services of city agencies and charities. Suddenly, residents of middle-class havens like Rego Park in Queens and Riverdale in the Bronx are crowding into the city’s already burdened housing courts, long known as poor people’s court.

Even some affluent people in high-end places are finding themselves facing off with landlords. One man, laid off by Merrill Lynch, was forced to move out of his $5,700 apartment in TriBeCa, owing $20,000 in back rent. Todd Nahins, a lawyer who represents owners of luxury residential buildings, has been busy negotiating payment plans for tenants in arrears.

“There’s definitely an uptick of people who were basically very good rent payers until the economic downturn,” Mr. Nahins said. “There’s so many of them. People who at one point had made money are now not earning enough to pay their rent.”

From the White House blog:

With the process of going through the budget line by line in full swing, the President uses his Weekly Address to give some examples, big and small, of how the Administration is working to cut costs and eliminate waste. The President also announces two new key appointments, Jeffrey Zients as Chief Performance Officer and Aneesh Chopra as Chief Technology Officer, who will be invaluable in streamlining the way government functions through efficiency and innovation.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

I know in the ideal Republican world, only the children of the wealthy should be able to attend college, but the rest of us are worried about the effect the economy has on everyone's else's educational options. Looks like there are good reasons to worry:

Facing fallen endowments and needier students, many colleges are looking more favorably on wealthier applicants as they make their admissions decisions this year.

Institutions that have pledged to admit students regardless of need are finding ways to increase the number of those who pay the full cost in ways that allow the colleges to maintain the claim of being need-blind — taking more students from the transfer or waiting lists, for instance, or admitting more foreign students who pay full tuition.

Private colleges that acknowledge taking financial status into account say they are even more aware of that factor this year.

“If you are a student of means or ability, or both, there has never been a better year,” said Robert A. Sevier, an enrollment consultant to colleges.

The trend does not mean colleges are cutting their financial aid budgets. In fact, most have increased those budgets this year, protecting that money even as they cut administrative salaries or require faculty members to take furloughs. But with more students applying for aid, and with those who need aid often needing more, institutions say they have to be mindful of how many scholarship students they can afford.

Colleges say they are not backing away from their desire to serve less affluent students; if anything, they say, taking more students who can afford to pay full price or close to it allows them to better afford those who cannot. But they say the inevitable result is that needier students will be shifted down to the less expensive and less prestigious institutions.

“There’s going to be a cascading of talented lower-income kids down the social hierarchy of American higher education, and some cascading up of affluent kids,” said Morton Owen Schapiro, the president of Williams College and an economist who studies higher education.

Bowtie Guy thought he was the only one man enough to criticize Jon Stewart in the media, but now his old boss is taking up the slack and going on the offensive, attacking Stewart for having the audacity to tell the truth about CNBC's coverage of the financial sector.

NBC Universal's CEO said this at the BusinessWeek media summit:

NBC Universal CEO went out of his way to blast Jon Stewart's ongoing dissection of CNBC's ludicrously amped-up coverage of the stock market train wreck, saying that "just because someone who mocks authority says something doesn't mean it's true." Of course, that's the exact definition of being out of touch: When everyone else is looking at your financial network and seeing a bunch of ratings-obsessed charlatans who, though they surely knew better, talked up a host of terminally ill companies that were about to collapse, you look at your financial network and tell a media conference that "CNBC is a spectacular organization that's done a tremendous job."

The next thing you know, Zucker will be saying Ben Silverman is doing a wonderful job of running NBC too.

What I found especially appalling about Zucker's remarks was his faux populism. Here's a guy who travels on a corporate jet, whose salary, bonuses and stock options are probably right up there with most of AIG's bonus babies (Zucker doesn't have to disclose his compensation, but his predecessor in the job, Robert Wright, earned $17.8 million in 2006), yet he has the nerve to act like he's in the same boat with the rest of us, telling the audience, "Everybody wants to point a finger -- I'm upset that my 401(k) isn't what it was too. ... But to suggest that the business media is responsible for what's going on now is absurd."

Buzzmachine has a good observation too:

The press didn’t cause us to go to war in Iraq, he said; a general did. The press missing the financial crisis didn’t cause it. “Both are absurd,” he said.

Really? I think that says that the press has no importance and no role in public policy. Doesn’t matter if we miss the story, he’s saying. It’s not our fault. Will he take no responsibility?

I'm confused. What is the function of the press then? Are they only supposed to hand out doughnuts to their favorite politicians during a major campaign? Is that their role?

They have been given certain freedoms so they can police the government, but Zucker is abdicating that right. We need investigative reporting immensely because of the need to uncover the Watergates in the Beltway. Without the press monitoring the system all hell could break loose. Oh, wait. it already did.

See also:

Moyers on the Neocons and William Kristol

Moyers and Russert and Cheney Oh, My!
Bill Moyers Rips MSM Complicity on "Real Time"
Moyers: Roger Ailes didn't want to "Scoop himself." WTF?
Are we heading towards a 1929-like economic crash?
Bill Moyers' Journal: Inside The White House's War on Terror

Market analysts - at least of the cable TV variety - seem to tiptoe around the obvious: if you don't cull the herd of insolvent banks and let the market bottom out, you won't be able to start the climb back up.

NEW YORK, Feb. 20 -- With the Dow Jones industrial average plunging past its lowest point since the financial crisis began, panicked investors are asking: How much uglier can it get?

Many market analysts and technicians armed with reams of historical data say that even though the Dow has given back all its gains -- and more -- from the five-year bull market that ended in 2007, it is unlikely the market has hit bottom.

Mark Arbeter, chief technical strategist at Standard & Poor's Equity Research, said the current market environment is showing few of the signs that have characterized previous lows -- high price volatility, high volumes of trading and even higher levels of fear.

"Bear market bottoms tend to be violent affairs," he said. "You sell hard, you rally hard, you go down hard and then you're off to the races. And that's not what were seeing right now. Until this week, the market was really drifting sideways."

And for all the jitteriness out there, Arbeter added, the options market, where investors trade contracts that bet on the future direction of the stock market, is not showing the fear that signals that true capitulation has arrived. Many market participants think capitulation -- when investors take their losses and get out of the market altogether -- must precede a major market recovery.

"We have not reached high enough levels of fear in the options market to suggest that this test of the lows is going to be successful," Arbeter said.

Yeah, we've all seen the strip mall and office vacancies growing. And despite the tone of this article, some people believe it will be worse than the residential crash:

Contractors, investors and developers are bracing for what could be the worst real estate crunch since the early 1990s, when the industry built a small city's worth of speculative office buildings that later went begging for tenants. Commercial property sales plunged 73% last year, according to Real Capital Analytics. Vacancy rates are rising, and hundreds of large properties are in default. The American Institute of Architects' billing index, a leading indicator of construction six months ahead, is at a record low. Unemployment in the construction industry is 15.3%, well above the average 7.2% jobless rate.

The 1990s crisis was sparked by federal tax breaks that encouraged overinvestment and overbuilding. This time around, the real estate frenzy was fueled by cheap credit, which allowed investors and developers to bid up prices of existing properties. But the economic fallout could be similar: rising bankruptcies and unemployment and slower economic growth at a time when the economy is already reeling from a historic housing depression.

"This is a rolling problem that's only going to get worse," says Jeffrey DeBoer, president of the Real Estate Roundtable, estimating that about $400 billion worth of commercial real estate mortgages will come due by the end of 2009. Investors and developers might have trouble refinancing many loans, due to tight credit and falling rents and property values.

"Businesses need to be able to access the credit market when their debt comes due and their business needs require. Right now, they're not able to," DeBoer says.

The Roundtable is part of an industrywide coalition that's pushing the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to create a special lending program to resuscitate the commercial mortgage-backed securities market. The industry says such a move would provide liquidity and restore confidence to a sector of the credit market that has essentially frozen. The Treasury Department and Fed have not issued a formal decision, but Treasury noted in November that a similar program aimed at auto, credit card and student loan lenders could be extended to include commercial mortgage-backed securities.

[...] Though the problems in the non-residential sector of the real estate market aren't likely to be nearly as calamitous as the housing market collapse, they could contribute to a deeper and longer recession. The non-residential real estate decline could shave about a third of a percentage point, or $30 billion, from U.S. economic growth in 2009, says Aaron Smith, senior economist at Moody's Economy.com.