Slipped Through The Cracks -- Federal Rent Control

1. 79

   Sharlee01posted 14 months ago

   Democrats are trying to stick their fingers in another pie...   Seeds of socialism?
   
   White House Source --    FACT SHEET:  Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Protect Renters and Promote Rental Affordability
   https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … rdability/
   
   This new brainstorm is being rolled out by progressive Democrats, asking Biden to direct different agencies, including the FTC, to limit rent increases. While rent control is common in some cities, there has never been federal residential rent control.
   
   It is being reported Nearly 50 progressive lawmakers, including Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), sent a letter to Biden earlier this month urging the president to take executive action to protect tenants from rising rents.
   
   "In the absence of robust investments in fair and affordable housing, it is clear that additional timely executive action is needed to address the urgent issue of historically high rental costs and housing instability," the lawmakers wrote. "…We urge your Administration to pursue all possible strategies to end corporate price gouging in the real estate sector."
   
   "In the face of sky-high rents, President Joe Biden is rolling out a new set of principles the White House is calling a "Renters Bill of Rights" in an effort to improve rent affordability and protections for tenants.
   
   The president is directing the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to examine limits on rent increases for future investments and actions promoting renter protections. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have been tapped to root out practices that unfairly prevent applicants and tenants from accessing or staying in housing.
   
   This rollout comes as progressive Democrats have asked Biden to direct different agencies, including the FTC, to limit rent increases. While rent control is common in some cities, there has never been federal residential rent control."
   
   "A few US states have rent control ---   Oregon and California are the only states with statewide rent control laws, both enacted in 2019. Six states—California, New York, New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota—have localities in which some form of residential rent control is in effect."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_cont … %20effect. 
   
   With the costs of maintaining a home raising would due to current inflation, would it be fair that the Federal Government dictate rental fees?
   
   What are your thoughts about the Federal government dictating rental fees on privately owned domains?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      There SHOULD be federal mandates regarding rent control.  Rent is increasing at an astronomical rate.   I agree with the Democrats on this one.   There should be strict laws regarding rents.  Yes, there should be RENT CONTROL

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         I guess I come at this from another direction. I have so many friends that rent real estate. It has become much more expensive in regard to insurance, upkeep, and in some cases taxes costs.  It has become an unattractive no longer profitable business. I think that rent control would work out better by states.  Blanketing this could be pretty bad for some states. 
         
         However, I always respect your view.

         replyreport
      2. 94

         wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Perhaps we do need rent controls.  And laws prohibiting rented buildings from have their taxes raised, or from breaking down or need maintenance.  We can prohibit the grass from growing at the same time so lawn care is not needed, and deny anyone the ability to sue a landlord so they won't see insurance premium rises.

         replyreport
      3. 89

         GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         If the government wants rent control it should build the housing. Rent control is just another form of price control, are you for that?
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Rent control always has its problems, but it is not a problem that should dealt with at the national level but at the municipal one.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         I so agree. I think it would be a better fit at a municipal one too. I do think there is a need for some oversite, but the Federal has a way of blanketing, and I think this would be in the end a mess.

         replyreport
      2. 94

         wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Kudos.  This is not a national problem (and cannot be legally solved by national laws).  Nor should even states handle it; it should be done at local, city levels.  (Whereupon new complexes will be built outside the city, where the laws can't get them.)

         replyreport
   3. 94

      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      It truly is fascinating to watch as Democrats ignore the laws of the land, assuming they can do anything they want, any time they want and for any reason they have decided they like.  The ends always justifies the means to them, including outright violations of the cornerstone of our country, the Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

         "It truly is fascinating to watch as Democrats ignore the laws of the land, assuming they can do anything they want, any time they want and for any reason they have decided they like."
         
         Why wouldn't they? They found the magic bean to offer those that support the party blindly. Many love the magic bean, you know sort of how the left decades ago adopted the "pet rock". The mind is a funny thing.
         
         I mean we have a president that took classified documents literally left them all over the place, and we see many making wonderful little antidotes  He most likely was writing a book" He just did not know protocol"  and more...
         
         So, I ask why the would the Dems not ignore the laws, and do anything they want to. We the people give them carte blanche. I mean they elected an old feeble man that ran from his basement, telling colorful crazy
         stories.
         
         Time to say "anything goes" and get accustomed to it.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I don't think this has to do with dictating rent in the private domain whatsoever.   It's more of a Renters Bill of Rights if you will.
      I've read that it will aim to curb practices that prevent people from accessing housing and curtailing exorbitant rent increases in certain properties with government-backed mortgages.
      The plan  proposes making leases clearer and fairer, including regulating the size of a security deposit, as well as allowing tenants to organize, increasing access to affordable housing, and protecting tenants against discrimination and eviction.
      I think these are protections for renters.   One such protection, tenants of public housing and project-based rental assistance who don’t or can’t pay rent will get a minimum 30 day cushion before landlords can terminate their lease, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will propose under the plan.
      I don't think anything that is proposed is necessarily A bad thing. 
      But I think the gist of this whole thing is directed toward federally subsidized housing.  I really hope that media isn't portraying this as an infringement on privately owned homes (that are not backed by Federal mortgage programs) for rent .

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

         Are fannie mae and freddie mac considered "federal mortgage programs"?  If so that is just another illegal plan by government to violate the Constitution and do it via the pocketbook.
         
         There is nothing at all in our Constitution that allows the feds to set rents, deposits, or anything else in a private rental agreement between two people.  Forcing it by means of the pocketbook may make it technically "legal" but is far, far outside the intent of the writers of that document.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Fayetteville Fayeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Freddie  and Fannie are federally backed. There's absolutely nothing in this proposed plan that even implies rent would be set or controlled. It's certainly does not discuss the rental market beyond federally backed mortgages. Take a look at the link that was provided in the original post. It talks more about protections for the renter than anything.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

               "I've read that it will aim to curb practices that prevent people from accessing housing and curtailing exorbitant rent increases in certain properties with government-backed mortgages."  (your post)
               
               Curtailing...rent increases.  Certainly sounds like rent control to me.  Labels don't tell the story, not when applied by politicians, but results do.  If the bill limits rent increase beyond what the landlord wants by even $.01 per year, that is rent control by definition.
               
               But in any case, as I've already said, this belongs in the states (where it already exists).  Such power is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; by default the ability falls to the state then.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  It seems to have nothing to do with the private sector though. I'm guessing this is Media trying to set people's hair on fire. I see nothing in the language of The proposal that says anything about the private sector.  I think everyone should go over the language very carefully as it is written. I think the original post attempted to portray this as government intrusion into the private rental industry but there's no evidence of that whatsoever. And really why shouldn't the government have regulations around federally subsidized housing?? Federally backed mortgages??

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                     That's why I asked about the two federal loan programs.  Most mortgages go through them at one point, or at a minimum can.  If the feds are using that to circumvent the Constitution then I see a problem.
                     
                     Federally subsidized housing (section 8 and the likes) is not the same as Federally backed mortgages.  One is rent guaranteed and subsidized by government, one is a mortgage - a mortgage of private property that government has no business interfering with.  At least to date no mortgage I've ever heard of, backed by government or not, contains language about rental fees.  To suddenly somehow include that language in mortgages already made is illegal.

                     replyreport
2. 79

   Sharlee01posted 14 months ago

   Maybe time to really look at what Biden is really doing. So, much really is slipping through the cracks.
   
   To read more on this issue please visit  -   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
   https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20221122
   
   EXCLUSIVE: Every Republican senator and Democrat Joe Manchin are introducing legislation that they hope will terminate the Biden administration's new environment, social and governance (ESG) rule, which they say "politicizes" the retirement savings for 152 million Americans.
   
   The Biden administration's Department of Labor unveiled a rule in November, set to go into effect on Jan. 30, that allows retirement plan managers to factor environmental and social issues into investment decisions.
   
   The bipartisan disapproval resolution led by Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., will be introduced Wednesday and a companion bill in the House will be introduced by Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky. Congressional passage of the resolution will allow Congress to overrule the administration and kill the regulation.
   
   "President Biden is jeopardizing retirement savings for millions of Americans for a political agenda," Braun told Fox News Digital.
   
   "In a time when Americans’ 401(k)s have already taken such a hit due to market downturns and record high inflation, the last thing we should do is encourage fiduciaries to make decisions with a lower rate of return for purely ideological reasons. That’s why we are proud to stand up against this rule for the millions of Americans who depend on these funds for their retirement," the senator from Indiana continued.
   
   Manchin told Fox News Digital: "At a time when our country is already facing economic uncertainty, record inflation and increasing energy costs, it is irresponsible of the Biden Administration to jeopardize retirement savings for more than 150 million Americans for purely political purposes."
   
   "I’m proud to join this bipartisan resolution to prevent the proposed ESG rule from endangering retirement incomes and protect the hard-earned savings of American families. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important resolution to ensure Congress is promoting economic security for West Virginians and Americans, not further exacerbating the serious economic challenges they are already facing," the Democratic senator continued.
   
   A group of 25 states last week filed a federal lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule, which Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes says would put millions of Americans' safety net retirement plans "at risk."
   
   "The Biden administration is promoting its climate change agenda by putting everyday people’s retirement money at risk," Reyes told Fox News Digital. "Americans are already suffering from the current economic downturn."
   
   In the lawsuit, the states allege that the DOL violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. The law sets standards for the retirement income of 152 million U.S. workers, equivalent to more than two-thirds of the nation's adult population, and applies to roughly $12 trillion in assets.
   
   A Braun aide said the resolution will receive a vote on the Senate and House floor in coming weeks.
   
   Under the Congressional Review Act, joint resolutions of disapproval cannot be prevented from being considered on the floor. The resolution will only require a simple majority vote threshold to pass and be sent to Biden, and supporters of the resolution expect at least one more Democrat to support it and pass it in the Senate.
   
   "Retirement plans should be solely focused on delivering maximum returns, not advancing a political agenda," Barr added.
   
   "If Congress doesn’t block the Department of Labor’s rule greenlighting ESG investing in retirement plans, retirees will suffer diminished returns on the investment of their hard-earned money. It’s time for Congress to act and I applaud Senator Braun and our colleagues for renewing this fight."
   
   The bipartisan legislation has the backing of over 100 groups, according to the aide.
   
   
   https://www.pionline.com/esg/25-states- … s-esg-rule
   "A group of 25 states is seeking to halt the Department of Labor's new ESG rule from taking effect.
   
   Republican attorneys general from the 25 states, co-led by Ken Paxton of Texas and Sean D. Reyes of Utah, filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, Texas, arguing that the Labor Department's rule undermines key protections for retirement savers, oversteps the department's authority under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, and is arbitrary and capricious."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Fayetteville Fayeposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      And the rest of the story.
      
      https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/biden-a … plans.html
      
      "Employers have a legal duty to thoroughly assess funds' risk and return when picking 401(k) plan investments; for example, they can't subordinate the financial interests of workers in favor of a cause like climate change.
      
      The new ESG rules don't change these duties"
      
      "A copy of the department’s final rule emailed to Bloomberg Law Tuesday makes clear that retirement plan decision-makers called fiduciaries may but aren’t required to consider the effect environmental, social, and corporate governance factors have on an investment or when exercising shareholder voting rights.
      
      The rule reverses course on a pair of Trump-era regulations the department says chilled fiduciary action. It follows two executive orders that required a review of former President Donald Trump’s climate-related rules and called on the DOL to “suspend, revise, or rescind” ESG regulations."

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Over 100 groups back Manchin, GOP plan to block Biden’s ‘woke’ ESG investing rule
      Biden admin is setting ESG standard that will affect retirement investments of 152M Americans
      
      "EXCLUSIVE: More than 100 conservative leaders and groups organized by former Vice President Mike Pence's political advocacy group are backing a new resolution from Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., that would block a move by the Biden administration to promote a "woke capital agenda."
      
      Last week, every Republican senator and West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin introduced legislation that they hope will terminate a new Department of Labor rule that allows retirement plan managers to factor environment, social and governance (ESG) issues into investment decisions, which they say "politicizes" the retirement savings for 152 million Americans"
      
      Do you have a 401K  Interested please read on ---  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/over-1 … sting-rule

      replyreport
3. 79

   Sharlee01posted 14 months ago

   Slipped Through The Media Cracks 12/3/2022 News Week
   
   
   Biden Accuser Tara Reade 'Will Not Be Silenced,' Would Testify Under Oath
   
   "ara Reade, who accused President Joe Biden of sexual assault, said she would "not be silenced" after asking House Republicans to investigate her assault allegations.
   
   Reade worked as a Senate staffer for Biden in 1993, which is when she said he sexually assaulted her. She has said that in addition to making her feel uncomfortable—as other women have also alleged—she also accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her. Biden has vehemently denied these allegations.
   
   Now, Reade is calling on House Republicans to investigate her accusations. The GOP reclaimed a narrow majority in the House of Representatives during the November midterm elections, potentially setting the stage for several investigations into the Biden administration.
   
   Reade told conservative news outlet The Daily Caller that she would be willing to testify about her accusations under oath and allow members of Congress to ask her "whatever questions they wanted."
   
   "I think we need to have the conversation, instead of me being erased, and other women that were erased that tried to come forward," Reade told the outlet.
   
   Early Saturday morning, Reade tweeted that she would not be "silenced" by Democrats, who have defended Biden against her allegations.
   
   "As I said in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, I will not be silenced," she wrote. "Sexual assault is not politically partisan. The Democrats just got caught covering up what happened to me in 1993 to elect their monster."
   
   Reade told Newsweek in a written statement that she "would be willing to go under oath and testify to what happened in 1993," describing herself as "politically homeless at this point and very concerned with the level of corruption."
   
   "The suppressing of my history with Biden is a serious hypocrisy by the Democratic power structure that is supposed to be about women's rights," Reade wrote. "All of this exposes the dark belly of corruption at the highest office of the land. It must be brought into the light including the fact the Biden sexually harassed and assaulted me when I worked as his staffer in 1993. No one should be above the law."
   
   She said she has received contact from a victims advocate from New York, who worked with the women who accused former Governor Andrew Cuomo of harassment.
   
   Reade also pointed to journalist Matt Taibbi's Friday report on how Twitter allegedly suppressed a New York Post article in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election about Hunter Biden's laptop as illustrative of this "corruption."
   
   "I hope there are investigations and real consequences for these individuals involved and Biden resigns or is impeached. Not just for what Biden did to me but to the entire country," she wrote.
   
   House Republicans have not publicly said whether they plan to investigate Reade's accusations of sexual assault, but Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado signaled support for an investigation on Friday.
   
   "Tara Reade has asked the new GOP House to investigate her claims of sexual assault against Joe Biden," the GOP lawmaker tweeted. "I'm for it!"
   
   Biden's campaign denied Reade's allegations when she first came forward in 2020.
   
   "Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims," Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director Kate Bedingfield said. "We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false."
   
   Marianne Baker, who served as Biden's executive assistant from 1982 to 2000, also said she never witnessed, heard or received reports of any inappropriate conduct.
   
   Reade previously told Newsweek she considered coming forward with her allegations after former President Barack Obama selected Biden as his running mate in his 2008 presidential bid.
   
   "When Obama was up for election, I was very supportive because I'd been a lifetime Democrat," Reade said in 2020. "[Biden] happened to be on the ticket and I thought it about it [coming forward], but I didn't because my daughter was in junior high at that time and I didn't want to bring publicity to our family."
   
   Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.
   
   Update 10/9/2022, 3:05 p.m. ET: This article has been updated to include comment from Reade."
   
   https://www.newsweek.com/biden-accuser- … th-1764401
   
   Biden Denies Tara Reade Sexual-Assault Allegation
   Former Vice President Joe Biden on Friday denied a sexual-assault allegation made against him by former Senate staffer Tara Reade, addressing the subject publicly for the first time.
   
   “They aren’t true. This never happened,” Mr. Biden said in a written statement ahead of his first televised interview on Ms. Reade’s accusations.
   https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-deni … 1588334000
   
   
   It is apparent Reide is willing to go before Congress under oath, and repeat her accusations.

   replyreport