The housing sector will push the U.S. economy into recession unless the Federal Reserve cuts its benchmark rate at the first surge in unemployment, said Kiesel, who expects the Fed to reduce rates.

Home Equity Loans

In addition to their primary mortgages, homeowners had $913.7 billion of debt in home equity loans in 2005, more than double the $445.1 billion in 2001, according to a paper by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and James Kennedy on equity extraction issued by the Fed three months ago.

About a third of that money, extracted as home values surged 53 percent from 2000 to 2005, was used to buy cars and other consumer goods, according to the paper. The interest rate on those loans doubled to 8.25 percent in 2006 from 4 percent in 2003.

If the Federal Reserve lowers the rate it charges for overnight lending to banks, that would cut the prime rate that moves in tandem with it and reduce the interest on many types of adjustable home loans, including home equity mortgages.

Federal Reserve policy makers probably will keep the overnight bank lending rate unchanged at a six-year high of 5.25 percent when they next meet on June 27, according to a Bloomberg survey of 72 economists.

Boom and Bust

Homebuyers who got an adjustable-rate mortgage, a so-called ARM, in 2004 have seen their rate climb by about 40 percent. That's enough to add $288 to the monthly payment for a $300,000 mortgage. The average adjustable rate last week was 5.75 percent, an 11-month high, according to Freddie Mac.

Roubini predicts the decline in U.S. home sales will last at least another 12 months, reducing the median house price by 5 percent this year and next. That would take home prices back to 2004, when the national median was $195,200.

The primary cause of the 1990 to 1991 recession was a real estate boom and bust similar to the past seven years, Roubini said. A real estate ``bubble'' in the mid-1980s led to speculative buying and lower credit standards that resulted in widespread foreclosures, he said. The defaults triggered a credit crunch that turned into an economic recession in the spring of 1990, said Roubini, who is an economics professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

He put the chance of a recession this year at ``50-50,'' above former Fed chief Greenspan's 33 percent estimate. A recession is a decline in gross domestic product for two consecutive quarters.

`Significant Drag'

Greenspan warned of ``froth'' in the real estate market in 2005, before leaving the central bank in January 2006. Three months ago Greenspan said there was a ``one-third probability'' of an economic recession this year, in large part due to the unsteady housing market. He reiterated that view last month at a conference hosted by Merrill Lynch & Co. in Singapore

``There is no doubt there is a slowdown going on in the U.S.,'' Greenspan said at the conference. ``We are clearly having troubles in the capital investment area, as well as potentially in the consumption area and obviously housing being a significant drag.''

A Fed survey of senior loan officers issued in April said that 45 percent of lenders had restricted ``nontraditional'' lending, such as interest-only mortgages, and 15 percent had tightened standards for the most creditworthy, or prime, borrowers. More than half had raised standards for subprime borrowers, according to the survey.

Subprime mortgages have rates that are at least 2 or 3 percentage points above the safest so-called prime loans. Such loans made up about a fifth of all new mortgages last year, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.

Housing Chain

Making it harder for those people to buy houses is going to create trouble all the way up the housing chain as people who own starter homes find it more difficult to sell their real estate and buy bigger properties, said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse Holdings USA Inc. in New York.

``The subprime market has changed character dramatically, and that takes a number of entry-level buyers out of the picture,'' said Soss, who was an adviser to former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

Home sales won't increase in any sustained way until 2008, though the stumble probably won't cause a recession because the housing market hasn't reduced consumer spending, he said.

Retail Sales Endure

``Here we are a year and a half into the housing slowdown and retail sales are off the chart,'' Soss said. The economy expanded at a 1.9 percent pace in the first quarter, compared with a year earlier, the smallest gain since the 1.8 percent rate in the second quarter of 2003, ``but it hasn't collapsed, and I don't think it will,'' he said.

Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis yesterday said the U.S. housing slump is almost over. ``The drag stops in the next few months,'' said Lewis, whose bank relies on the U.S. market for almost 90 percent of its revenue. ``We do not see a recession. Because that drag stops, you'll see the economy begin to pick up in the third and fourth quarters.''

Median Home Price

The median U.S. price for a previously owned home fell 1.4 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, the third consecutive decline, according to the National Association of Realtors. Before the third quarter of 2006 prices hadn't dropped since 1993. The quarterly median may dip another 2.4 percent in the current period, the Chicago-based industry trade group said in its June forecast.

Measured annually, the national median price for a previously owned home hasn't dropped since the Great Depression in the 1930s, according to Lawrence Yun, an economist with the trade group. This year it probably will fall 1.3 percent, Yun said.

The share of mortgages entering foreclosure rose to 0.58 percent in the first quarter, the highest on record, from 0.54 percent in the final three months of 2006, the Mortgage Bankers Association said in a report last week. Subprime loans going into default rose to a five-year high of 2.43 percent, up from 2 percent, and late payments from borrowers with poor credit histories rose to almost 13.8 percent, the highest since 2002.

Prime loans entering foreclosure increased to 0.25 percent, the highest in a survey that goes back to 1972. That's a sign that even the most creditworthy borrowers are being squeezed, Roubini said.

Adjustable Rates

``We have a lot of people, even prime borrowers, who are at the edge because they either bought with no equity, they have an ARM that's seen a rate spike, or they used their house like an ATM and turned their equity into cash,'' Roubini said. ``Many of those people are under water today, and if they have to sell, it's going to drag down values in their neighborhood.''

Some owners are selling their homes at ``fire sale'' prices to avoid foreclosure after seeing their adjustable mortgage rates spike, said Lawrence White, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business.

``Prices will continue to soften for as long as we have distressed sellers,'' White said. Some regions of the U.S. could see price declines of 10 percent in the next six to 12 months, he said. The slump probably won't cause a recession, he said.

``It's not going to be the 1929 stock-market disaster, with people jumping out of buildings, but there is going to be widely dispersed pain for the next few quarters,'' he said.

The biggest problem is volatile home prices, said Gary Shilling, head of A. Gary Shilling & Co., an economic forecasting company in Springfield, New Jersey. Shilling put the chance of a recession this year at 75 percent.

`Exploding ARMs'

``A lot of people went out on a limb to pay the record high prices for homes, and they're in trouble now,'' he said.

Borrowers who got loans with so-called teaser rates are in the biggest bind, according to Shilling. Prices surged a record 12 percent in 2005, spurring buyers to ``stretch'' to qualify for bigger loans by using interest-only ARMs or so-called option ARMs with low introductory payments.

Some have payments based on interest rates as low as 1 percent. At the end of an introductory period, the rate can more than quadruple, leading them to be called ``exploding ARMs,'' he said. Some loans allow borrowers to choose how much they want to pay, with the balance added to the loan's principal, making it possible to owe more than the home's purchase price.

``Homeowners with adjustable-rate mortgages are getting squeezed on all sides,'' said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial Inc. in Chicago. Real estate taxes have surged along with home prices, and many U.S. homeowners saw their property insurance double after Hurricane Katrina ravaged Louisiana and Mississippi, she said.

Swonk said the housing slide will last into next year. Still, she doesn't expect the economy to slow because of it.

``The economy could easily beat expectations in the second half of this year,'' she said. ``The housing correction remains the primary threat to that happening.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Kathleen M. Howley in Boston at.....

Over the weekend, the Treasury hosted talks to help a group of banks set up a $100 billion fund to buy troubled assets in exchange for new short-term debt. The banks hope to have the fund up and running within 90 days.

According to people familiar with the matter, the Treasury hopes the plan, which could be announced as early as this morning, will jump-start demand for commercial paper, which froze up this summer amid the credit crunch that roiled global financial markets.

Companies depend on commercial paper to finance day-to-day expenses like payroll and rent. Some financial commercial paper -- known as asset-backed paper -- has been able to find buyers in recent weeks. But investors have remained skeptical of other types, including paper issued by certain bank-affiliated investment funds

The lack of buying signaled that the markets weren't working properly, despite the efforts of central banks, and that investor confidence was low, since commercial paper typically is considered a safe investment.

Some influential investors think the Treasury-backed strategy might work. Other object to the Treasury's role in seeking to help banks avoid a big financial hit for making bad bets.

The coordinated effort is a good way to help restart stalled debt markets, said Mohamed El-Erian, who runs Harvard University's $35 billion endowment and is set to become co-chief executive and co-chief investment officer of money-management firm Pacific Investment Management Co. in January. "No bank would do this on its own."

"The proposal has the potential to restore liquidity to a market," he added.

Four weeks ago, in an unusual move, Treasury officials convened a meeting of some 10 banks, including Citigroup Inc., to discuss a private-sector solution to the problems and sounded out other market participants about their views on a rescue package. The problems stem from affiliated funds called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, which Citigroup and others set up as a way to make money without taking the risk involved onto their balance sheets. Such vehicles are formally independent of the banks that create them. They issue their own short-term debt, usually at relatively low rates that reflects their high credit rating. Then, they use the proceeds to buy higher-yielding assets such as securities tied to mortgages or receivables from midsize businesses seeking to raise cash.

The government isn't putting money into the plan but its role could be crucial in luring investors to buy debt issued by the rescue fund as part of the plan.

(The same holds for <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nec/">National Economic Council Chairman Stephen Friedman.</a>) In fact, if we adopt the president's policies—which include a host of new tax cuts and massive new spending programs—the deficit won't fall 50 percent in the next five years."</i><p> It will grow substantially. And if President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress weren't already quietly using every penny of the massive and growing Social Security surplus to cover operating expenses—and planning to continue this habit—the deficits would be even larger.

Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending demographic doom, Congress enacted <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html">legislation</a> to essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers retire—and comparatively more people are collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are working—the government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised benefits.

So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a Democratic president. According to figures provided by <a href="http://www.crfb.org/">the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget</a>, the surpluses were relatively insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was spent—about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000, when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.

In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!

By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html#table8">projections</a> (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion. And the ultimate on-budget deficit will almost certainly be worse. OMB has proven in the past few years that its projections can't be trusted.

The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy. The unprecedented reliance on these funds hides the failure of the administration to ensure that there is some reasonable correlation between the resources it has at its disposal and the spending commitments it makes. Bush & Co. have redesigned the tax system so that collections of the progressive taxes that are supposed to fund government operations—like individual income taxes—have plummeted. Instead, with each passing year we rely for our current needs more on the regressive payroll taxes that are supposed to fund our collective retirement.

The persistence of the administration and its credulous allies in eliding these facts is flabbergasting. Of course, for the Bush administration to give an honest accounting of the deficits, and of the role that Social Security surpluses play in keeping them down, would be to admit the fundamental bankruptcy—no pun intended—of its adventuresome fiscal experiment.