The senate yesterday approved a bill aimed at stimulating the housing market. According to the AP: "The plan contains $4 billion in grants to local governments to buy and refurbish foreclosed homes, new authority for states to issue bonds to be used to refinance subprime mortgages, and a temporary $7,000 tax credit for people buying new homes or properties in foreclosure."

So the Senate decided that local governments should get $4 billion to get into the real estate "flipping" market. They will buy these homes, fix them up and then re-sell for a profit? Is that the business government is supposed to be in?

Most local governments have problems fixing potholes and keeping streetlights working, and our wise senators believe that they will solve the housing crisis?

The real problem right now with foreclosed homes is that the banks refuse to bite the bullet and sell these homes for lower prices. I have spoken with a few people in the real estate market trying to buy foreclosures and they all said that the banks aren't prepared to take a loss. So now here comes the senate and says let's give $4 billion to local governments and they will overpay the banks for these properties. Great, so in an election year the US Senate has basically screwed prospective home buyers, choosing instead to bailout the banks.

What a surprise.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 4/3/08

I admire the cleverness of Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's tax proposal. Bloomberg News reports that Grassley wants to introduce a bill that will link passage of a tax increase on private equity firms to an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) tax cut.

Grassley's proposal would increase from 15% to as high as 37.9% the tax rate that private equity firms pay on their profits with a measure shielding 23 million mostly middle-income households from an AMT increase this year. Unless Congress acts, the AMT will impose a $45 billion tax increase on 23 million households in 2007; permanently repealing the AMT would cost the government more than $1 trillion in revenue.

While it's not clear how much additional revenue the private equity tax rate increase would raise, the politics of the linkage is clever. That's because it will be hard for politicians seeking reelection to vote against a measure that could ease the lives of 23 million potential voters. If they happen to at the same time raise the taxes of those big campaign contributors, the need to help middle class AMT voters will offer the politicians some cover.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.