Re “increasing supplier diversity”:  Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract?  It’s fine to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex.  But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either—whether it’s labeled a “set-aside,“ a “quota,“ or a “goal,“ since they all end up amounting to the same thing.  Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it’s almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and this model brief: http://community.pacificlegal.org/Page.aspx?pid=1342 ).  Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.

Negative Housing Equity is Destroying Consumer Confidence and Severely Undermining the U.S. Economic Recovery

Negative home equity for America’s Homeowners has become a national economic crisis. Nationwide, homeowners are chained to their homes unable to sell due to the shackles of negative equity. This lack of mobility comes at a cost to society at a time when the public’s need to relocate is at its greatest. Industry needs labor mobility to balance workforce requirements, labor needs mobility to find and create job opportunities, families need it to consolidate households in order to care for aging relatives, and others simply to downsize into homes that they can manage and afford.

Banks are resistant to negotiate short sale settlements for the fear that the losses on these mortgages will spiral out of control and bring the banks to their knees. Many borrowers are choosing to strategically default in an effort to break the chains of negative equity in order to get on with their lives.

Negative equity, short sales and foreclosures have become a lose-lose situation for America’s taxpayers, homeowners and lenders. The Federal Government needs to encourage and allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Banks to offer Negative Equity Carryovers. Negative Equity Carryovers would not be paid with taxpayer money. Quite the opposite, Carryovers would substantially reduce taxpayer losses now being incurred through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts.

If a homeowner owes more money than their home is worth, a Negative Equity Carryover would allow the homeowner to carry forward the negative equity to a subsequent property purchase- a property better suited to their current economic, employment or lifestyle needs. The key to the Model is that negative equity would be 100% PORTABLE. This would free Americans to re-align their household expenses, allow needed mobility to secure new employment opportunities and greatly encouraging economic activity. If so granted by legislation, negative equity could also be slowly extinguished for homeowners over a longer time frame reducing the need for immediate Treasury infusions into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as is now the case to cover current short sale and foreclosure expenses.

The “Negative Equity Carryover Model” proposes that negative equity be carried forward to a subsequent property purchase or as a personal loan to the homeowner after the property sale. Homeowners and banks won’t need to negotiate the loss of equity as is currently being done through short sales and foreclosures. Negative equity would cease to be an immediate hardship for the Taxpayer, Homeowner and Lender. The Model suggests that rather than write the loss off at time of sale through a short sale or foreclosure, the negative equity can be carried into the future as an independent debt or lien and slowly forgiven over an amortized timeframe. The homeowner’s credit would be saved and we as a nation could avoid the wholesale destruction and lockout of a future homeownership class due to damaged credit.

Lenders could amortize the negative equity over years while still maintaining a lien position with homeowners just in case equity returned as market values began to increase.

Authored by Gil Kerbashian Chief Market Analyst RealestateloanS.com