If Santos has checked the historical record — and you can bet he has — he would rightly figure that Congress is the best place for him to lounge for the next two years. And maybe beyond. At the end of December, POLITICO’s Olivia Beavers reported that Santos had told New York party leaders that he wouldn’t seek reelection in 2024. But last Friday, he fended off calls for his resignation by indicating he might seek vindication by running again. And why shouldn’t he keep his seat or run again? The job pays $174,000 a year and with five years of federal employment comes a nice pension. Plus, a House seat allows him to boss all those staffers around. And don’t forget franking privileges!
In normal times, Santos’ gross résumé inflation and other lies would earn him a cold shoulder from all Republicans. But these are not normal times. Given the party’s slim majority, every vote counts, even a liar’s vote. Santos wisely barnacled himself to Speaker Kevin McCarthy as quickly as he could, voting for him on all 15 ballots in the speaker race, and his loyalty has earned him two congressional committee slots — Small Business and Science, Space, and Technology. Santos is said to have coveted finance and foreign policy assignments, but small matter. He can always claim on his résumé that he got those committees. As long as the Republican leadership can count on Santos to vote the party line, he remains a net legislative asset for them.
New York state Republicans have denounced Santos because he makes them look bad, but it’s a different matter in the House. So far, only a handful of Republican lawmakers have demanded his resignation because if he were to resign, his district could easily swing Democratic, diminishing the tiny Republican majority.
“I will NOT resign!” Santos tweeted a week ago. This stand is more practical than principled. As Ben Jacobs noted in Vox, clutching his seat might give him some plea-bargaining leverage if and when federal prosecutors come calling. (Copping a plea spared Vice President Spiro Agnew jail time in 1973.) Santos might figure that surrendering his seat in Congress will only earn him a quicker seat in prison. The question only Santos can answer right now is how hefty is his criminal liability? Might his crimes be so expansive and easily proved that the feds will decline to offer him any sort of deal?
In the short term, we’re stuck with Santos. Serving in Congress is the best job he’s ever had. The Republicans need him. And members of Congress can’t be recalled. But in the long term, he’s toast.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #George #Santos #Isnt
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
As New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern announces she won’t contest the next election, we take a look back at some of the most memorable moments of her time in office.
Jacinda Ardern resigns as prime minister of New Zealand
Jacinda Ardern’s first term as New Zealand’s prime minister – in pictures
Continue reading…
[ad_2]
#world #fell #love #Jacinda #Ardern #video
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Director General of Police, J&K, Dilbag Singh given additional charge of the Units/Battalions to six police officers.
News WhatsApp Group Links – Join Now
The following officers shall hold the additional charge of the Units/Battalions as shown against each including DD Powers, till the posts are filled up by the Government on substantive basis:
CHECK HERE ORDER COPY
CLICK ON THE BELOW PROVIDED LINKS TO FOLLOW KASHMIR NEWS ON:
OUR APPLICATION IS ALSO LIVE ON GOOGLE PLAY STORE, DOWNLOAD MOBILE APPLICATION
Govt Releases PDF File List Of State Land In Kashmir District – Search Your Name In The List
New MacBook Pro Coming: Apple Will Release New Laptops Equipped With ‘M2’
Apple is launching a new line of MacBook Pros next week as the tech giant continues to push hardware with its own custom processing chips. The MacBook Pro laptops will be available for pre-order on Monday, the company announced, and will launch on January 24. The MacBooks start at $1,999.
The laptops will feature Apple’s newest M2 Pro and M2 Max “systems on a chip,” which the company said will provide increased power and efficiency.
“MacBook Pro with Apple silicon has been a game changer, empowering pros to push the limits of their workflows while on the go and do things they never thought possible on a laptop,” said Greg Joswiak, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, in a statement Monday.
Apple faster M2 chips, powerful laptops
The Mac mini starts at $599, cheaper than the latest iPhone 14 series, and is available from Jan. 24. MacBook Pro 14-inch and 16-inch with the latest chips start at $1,999, compared with the $1,299 price tag of a 13-inch model fitted with the M2 chip.
Apple’s latest chips are upgrades to the M2 chip launched last year and a part of the company’s efforts to rely more on chips designed in-house after it moved away from using Intel’s technology in 2020 following 15 years of collaboration.
The M2 Pro has nearly 20% more transistors than the M1 Pro and double the amount in M2, helping programs like Adobe Photoshop run heavy workloads “faster than ever”, Apple said.
CLICK HERE TO:DOWNLOAD OUR MOBILE APPLICATION FOR LATEST UPDATES ON YOUR MOBILE PHONE
How fast are the new MacBooks?
The new processing chips offer a significant increase in performance compared to models of the MacBook Pro that run on Intel chips.
For example, the MacBook running on an M2 Pro chip can process images in Adobe Photoshop 80% faster than the fastest Intel-based MacBook, Apple said. It’s also 40% faster than MacBooks with the earlier M1 Pro chip.
The new MacBooks also support the latest Wi-Fi standard for faster wireless connectivity and an advanced HDMI port for 8K displays.
How much are the new MacBook Pros?
They are not cheap. The 14-inch model with the M2 Pro starts at $1,999, but shoot up quickly in cost depending on the chip, screen size and other factors.
For example, a MacBook Pro with a 16-inch screen, M2 Max chip and 1 terabyte of SSD storage costs $3,499. Add more SSD storage and unified memory support, and the MacBook sets you back $6,499.
(With Inputs From Agencies)
ALSO READ: JetBlue Flight Struck the Tail of Another Aircraft at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York
CLICK ON THE BELOW PROVIDED LINKS TO FOLLOW KASHMIR NEWS ON:
The conviction of PC David Carrick for 85 crimes against 12 women, whom he terrorised through violence, abuse, coercion and humiliation, has shaken the Metropolitan police and sent it into a new crisis.
Allegations against him date to before he joined the police in 2001, and despite multiple complaints against him as an officer, he was allowed to continue serving and received promotions within the force.
The Guardian’s Emine Sinmaz tells Nosheen Iqbal about how she spoke to one of Carrick’s victims who ultimately did not proceed as a witness in the case. She describes her relationship with the officer who became ever more possessive and controlling and eventually raped her.
The crime correspondent Vikram Dodd, a veteran of past police scandals, describes his astonishment at the crimes of Carrick and the way they have pitched the Met into a new crisis so soon after the conviction of a serving officer for the murder of Sarah Everard. A culture change is long overdue but it is far from clear how quickly it can be enacted.
Photograph: REX/Shutterstock
Support The Guardian
The Guardian is editorially independent.
And we want to keep our journalism open and accessible to all.
But we increasingly need our readers to fund our work.
Support The Guardian
[ad_2]
#David #Carrick #crisis #trust #British #policing #podcast
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
The committee’s decision to reject Hector LaSalle after a bruising confirmation hearing means that the full Senate will not consider her choice. The decision, which failed by one vote, is an extraordinary blow to Hochul as the six-month legislative session gets underway.
Hochul swiftly dismissed the committee’s integrity and authority and called for a full Senate vote. The fight pits the moderate governor against the Democratic majority in the Legislature and its allies who rallied against LaSalle, who would have been the state’s first Latino chief judge of the state Court of Appeals.
LaSalle’s opponents, despite his backing among Latino leaders and Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, were able to outflank Hochul, who has left open the possibility of suing to bring her pick to the Senate floor for a vote.
“While this was a thorough hearing, it was not a fair one, because the outcome was predetermined,” Hochul said in a statement. “Several senators stated how they were going to vote before the hearing even began — including those who were recently given seats on the newly expanded Judiciary Committee. While the Committee plays a role, we believe the Constitution requires action by the full Senate.”
The committee chair, Manhattan Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, said the judiciary’s nearly five hours of public questioning Wednesday fulfilled the review process, and he was incredulous Hochul wanted to stoke a brawl over the state constitution.
“I hope that litigation is not our future — it’s obviously the governor’s decision, but we have so much work to do in Albany. To be distracted by a lawsuit would be a travesty for the people of New York,” he said.
Ten Democrats on the 19-member panel voted against LaSalle, two voted for him and one, along with the committee’s six Republicans, voted to advance the nomination “without recommendation.”
But it was one vote short, a rare case of a vote in Albany failing to get approved. It could put Hochul in a weakened position heading into the six-month legislative session after expending her political capital on LaSalle over other potential candidates and after narrowly winning the election last November in the closest race in New York since 1994.
“I hope and I’m sure that few of us have time to extract revenge and so on,” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said about the decision and Hochul’s rejection. “We have work to do, and we have work to do on behalf of the people, and we never lose sight of that.”
Most of the votes had been all but decided prior to the hearing — the culmination of weeks of tension surrounding LaSalle’s ethnicity, record and relationship with the court’s status quo that has resulted in an intraparty clash exacerbated by Hochul’s fierce defense of her pick.
At the heart of discourse Wednesday was whether LaSalle’s ability to drive forth Democratic values could be determined by dissecting any number of some 5,000 cases included on his legal record, including a handful of decisions he had joined that invited labels from opponents such as “anti-abortion” and “anti-labor.”
LaSalle, who currently presides over the New York Supreme Court’s Second Department in Brooklyn, said that his positions have been misrepresented based on conclusions drawn from a small fraction of cases.
“When we talk about my record, I couldn’t agree with you more — we should look at the record, but I only ask that this body look at my entire record, not the record that certain advocates have chosen to look at,” he said.
“We can look at those — it’s entirely fair, I’d only ask that you look at the others and give those equal weight.”
Opposition to LaSalle’s nomination snowballed since Hochul chose him from a seven-member list in late December. It has reached such a fever pitch that Hochul raised eyebrows on Sunday by comparing the treatment of LaSalle to that of Martin Luther King Jr. during a speech in a Brooklyn church.
Hochul has pointed to LaSalle’s strong legal reputation, his intention to reinvigorate the state’s massive court system following pandemic-related delays, and the historic possibility of having the first Latino chief judge. Several Democratic senators and progressive advocacy groups had decried the more moderate pick as the wrong direction for the increasingly conservative-leaning top court, particularly due to his background as a former prosecutor.
Wednesday’s hearing was atypical amid normally quiet procedural committee votes — preceded by two opposing rallies from the primary groups organizing around the pick — The Court New York Deserves and Latinos for LaSalle. The demonstrations continued into the packed hearing room, with chants of “Hector, Hector” as LaSalle entered, forcing Hoylman-Sigal to pound the committee’s small, largely symbolic gavel.
“This isn’t going to be a roast, but it won’t be your bar mitzvah, either,” Hoylman-Sigal told LaSalle.
Hoylman-Sigal began the hearing suggesting that LaSalle’s rulings “lean toward the prosecution and against civil rights” and pointed to groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund that have announced opposition. He was also among a number of senators who expressed concern that LaSalle said he was proud to have run on Republican, Democrat, Working Families Party and Conservative party lines during judicial elections.
“As an LGBTQ person, the Conservative Party stands for everything I’m against, against my right to marry, against my ability to have kids, against transgender youth,” he said. “It’s hurtful.”
LaSalle, 54, sought to address the framing of several cases that have emerged in the discourse.
One was related to a crisis pregnancy center that limited subpoena access to their promotional materials for an investigation by the state attorney general.
LaSalle said that his agreement with the decision was not an indication he personally defends crisis pregnancy centers. But he did agree with the boundaries set on what prosecutors could obtain amid the investigation.
Another involved Communications Workers of America and a company’s ability to sue a union official as an individual.
LaSalle said the decision he supported was not new — it was the application of a necessary precedent set out decades earlier. He also drew attention to his background as “a working class kid, from Brentwood, New York” and said labor got him to his position today.
“So when people say I’m anti labor because of the decision in Cablevision, I believe that’s simply a mischaracterization intended to derail my nomination, but it’s certainly not an adequate characterization of who I am,” he said.
But though LaSalle expressed the nuances of the legal choices he’s made, he also stated: “I stand by every decision I signed on to.”
The hearing was an odd twist on a nominee from a Democratic governor —most of the committee’s Democrats hammered him on political and ideological positions, casting doubt on his ability to lead New York’s massive court system and to head a bench responsible for countering conservative decisions coming down from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Republicans, however, were effusive with their praise for a record they say proved he’d approach the role with fairness. Some members of the GOP have expressed no small amount of glee at the messaging — some of it dividing their colleagues in the majority party.
“You know, reading your decisions, and especially in listening to your opening statement, I thought for a moment I was in the wrong room. You do not come across as a right wing conservative nut,” Staten Island Republican Andrew Lanza said.
Lanza said while he doesn’t agree with Hochul often, he “can’t imagine her finding a more qualified nominee.”
The intensity of the public discourse has amounted to “character assassination,” said Bronx Sen. Luis Sepúlveda, one of the two Democrats who approved the nomination.
But both lawmakers and LaSalle said that has not been representative of conversations they’ve had privately. In the end, the committee’s decision was only a nod to the important implications of the nomination, Queens Sen. John Liu said, and “none of this is personal.”
“Everyone has treated me with respect and dignity,” LaSalle said. “The private conversations that I have had have not mirrored the public statements that have been made.”
[ad_2]
#Hochuls #chief #judge #pick #rejected #party #stunning #defeat
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The jubilation was tempered, somewhat, by Democrats on the Hill who expressed more apprehension about the posting.
“The English language runs out of adjectives to describe the debasement, cynical debasement of the whole process these appointments represent,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a senior Oversight panel member, said in an interview. “And it is, I think, a huge black mark on Kevin McCarthy.”
Another longtime Oversight panel member, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), warned that the GOP appointments were “frightening,” adding: “As someone who has been on this committee the entire time I’ve been in Congress, I am very concerned.”
But underlying Democrats’ worry was the same sense of schadenfreude about the committee’s GOP makeup that they showed as now-Speaker Kevin McCarthy struggled through 15 ballots to win his post. With House GOP leaders set to go on offense over Biden world’s handling of classified documents, the Oversight seats handed to some of their biggest ongoing headaches gave Biden world a clear confidence boost.
“[W]ith these members joining the Oversight Committee,” White House oversight spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement, “it appears that House Republicans may be setting the stage for divorced-from-reality political stunts, instead of engaging in bipartisan work on behalf of the American people.”
The Oversight panel is where many of the most explosive political battles engulfing an opposition White House are waged. They are tasked with probing an administration, exposing potential malfeasance — and may well end up setting the campaign agenda for the rest of the party to follow.
They can knock a White House off its bearings: from the Obama administration’s Solyndra headaches to the Trump administration’s ongoing struggle over the former president’s financial documents.
GOP lawmakers insist they have ample fodder to do the same with Biden, pointing to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan to Biden family-linked business entanglements and name-trading involving the president’s son Hunter.
Indeed, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) offered no hint of worry about his members, telling POLITICO that he is “excited about” the roster. “I think it’s full of quality members, who are passionate about rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.”
Yet Greene and Gosar, booted by Democrats from previous committee assignments because of violent rhetoric aimed at colleagues, were also among the lawmakers most closely associated with Donald Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election. Both also spoke at a conference hosted by white nationalist Nick Fuentes’ America First PAC.
Another incoming Oversight panel member, House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-Pa.), was a central figure in Trump’s push to contest his loss to Biden. Perry’s phone was seized by the FBI last year, and he refused to comply with a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.
Democrats haven’t yet named their members to the top House investigative committees, but they’re already confident the Republican-led panels will self-destruct.
“The Republicans have brought the QAnon caucus to the Oversight Committee, and you can expect them to run with the most ludicrous conspiracy theories one can ever imagine,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.). “And I think our job is very simple, which is to make sure that we ground our work and any of these investigations in reality.”
Goldman, who played a prominent role in the House’s first impeachment inquiry against Trump, predicted Republicans would pay a political price for empowering the fringe of their conference: “I don’t think that any moderate Republican is going to win reelection because of an investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop.”
A spokesperson for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the panel, declined to comment.
One Biden administration official involved in planning for possible investigations cautioned that the members were “extreme and crazy, yes, and easy to dunk on in the media,” but said “they’re also dangerous.”
“We are clear eyed about the kind of scorched earth tactics and mud fighting they want to engage in,” the official said. “We are going to follow the law and the rules of the game, and we won’t shy away from calling them out for flagrantly assaulting norms, order and facts themselves.”
Both the Oversight and Judiciary committees have long contained some of the House’s fiercest partisans on both sides of the aisle, many of whom hail from safe congressional districts. The committees have sweeping investigative authority but often take on polarizing topics that members from swing districts tend to eschew.
Notably, McCarthy, under pressure from other conference conservatives, established a new investigative body — a “select subcommittee” housed within the Judiciary Committee that’s expected to gobble up some of the most politically potent future GOP probes.
This new panel — ostensibly to investigate “weaponization” of the government will mostly be guided by Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus co-founder who has become a trusted McCarthy ally. Democrats are privately betting that the select subcommittee’s broad scope — the coronavirus, the Justice Department, the Department of Education and the FBI are all among the GOP’s stated areas of interest — will ultimately spark “blowback” in a conference where some moderates still feel burned by a lackluster midterm election.
And while Jordan is respected within the GOP conference, sitting at the center of every Trump-related congressional probe since 2017, he brings his own political baggage; like Perry, he refused to comply with a Jan. 6 committee subpoena. One House Democratic aide, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said the Ohio Republican’s leadership of the panel would only help Democratic efforts to “discredit” it.
Meanwhile, some GOP members privately acknowledged the pitfalls of putting controversy-baiting members on investigative panels. But they said Jordan and Comer are respected enough within the conference to keep wayward members in line. And they also remarked on the entertainment value of the committees, noting that it’d be interesting to see members of the progressive “Squad” — who are expected to rejoin the Oversight Committee — go toe-to-toe with members like Boebert and Greene.
Some GOP members also brushed off Democrats’ cries of “extremism” by noting that they sounded similar alarms during House GOP-led probes in 2018 into the FBI’s launch of the investigation into links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. While many of rank-and-file Republicans’ most extreme claims fell apart, the party still felt vindicated by an inspector general’s scathing report that found the FBI misused its surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser.
Still, the presence of Greene, Gosar, Boebert and Perry, on the oversight panel has already allowed the White House and its allies to go on the attack.
David Brock, a Democratic activist behind the Facts First group that is helping lead a counteroffensive to the House GOP investigations, called the Oversight appointments “the clear culmination of the corrupt bargain” McCarthy struck with the conservative members that he went on to describe as “the core group behind every conspiracy theory and lie.”
“This collective group has the credibility of a sentient My Pillow commercial,” Brock said.
Eric Schultz, a top White House spokesman under former President Barack Obama, said they found over the course of the administration that the most effective and challenging Oversight members to deal with “were the ones who take their jobs seriously and don’t look for attention.”
“The more unserious people performing congressional oversight the easier this is going to be for the [Biden] administration. And in that regard I think the White House hit the jackpot. This is a crowd that will make [former House Oversight chair] Darrell Issa look intellectual.”
Olivia Beavers and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Biden #world #giddy #MTG #Gosar #Boebert #Oversight
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Trump’s best argument is that his policies were better than Biden’s. Biden’s best argument is that he’s not Trump.
It’s the weirdest, and most dispiriting, symbiotic relationship in politics. It’s the career politician soaked in conventional politics versus the upstart developer with zero respect for rules. The establishmentarian versus the populist. Boring versus erratic. And … unpopular versus unpopular, as well as, now that you mention it, old versus old.
If Biden stepped aside, Trump might feel a little less driven to run, whereas if Trump declined to run, Democrats would have to be a lot more nervous about how Biden would match up against a younger, less toxic GOP opponent.
As it is, the weakness of each is a motivator and prop for the other.
Just consider the latest news: It’s probably a good rule of thumb not to run a presidential candidate who’s under federal investigation for mishandling classified documents.
But does that rule still hold when your candidate could well be running against another candidate also under federal investigation for mishandling classified documents?
These are the imponderables that a potential Biden-Trump rematch presents.
Both can point fingers at the other for his respective lapses in storing classified documents, and try to argue, in effect, “Hey, your special-counsel investigation is much worse than my special-counsel investigation.”
Trump tucked into this argument in his characteristic fashion. In a Truth Social post, he mocked Biden for having classified documents “on the damp floor” of his “flimsy, unlocked, and unsecured” garage, whereas Mar-a-Lago is “a highly secured facility, with Security Cameras all over the place.” (Of course, Biden famously insisted that his garage was locked — he has a classic Corvette to protect, after all).
Biden’s team and allies have made the opposite case that, in contrast to Trump, his mistakes were inadvertent and immediately reported to authorities who could take the appropriate steps, whereas Trump resisted returning the files for months.
Regardless of the merits, there’s no doubt that Biden’s possession of classified documents materially assists Trump in his case; it might save him from indictment.
By the same token, Trump’s possession of classified documents materially assists Biden in his case; the discovery of the documents in Biden’s various unsecure locations may be a fiasco, but not one as drawn-out and legally fraught as the Mar-a-Lago drama.
It’s a little like both parties running candidates in the 1972 campaign who had authorized break-ins, or in a 1980 campaign who had presided over double-digit inflation.
Biden can lean on Trump in a similar fashion on all sort of other matters. Biden hasn’t lived up to his billing as a normal president, but the most prominent Republican alternative is dining with antisemites and musing about suspending the Constitution. Biden is a gaffe machine, but so is his adversary. Biden would be 82 years old if inaugurated in 2025; Trump would be 78.
The midterms were proof of concept for the proposition that Biden can use Trump and a Trumpified Republican Party to get the voting public to tolerate or look beyond his own failings. This is a playbook that would be much more difficult to run against Ron DeSantis or other potential Republican nominees.
Now, it’s entirely possible that the second season of Trump versus Biden never makes it to production. Despite all signs indicating that he wants to run again, Biden might pull up short because he doesn’t feel up for it. For his part, Trump has a significant chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet it isn’t a gimme, and it shouldn’t help him that Biden and the Democrats so obviously want to run against him, just as they wanted to run against so many of his acolytes last November.
If the prospect of returning to 2020 is unappealing, look on the bright side: We never really left.
Trump has never let us forget that he lost to Biden (although he prefers to refer to it as getting the election stolen from him), while Biden has never let us forget that Trump is waiting in the wings.
Despite their enmity, both men want and need each other politically, whether that’s what the country is interested in or deserves or not.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #Codependency #Biden #Trump
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The industry is bracing for “some pretty intense regulation,” said Jerry Howard, CEO of the National Association of Home Builders, whose members include landlords. “They need to be very cautious about what they’re doing,” said Howard, who was one of a handful of industry representatives at a November White House meeting on tenant protections. “There’s a real chance of creating a problem that doesn’t exist.”
With a possible recession looming, the Biden administration will be looking for ways to provide relief to cash-strapped Americans suffering from a higher cost of living. Since the U.S. House is now under Republican control, the kind of sweeping economic legislation enacted during the last two years is off the table.
Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are leaning on the administration to go big by curbing rent increases at millions of units in properties with government-backed mortgages – a long-shot move the White House is not seriously weighing, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.
“People can’t afford to live,” said Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who spearheaded a letter last week with Warren calling on President Joe Biden to issue an executive action limiting rent hikes in properties backed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled mortgage financiers. “We want to push the president as far as possible to lighten the burden of rent on everyday people.”
Democrats want the administration to enact new restrictions on rent hikes and punish landlords they accuse of price-gouging — “not just principles, not just guidelines, but what can the president do through executive action to lighten the burden on people and put more money in their pockets,” Bowman said in an interview.
The White House declined to comment on the specifics of potential new regulations, pointing to a statement it released last week in response to the letter from Democrats.
“We are exploring a broad set of administrative actions that further our commitment to ensuring a fair and affordable market for renters across the nation,” spokesperson Robyn Patterson said. “We look forward to continuing to work with lawmakers to strengthen tenant protections and improve rental affordability.”
While rent is still driving up overall inflation — thanks in part to a data lag in the official inflation gauge — the national median rent has fallen for four straight months, according to the latest data from Apartment List. New lease demand plummeted in the second half of 2022, when the net demand for apartments fell into negative territory for the first time since 2009, according to an analysis by RealPage Market Analytics.
“Complicating this process isn’t good at any time in the market cycle,” said Greg Brown, senior vice president of government affairs at the National Apartment Association. “But we’re in the fourth straight month of rent declines. I think things are adjusting again, so it does raise the question, are they responding to a situation of three to four months ago, not what is currently happening or will be happening in the near future?”
The association and 10 other industry groups urged Biden to resist pressure to lay new federal requirements on top of existing regulations and said that doing so would “further exacerbate affordability challenges,” in a letter last month.
Even as demand eases, the market is about to see a surge in supply – portending additional price cuts. More apartment units are currently under construction than at any point since 1970.
“A lot of rental supply is going to be completing in 2023 — we’re going to see more completions than we have in 40-plus years,” said Jay Parsons, chief economist at RealPage, a property management software provider. “The balance of power really has shifted toward renters — they’re going to have more options, more competitive pricing and better deals.”
Bowman and tenant advocates argue that modest declines in rents – the national median fell 0.8 percent in December – barely make a dent in tenants’ expenses after the eye-popping gains of the last few years.
Even after falling from its July peak, the median asking price in November was still 20.9 percent higher than it was at the same time in 2019, before the pandemic struck, according to the latest monthly rent report from Realtor.com. About 53 percent of tenants said their rent had increased by more than $100 per month over the last year, according to the latest Household Pulse survey by the Census Bureau.
Rent was increasing even before Covid, Bowman said, adding that many of his constituents spend over half their income on housing.
“The cooling effect in the market isn’t meaningfully changing conditions for tenants,” said Tara Raghuveer, director of the Homes Guarantee campaign at People’s Action. Raghuveer also attended the November White House meeting.
“The rent is still too damn high,” she said.
[ad_2]
#White #House #prepares #tenant #protections #alarming #housing #industry
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )