WASHINGTON – In response to the President’s latest proposal to raise taxes on job creators, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan issued the following statement: “The President’s partisan speech and misguided proposals are disappointing, but not surprising. Having overseen an unprecedented surge in government spending – from his failed stimulus law, to the creation of new trillion-dollar health entitlements, to double-digit percentage increases in the budgets of many federal agencies – the President has finally admitted that he plans to send the bill for Washington’s reckless spending straight to American businesses and families. A $1.6 trillion tax hike on job creators is never a good idea. But taking more money from private savers and investors, and giving it to the same government bureaucrats who brought us the Solyndra debacle, is an even worse idea – especially in a weak economy. "Unfortunately, none of the President’s proposals this year – from his to his , to his recommendations today – offers a credible plan to lift our crushing burden of debt while restoring economic growth. Instead of renewed prosperity, the President has offered us a plan for shared scarcity. The nation deserves better.” For the latest from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: To learn more:

Whatever option it chooses, the market is watching and can be counted on to react Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke must yearn for a time when he can reside over a boring, uneventful monetary policy meeting. Unfortunately for the nation's top central banker, he won't get that sort of meeting this week. With unemployment stuck above 9% and job growth struggling, many want to see more aggressive action from the Fed. And the market expects it. What action might the monetary policy committee take this week? More Stimulus What would Wall Street really love to see? All of these stimulus-without-stimulus tactics might help nudge the economy in the right direction. But some additional asset purchases would be the Fed's most aggressive option. An additional round of quantitative easing would have the most dramatic effect on interest rates. But here's the problem: not everyone on the Fed's committee is convinced that additional stimulus is a good idea. as being on the right course. Others worry that inflation is already at the Fed's target rate -- and additional stimulus could send it too high. So this is probably not the most likely action the Fed would take at this time. An Inflation Target We have heard Bernanke and others suggest that the Fed could . Both hawks and doves like this idea, but each group likes it for totally different reasons. Hawks think a target would force the Fed to concentrate on price stability and put it ahead of stimulus. Doves, however, realize that the target actually provides the Fed even more flexibility to affect a weak economy: the target is meant to assure investors that even if inflation is elevated for a short period, eventually the Fed will move it lower to maintain its target. If you saw additional stimulus, then you might also see a target. It would serve as a way for the Fed to say, "Yes, we're taking some potentially inflationary measures, but don't worry about prices because here's where we intend...

Many REALTORS® have designations in the field to help them stand apart from their colleagues. There are 17 designations in the field of real estate and 36 percent of members hold at least one designation. The most common designation is the Graduate REALTOR Institute (GRI) – 21 percent of members hold this designation. The Accredited Buyer Representative (ABR) and Certified Residential Specialist (CRS) are also common designations. Income differs among those who have a designation and those who do not. Those with at least one designation had a median gross annual income in 2010 of $49,300. Those who did not have a designation had a median gross annual income in 2010 of $26,900. For more information on the Member Profile, .

Look, this is really simple stuff : As I discussed yesterday on , we can easily prevent the next credit crisis caused by a TBTF banks (and the rogue traders they employ), we need to take 10 EZ steps: 1. Depression era Glass Steagall legislation needs to be restored (it was repealed in 1998). Separating FDIC deposit banks with much riskier Wall Street iBanks and speculators is imperative. 2. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 needs to be repealed, (Those opposed to this repeal should be deported). 3. Rating agencies need to have their official SEC charters revoked. If they want to sell ratings, they need to do so in the marketplace, not by regulatory mandate. 4. The SEC issued “ Bear Stearns exemption” — replacing the 1975 Net Capitalization Rule ’s 12 to 1 leverage limit to with essentially unlimited leverage — needs to be legislatively revoked, and the old rule officially reinstated. 5. The Depository Bank Reserve Rules that have whittled away need to be restored to decades ago levels. Basel 3 does not go far enough. And Federally Pre-emption of States anti-predatory lending laws must be revoked. 6. The Federal Reserve must focus on Employment and Inflation — not backstopping speculators. 7. Nonbank mortgage underwriters (i.e., Subprime lenders) need to be subjected to same comprehensive federal supervision as other banks. Traditional credit standards need to be applied. 8. Mortgage underwriting standards must revert to pre-2000 standards, including verifying income, payment history, and credit scores, Loan to value (LTV). And Automated underwriting (AU) systems need to be revamped or removed. 9. “Innovative” mortgage products — 2/28 ARMs, I/O s, Neg Ams — need to have stronger restrictions on them 10. Clawbacks of corporate bonuses AND stock sales paid for transactions that eventually turn out to be false, temporary, or losing positions (think subprime or CDO underwriting) must be the law of the land. This includes sales people, trading desks and executives...

Getty Images A from economists at the International Monetary Fund finds that counties that had higher shares of mortgages sold by lightly regulated independent lenders also had higher foreclosure rates, a finding that suggests lax regulation of mortgage lending may have fueled the housing bubble. The paper uses econometric analyses to show how these non-bank, independent originators contributed to riskier lending at a disproportionate rate relative to more-heavily regulated banks. “The market share of these independents as of 2005 is a strong predictor of the increase in foreclosure rates between 2005 and 2007,” write IMF economists Jihad C. Dagher and Ning Fu. The findings, of course, don’t absolve banks. Instead, they argue that mortgage brokers and non-bank originators, such as Ameriquest, New Century, and WMC Mortgage, “contributed disproportionately” to the credit bubble. (Consumer advocates have also criticized bank regulators for failing to do anything to stem a deterioration in mortgage lending and for preempting more aggressive efforts by states to head off risky practices.) The research suggests that deregulation played a significant role in fueling the mortgage boom and bust. It takes data on foreclosures, home prices, and the market share of independent lenders to make a series of findings: Faster growth: During the 2003 to 2005 period, when the mortgage bubble inflated rapidly, credit growth by independent lenders was around 23% higher than that of banks. Independents tended to gain market share most in areas where they had less of a presence in the past. Weaker standards: Because independents were less tightly regulated and supervised than bank counterparts, they faced fewer lending constraints and gained market share “by originating increasingly risky loans,” the authors write. “The expansion of independent lenders came at the cost of fast deteriorating lending standards.” Expansion in bubble zones: These non-bank originators “expanded relatively faster...