Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Sunday, February 23, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 611)

Housing-Market-Real-Estate-Signs

Mortgage lenders and real estate agents flood the housing market. (Phone: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans stood at 12.3% in February, marking the 26th consecutive month housing market risk increased. The gauge, which is conducted by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) International Center on Housing Risk, measures how government-guaranteed loans with a first payment date in a given month would perform if subjected to the same stress as in the financial crisis that began in 2007.

An NMRI reading of 10%, for instance, for a given set of loans indicates that 10% of those loans would be expected to default in a severe stress event, based on the actual performance of comparable loans following the 2008 financial crisis. The NMRI is published monthly utilizing a nearly complete census of loan-level data for loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, and Rural Housing.

“On a year-over-year basis, the monthly purchase loan National Mortgage Risk Index increased for the 26th straight month in February, fueled by a continuation of high risk lending to first-time buyers,” said Edward Pinto, co-director of the International Center on Housing Risk.

Mr. Pinto, a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae, also said the “current housing market, particularly at the entry level, is exhibiting strong, leverage-fueled demand, which in combination with shortness of supply, will continue to drive home prices up faster than incomes and inflation.”

The NMRI now covers 18.6 million Agency loans dating back to November 2012, representing slightly more than 8.5 million Agency purchase loans and 10 million Agency refinance loans. The NMRI is published for purchase loans (with separate indices for first-time and repeat buyers), refinance loans (with separate indices for no-cash-out and cash-out refinance loans), and the composite of purchase and refinance loans.

The increased risk is fueled by the continued migration of Agency purchase loan originations from large banks to non-banks. The shift in market share has accounted for much of the upward trend in the NMRI, as nonbank lending is substantially riskier than the large bank business it replaces.

“The typical first-time buyer these days has a relatively low credit score and puts little money down,” said Stephen Oliner, co-director of the International Center on Housing Risk and senior fellow at UCLA’s Ziman Center for Real Estate. “These facts make clear that mortgage credit isn’t tight.”

The riskiness of Agency refinance mortgages also increased over the past year. The NMRI for these loans stood at 11.4% in February, up 10.6% from a year earlier. These figures exclude VA refinance loans, which are not yet risk rated.

The report released by the Commerce Department comes after data on Monday from the National association of Realtors showed existing home sales crated 7.1% in February, which some economists blamed on tight inventories and difficulties adjusting the data during the month with a leap day. They also blamed February’s weak sales on a drop in contract signings in January because of snow storms.

Other notable takeaways from the February NMRI include the following (H/T AEI):

• As expected, purchase loan volume rebounded in February, driven by looser lending standards and an improving job market. Volume in February was up 9% from a year earlier, paced by a 12% rise for FTBs.

• First-time buyers have been the focus of the easing in credit standards for Agency purchase loans. The first-time buyer NMRI stood at 15.7% in February, up 0.7 percentage point from a year earlier, and well above Repeat Primary Homebuyer NMRI of 9.0%.

• The cut in FHA’s annual insurance premium early last year raised its purchase-loan market share to 28% in February from 23% in March 2015. This increase has come almost entirely at the expense of Fannie Mae and the Rural Housing Service.

• The seismic shift in market share from large banks to nonbanks continued in February, boosting overall risk as nonbank MRI is much higher. For the composite of all Agency purchase loans, the large bank share fell below 25% in February, down from about 60% in November 2012.

• Fueled by solid job gains, low mortgage rates, and high and growing leverage, the national seller’s market is now in its 42nd month. As a result, real home prices are up 15% percent since the 2012:Q2 trough, far outstripping real income growth and crimping affordability.

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for

Laura Ingraham took on Erick Erickson, a conservative who has sworn never to vote for Donald Trump because he’s not met his right-wing litmus test. In fact, he said he wouldn’t vote for Mr. Trump, the Republican frontrunner, even if Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was the vice presidential nominee.

While I’ll put the transcript below, there are several few points I think are worth making.

The argument made by Mr. Erickson and others in the Never Trump movement, who represent one of the few obstacles keeping Republicans from winning in a landslide in November, is an intellectually and historically feeble argument, at best.

Ms. Ingraham does a very good job at exposing it as such, but it ultimately comes down to whether you believe shaky polls or actual voting results. Erickson and others have focused on a slew of general election polls showing Sen. Cruz performing stronger than Mr. Trump against Hillary Clinton, which whether he knows it or not, is a totally bogus argument for three (among other) reasons.

First, Mr. Trump was beating Mrs. Clinton before the all-out intra-party fight to block the frontrunner began. In other words, it wasn’t until he and others intentionally began poisoning the well did Trump lag behind. Look inside the polls. It’s the whiny bloc of the party that would rather hand the election to Mrs. Clinton than vote for Mr. Trump that accounts for that disparity.

Second, as I’ve repeatedly and correctly argued, pre-Labor Day general election polls have zero predictive value. Mr. Erickson continues to point to his resume as a political consultant to argue the validity of the polls he uses to support his argument. Well, he’s either a complete waste of money or he’s lying. Take your pick because, unlike him, any psephologist worth a dime knows the polls mean nothing.

Nothing.

Former President Ronald Reagan was down by more than 20 points against Jimmy Carter in March prior to the 1980 presidential election.

Third, in case he hasn’t learned the lesson of 2012 yet, national polls are increasingly less reliable than statewide polls when predicting general elections. In the battleground states Ms. Ingraham asked him to cite, Sen. Cruz loses to Mrs. Clinton–Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Looking at the actual voting results, which are far more predictive and valuable than polling, Sen. Cruz has utterly failed to appeal to the necessary demographics that are required to carry these states and win their electoral votes.

As of now, Sen. Cruz is a 47% candidate. Period. Plain and simple.

I’m going to address this bogus argument in far more detail in the upcoming days and weeks. I simply can’t stomach to hear it anymore. For the record, the poll Mr. Erickson cited to suggest Mr. Trump would lose Utah to Mrs. Clinton was wrong. Go back and compare the poll and the actual result. Trump significantly outperformed, even though he got trounced in a caucus where 90% were self-identified Mormon.

P.S. Donald Trump is beginning to significantly outperform his polling average, exhibit A being the Arizona Republican Primary on Tuesday. While the votes haven’t been completely counted, he more than likely won the Election Day vote by a majority.


TRANSCRIPT

LAURA INGRAHAM: Phyllis Schlaffly and Pat Buchanan combined probably have eighty years, ninety years in the conservative movement, do you find them to be conservative people?

ERICK ERICKSON: Yep.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Okay, so they’re conservative, do you think Jeff Sessions is a conservative?

ERICK ERICKSON: Yep.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Okay, so the three of them together are conservatives, and they have all either endorsed Trump or been very sympathetic to Trump. Correct?

ERICK ERICKSON: Yep.

LAURA INGRAHAM: So why are they right and you’re wrong? Or why are you right and they’re wrong?

ERICK ERICKSON: Well, because I don’t think that Donald Trump is a conservative. In fact, you go on Fox News, and half the people say he is and half say he isn’t.

I don’t think Trump’s a conservative, I’m certainly not going to support him.

LAURA INGRAHAM: So do you think Phyllis [Schlaffley], and [Pat] Buchanan and [Jeff] Sessions, they do know conservatism, do they not?

ERICK ERICKSON: They do know conservatism, but I think they are wrong.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Do you have more experience in fighting conservative battles than in the most critical moments in our modern history, or do they?

ERICK ERICKSON: I think they have a lot more history than me, they’re a lot older than me.

LAURA INGRAHAM: It is not about age, it is about what you have actually done for the conservative movement. And again… I’ve always liked you, I think you’re a wonderful person, and you’re really sharp and I think you’re a great writer… I just want us to win.

ERICK ERICKSON: Trump is not going to win… He’s losing to Hillary in the latest polling…

LAURA INGRAHAM: Could you write an op-ed for your site, or for another site, about why Hillary Clinton will be a better commander in chief than Donald Trump? And would you pen that?

ERICK ERICKSON: I don’t think either of them are good, why do you want to make it binary? We can run another candidate. It is not a binary choice for me…

LAURA INGRAHAM: My point is, Hillary is gonna win… You want to beat Hillary, correct? I do too…

Laura Ingraham took on Erick Erickson, a

Home-Prices-Home-Sales-Reuters

Home sales and home prices data and reports. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday U.S. single-family home sales rose 2% last month to an annualized rate of 512,000 units, beating the media forecast. However, the increase was solely driven by a 38.5-percent surge in sales in the West.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales, which account for about 9.2% of the housing market, increasing to a 510,000 unit-rate last month. Meanwhile, home sales in January were revised up to 502,000 units from the initially reported 494,000 units. But home sales in the Northeast plunged 24.2% 17.9% in the Midwest, while home sales fell 4.1% in the more populous South.

The report released by the Commerce Department comes after data on Monday from the National association of Realtors showed existing home sales crated 7.1% in February, which some economists blamed on tight inventories and difficulties adjusting the data during the month with a leap day. They also blamed February’s weak sales on a drop in contract signings in January because of snow storms.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales, which account for about 9.2 percent of the housing market, rising to a 510,000 unit-rate last month. At February’s current sales pace, it would take 5.6 months to clear the supply of houses on the market, which represents no change from January.

The Commerce Department reported U.S. single-family home

Ted-Cruz-Phoenix-Arizona

PHOENIX, AZ – MARCH 18: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign rally, Friday, March 18, 2016, in Phoenix. (Photo: AP/Rick Scuteri/The Associated Press)

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has easily won the Utah Republican Caucus, defeating Donald Trump and John Kasich by taking nearly 70% of the vote and all 40 delegates. Yet, with Trump’s big win in Arizona hauling in 58 delegates, Tuesday night was a net loss for Sen. Cruz.

The Utah electorate, which was more than 90% mormon, represents one of the last best chances for Sen. Cruz to put a big win on the board. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told Utah caucus-goers and Arizona Republican primary voters in a robocall to support Sen. Cruz and not to vote for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee who was just campaigning for Gov. Kasich in the Buckeye State, said a vote for the governor was a vote for frontrunner Donald J. Trump.

On Wednesday morning, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for president, calling him “a consistent, principled conservative who has demonstrated the ability to appeal to voters and win primary contests.”

However, the terrain for the frontrunner is going to get more friendly moving forward.

In New York, which holds its primary on April 19, a recent poll conducted by [content_tooltip id=”38226″ title=”Emerson College Polling University”] finds Mr. Trump leading his closest rival Sen. Cruz 64% to 12%, making the frontrunner the only Republican candidate to receive majority support among voters in his own state. While both Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich won their respective home states, they did so with a less-than impressive margin of victory.

Mr. Trump leads by a smaller 54.5% to 11.5% on the PPD average of New York Republican primary polls, but if it holds is still sufficient to force the Empire State into a winner-take-all for 95 delegates.

Trump is looking forward to contests in California (172), New Jersey (51), Indiana (57), Pennsylvania (71) and other delegate-rich states where he is favored to win. On April 5 in Wisconsin, which awards 42 total delegates on a winner-take-all basis, the state of the race is unclear from polling. Demographically, as was the case in Michigan, a large number of working-class voters could work in Trump’s favor.

Going into Tuesday’s contests, Trump led Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the delegate count 681-425. Trump now leads his rivals on the delegate count with 739 to 465.

View Republican Delegate Count

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has easily won

Trump-Wollman-Rink

Donald J. Trump stands in front of a dilapidated Wollman Rink in New York’s Central Park before he turned it into a winter wonderland. (Photo: Getty Images)

Hooray for Donald Trump!

I can ice skate in Central Park because Trump got the skating rink fixed after New York City couldn’t.

Couldn’t, you ask? Really? How is that possible? New York City government couldn’t fix an ice rink?

Sad, but true. Despite six years of effort and fiddling with 13 million taxpayer dollars, government’s bureaucracy was unable to fix an ice rink. At one point, they left one side of the rink 6 inches lower than the rest. That’s government work for you.

Then, Donald Trump got it done. And done right. He likes to remind us he makes deals happen. Getting things done in New York often means you butter up whoever needs convincing, or you bully them. Trump’s good at that.

Is that what we want in a president? Maybe. Probably not.

What bothers me about Donald Trump is that most of his pronouncements are little more than magical thinking. Elect me and “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created!” “We’re going to have win after win after win! You people are going to get sick and tired of winning!”

This is just nonsense. No president, no matter how competent, can make everything good. It’s time people stop thinking that political leaders are the answer to our problems.

A Trump rally resembles Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!” speeches from eight years ago. Delirious fans acted as if Obama’s election would fix everything about America that they didn’t like.

It’s why I wrote the book “No, They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.” Government can’t fix most things, but free individuals can — and do! Trump fixed the skating rink when government couldn’t.

Free people, acting without government coercion, accomplished almost all the things that have made America great. That’s why Trump really ticks me off when he says, “We’re gonna make America great again!”

His fans love that. But what does it mean? When exactly was America great? When we won World War II? Yes, that was great.

But it wasn’t great that at the time many Japanese-Americans were locked up in internment camps; blacks weren’t always allowed to vote or drink from public fountains; gay people were beaten by police simply for being gay; and women were basically owned by their husbands and not allowed to have credit cards without their husband’s or father’s permission.

Was America great then?

It’s true that by the end of World War II, America had the strongest military and biggest economy in the world. That was great. But we still have the strongest military and economy. “Make America great again” sounds like everything went bad.

Trump is not the only candidate saying that. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders shout, “The rich get richer, the poor and middle class are getting poorer!”

This is just a lie. The rich got richer, but poor people didn’t get poorer. They got richer too, just not as much. Everyone won!

Politicians and the media spread so much false, bad news that for the first time in history, most Americans say that they believe their children will be worse off than they were.

But that’s bunk.

Warren Buffet got this one right when he wrote, “The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history. (They) will live far better than their parents did.”

If they do, it will be because of free markets and global trade — two things most Democrats and Donald Trump want to smother.

“Make America great again!” is a bad slogan. Let’s start a new one: “Get out of our way!” Don’t impose your destructive tariffs, immigration limits, tougher libel laws, endless mandates and property grabs. Just enforce the Constitution. Then, get out of our way.

A better life comes from individuals striving toward their own goals, not from politicians. If our future continues to improve, it will be in spite of politicians like Trump and magical promises.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on Fox Business Network. On April 1, “Stossel” will air a forum featuring a debate between the top three Libertarian presidential candidates: former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, entrepreneur John McAfee and Libertarian Republic founder Austin Petersen.

Hooray for Donald Trump! I can ice

Hillary-Clinton-Bill-Clinton-Arizona

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right, and former President Bill Clinton in Phoenix, Ariz.

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has easily won the Arizona Democratic Primary, defeating Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders by double-digits. The big nearly 2 to 1 win in the Grand Canyon State for the former secretary will give her the lion’s share of the available 85 delegates, making it much more difficult for Sen. Sanders to mount a comeback to win the Democratic nomination.

The Democratic candidates were competing on Tuesday for 75 delegates in Arizona, and 33 delegates in Utah. Though Clinton led on the average of Arizona Democratic Primary polls, Sanders put in a lot of time in the state. He made a campaign stop to the U.S.-Mexico border last weekend and he was the only presidential candidate on both sides of the aisle to skip speaking on Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington, opting instead to stay on the campaign trail.

But Sanders did notch wins in Utah and Idaho, taking the latter handily with nearly 80% of the vote. He showed no sign of getting out of the race even as Mrs. Clinton turns her attention to Donald Trump. He spoke to a crowd of cheering supporters in San Diego, slamming a “rigged economy” and “corrupt campaign finance system.”

As of early Wednesday, Clinton had 1,681 delegates to Sanders’ 927. It takes 2,383 to clinch the Democratic nomination.

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has easily won

Donald Trump Gives Address On Immigration In Phoenix

PHOENIX, AZ – JULY 11: Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses supporters during a political rally at the Phoenix Convention Center on July 11, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)

Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump has easily won the Arizona Republican Primary, defeating Sen. Ted Cruz and hauling in 58 more total delegates. The winner-take-all state is the biggest prize of the night, though Sen. Cruz is hoping to earn more than 50% of the vote in Utah.

Mr. Trump held a double-digit lead in the PPD average of Arizona Republican primary polls leading up to Tuesday. He also enjoyed the backing of former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, two of the most outspoken voices on illegal immigration.

The terrain for the frontrunner is going to get more friendly moving forward.

“While Sen. Cruz is very likely to pull a big win in Utah, Mr. Trump is more likely than not to reach the majority needed to secure the nomination,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard Baris. “The states coming up just make it more difficult for non-Trump candidates.”

In New York, which holds its primary on April 19, a recent poll conducted by [content_tooltip id=”38226″ title=”Emerson College Polling University”] finds Mr. Trump leading his closest rival Sen. Cruz 64% to 12%, making the frontrunner the only Republican candidate to receive majority support among voters in his own state. While both Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich won their respective home states, they did so with a less-than impressive margin of victory.

Mr. Trump leads by a smaller 54.5% to 11.5% on the PPD average of New York Republican primary polls, but if it holds is still sufficient to force the Empire State into a winner-take-all for 95 delegates.

Trump is looking forward to contests in California (172), New Jersey (51), Indiana (57), Pennsylvania (71) and other delegate-rich states where he is favored to win. On April 5 in Wisconsin, which awards 42 total delegates on a winner-take-all basis, the state of the race is unclear from polling. Demographically, as was the case in Michigan, a large number of working-class voters could work in Trump’s favor.

Going into Tuesday’s contests, Trump led Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the delegate count 681-425. Trump now leads his rivals on the delegate count with 739.

View Republican Delegate Count

Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump has won

Donald-Trump-CNN-Republican-Debate-FL

“So far I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here,” Donald J. Trump said at the Republican debate hosted by CNN in Florida. The comment came a mild exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz over the senator’s flip-flops on ethanol and immigration. (Photo: AP)

At this stage, it’s quite likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee. Conventional wisdom suggests that this means Democrats will win in November. On the other hand, conventional wisdom also told us that Trump would never get this far.  So, it’s unclear what will happen in the general election, particularly given the ethical cloud surrounding the presumptive Democratic nominee.

So let’s contemplate what a potential Trump Administration would mean for economic liberty and American prosperity. Would the United States become more like Hong Kong, with a smaller burden of government and less intervention? Or more like France, with higher taxes and spending, along with additional cronyism and red tape?

Statism-Spectrum-Ideological-Spectrum

The honest answer is that I don’t know. He has put forth a giant tax cut that is reasonably well designed, so that implies more prosperity, but is he serious about the plan? And does he have a plan for the concomitant spending reforms needed to make his tax proposal viable?

He also has lots of protectionist rhetoric, including a proposal for a 45 percent tax on Chinese products, which implies harmful dislocation to the American economy. Is he actually serious about risking a global trade war, or is his saber rattling just a negotiating tool, as some of his defenders claim?

And what about entitlement programs, which arguably represent the greatest long-term threat to America’s economy? Trump certainly gives the impression that he thinks Social SecurityMedicare, and Medicaid don’t need to be reformed. Is he really serious when he makes this claim?

If we take what he says seriously, Trump is more statist than every Republican who sought the GOP nomination but less statist than both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Though I confess I’m basing that opinion solely on whether I agreed with the candidates, as measured by the I-Side-With political quiz.

So let’s see what others have to say.

My colleague David Boaz, writing for National Review, is not impressed.

Without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax and single-payer health care, his know-nothing protectionism, or his passionate defense of eminent domain, I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

Speaking of National Review, Kevin Williamson argues that Trump represents the worst of cronyism.

The Tea Party’s fundamental complaint, which was the same complaint put forward by Occupy Wall Street minus the Maoist daydreaming, is that there exists a corrosive and distasteful relationship between certain politically connected businesses and the politicians who are both their patrons and their clients. Donald Trump is the face of that insalubrious relationship, a lifelong crony capitalist who brags about buying political favors.

Last but not least, my former UGA economics professor Paul Rubin (now at Emory), in a column for the Wall Street Journal, explains that Trump (and Sanders) incorrectly thinks the economy is a fixed pie.

Messrs. Trump and Sanders have been led astray by zero-sum thinking, or the assumption that economic magnitudes are fixed when they are in fact variable. If the world is zero-sum, then the number of jobs is fixed, as is gross domestic product. In Mr. Trump’s mind, if there are more Mexican workers in the U.S., then American workers must lose their jobs. In the real, positive-sum world where Mr. Trump doesn’t live, Mexican workers also consume, thus increasing GDP and creating new jobs. …Similar arguments apply to Mr. Trump’s analysis of Chinese imports. In a world of fixed GDP and prices, imports of goods from China merely replace goods that otherwise would have been produced by American workers. In the real world, imports reduce prices and increase GDP, so workers, who are also consumers, benefit from imports of lower-cost goods and increase their consumption of other goods. …Zero-sum thinking persists because it is superficially appealing. Mr. Trump’s policies would in theory benefit Americans and increase jobs. …In the actual, positive-sum world we live in, their policies…would, if adopted, lead to an economic depression that would make the 1930s look prosperous.

I actually think Prof. Rubin overstates his conclusion. It took a lot of truly awful policies by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to produce the Great Depression.

Barack Obama didn’t come close to Hoover and Roosevelt with his bad policies and I suspect even the bad version of Donald Trump would (thankfully) fall short as well.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

At this stage, it’s quite likely that

Belgium terrorist attacks

At least 28 people are dead in what appears to be coordinated terror attacks timed during rush hour in Brussels, Belgium. Authorities say 13 people were killed in an attack at the city’s busy international airport, while another 15 died in an explosion aboard a crowded Metro subway train.

“What we feared has happened, we were hit by blind attacks,” said Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel.

ISIS, or the Islamic State, claimed responsibility for the attack, saying its “fighters” launched attacks on the airport and a subway station in Belgium’s capital. The “working assumption,” a source told CNN, is that the Islamic terrorists came from the same network that was behind November’s massacres in Paris, which left 130 dead.

Twitter accounts linked to ISIS are cheering the act of jihad under the hastag #BelgiumOnFire. Islamist State accounts used a similiar hashtag following the attacks in France. Sources tell PPD that the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the Islamic State militant behind the Paris terror attacks in November, accelerated an already existing plot.

“Mosul revenge for Kufur capitol Brussels,” an ISIS-affiliated group posted on Twitter.

Unlike the response to previous Islamic terror attacks, the bombings at Zaventem Airport and the metro station in the heavily Muslim section of Maelbeek were almost immediately confirmed as such. The attack at the airport was reportedly accompanied by shouts in Arabic and gunfire, as were others, but media reports claimed the events without hesitation.

The first two explosions rocked the departure hall at the Brussels airport shortly after 8 a.m. local time. Moments later at the Metro station, a second explosion was reported on a train that was stopped at the Maelbeek subway station, not far from the headquarters of the European Union.

The terrorist attacks in the capitol of the European Union are no doubt going to give rise to new criticism of refugees from Muslim nations where terrorist groups are prevalent. So far, Europe has taken in more than a million refugees, with Germany being the largest receiver nation. That has now led to push back from the public in the wake of attacks and mistreatment of women, including widespread sexual assaults. Unsurprisingly, terror groups including the Islamic State have said they are infiltrating the wave of migrants.

After the attacks, Belgian state broadcaster RTBF reported that Belgian authorities carried out midday raids, while multiple witnesses told CNN they’d seen police special forces combing through the northeast Brussels neighborhood of Schaerbeek, cordoning off a train station there.

While no group has taken responsibility, ISIS-affiliated

obama-castro-meeting

Apr. 11, 2015: US President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro shake hands during their meeting at the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama. (Photo: AP)

Barack Obama walked the cobblestone streets of Old Havana to cheers of “Welcome to Cuba!” After decades of official hostility between the United States and Cuba, Obama has successfully nudged the two toward normal relations.

After decades of craziness, it’s heartening to see smart policy regarding Cuba. So Cuba remains a repressive country run by a dictator. We do business with those kinds of places all the time. And nothing is going to change Cuba faster than a surge of American visitors and investors.

America’s long-running, robotic animus toward a country with a Castro in charge is not only an emotional response. It’s ineffectual, as well. The trade embargo has impoverished the Cuban people, cut off a foreign market for American businesses and sent disorderly boatloads of people packing for the United States.

And the meaner America has been the more the Castro brothers could justify their police-state crackdowns. They needed us to play the villain in their fairy tale.

Obama only frustrates them. By ditching the “with us or agin us” approach to foreign affairs, he actually weakens our would-be adversaries. It is a judo move that turns our foes’ dead weight against them, making our rivals lose their balance.

Our political blowhards don’t get this at all. They call Obama a wimp when he quietly sits through anti-American protests in Latin America. But as Obama explained to The Atlantic, ignoring the ranters helps “right-size” such egotists as Venezuela’s late strongman, Hugo Chavez — “rather than blow him up as this 10-foot giant adversary.”

Raul Castro did not greet Obama at the airport, not so much out of hostility as out of fear that he’d seem small next to the American president getting the love from his people. Granma, Cuba’s official Communist Party news service, predictably warned Obama not to expect Cuba to “abandon its revolutionary ideals” with a warming of relations. That’s nice.

Cubans who have trouble finding even potatoes in their stores know that elsewhere in the Caribbean, potatoes weigh down Costco warehouse shelves. Small wonder Castro fears overly warm outbursts of friendship.

Thanks to the thaw, Google has apparently signed a deal with Cuba to revolutionize the island’s lousy broadband and Wi-Fi access. Imagine the flow of information then.

Back in our more bellicose political quarters, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is vowing to continue blocking a U.S. ambassador to Cuba. Castro needs Rubio as much as Rubio needs Castro. For what useful purpose has become increasingly unclear.

Many remember the bizarre case of Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy caught in an epic custody battle some 16 years ago. Elian’s mother had drowned while trying to bring her 5-year-old onto the shores of Florida. Elian’s father in Cuba wanted his son sent back, but the Miami relatives insisted the boy stay with them.

The case for keeping Elian here was that America was a better place to live than the Communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Fortunately, U.S. family law prevailed: A man didn’t lose the rights to his son because he was a Cuban wanting to live in Cuba.

Now a handsome man of 22, Elian Gonzalez says he’d like to come back to the United States — but only to visit as a tourist. What a fine ending to this story.

Perhaps the most perceptive take of Obama’s visit to Cuba came from Carmen Diaz, a 70-year-old resident of Havana. “I feel this visit of an American president to Cuba is being done in the most elegant way possible,” Diaz told The New York Times, “from his initial campaign to now inspiring a new era of relations with Cuba.”

Our elegant president has done us proud.

Barack Obama walked the cobblestone streets of

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial