As we noted in last year's posts, Barack Obama during his brief Senate career had already attracted more contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than all but one senator. So while the nation's attention this week was drawn to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill and the Congress raising the ceiling of the national debt, the Treasury Department quietly raised the caps limiting government funding to roughly $200B each (so far the GSE's have together used a total of about $110B), not to mention de facto government executive compensation packages for up to $6M (without bionic parts). The motivation for this decision was expiring Executive Branch authority to make such decisions without explicit Congressional approval. The rationale is the duopoly's massive exposure to the mortgage market and hence "too big to fail"; the Obama Administration tells us this step is needed to reassure the markets; I'm concerned, with the economy showing signs of bottoming out and the housing market starting to stabilize, why the administration is moving to lift caps on nearly half a trillion when "only" a quarter of existing authorized debt has been used. (I do get the fact a number of gimmick mortgages are at or near the trigger reset point, potentially triggering a new wave of mortgage defaults. I could support the conversion of gimmick loans to fixed-rate, long-term mortgages without principal write-offs.)
But I don't believe that Congress gave the White House a blank check; there was a reason for establishing the cap in the first place, and any raises in the cap should require explicit Congressional approval. Second, there seems to be all sorts of moral hazard here; the fact is that a government-sponsored duopoly unnecessarily exposed the American taxpayer to a disproportionate share of the risk in the mortgage market. (Apparently the progressive anti-trust agenda has a blind spot when it comes to government or government-sponsored organizations.) If the government is going to provide funding to the private sector, it should be so on a consistent basis, not by picking winners and losers in the marketplace. I would like to see a breakup of the duopoly to diversify risk (e.g., on a regional basis) and stripping away of special Treasury or other government privileges. For the Obama Administration to lift the debt limits without making the hard decisions involving the future of the GSE's is not unlike announcing of Gitmo without first deciding where the imprisoned detainees were to go.
Pagan Display Redux
The Nativity-Winter Solstice controversy erupted in Illinois this year (I had commented on a similar kerfuffle last year in the state of Washington). A Republican candidate for Illinois comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to turn away from public view a provocative atheist sign and was stopped and escorted from the building by local security.
The sign displays the same verbiage that set off the Washington state furor, i.e.,
At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.My viewpoint, as a person of faith, is unchanged from my earlier discussion. I don't have a problem with a positively-toned message with traditional pagan symbols. But the Nativity scene essentially heralds the promise of a newborn child, something that even an atheist parent could appreciate; in fact, some argue that similar myths were devised to promote the authenticity and significance of certain individuals (e.g., Roman emperors). It would be one thing if the Nativity scene was accompanied by a religious rant, arguing that man is more than a handful of dust, that atheists are in a state of denial and short-sighted, foolishly turning away the gift of salvation (cf. Pascal's wager). The atheists in this message are essentially mocking people of faith; this is a one-sided, disrespectful display, and comparing the exhibits is apples and oranges. Illinois state officials, by refusing to enforce standards of civility and allowing hostile, "in-your-face" exhibits, have no moral standing. This is NOT a matter of "free speech", any more than limiting the use of disrespectful language or gratuitous nudity on television, newspapers or websites.
What most people understand is that if atheists were secure in their (lack of) beliefs, they wouldn't feel the need to disparage people of faith. They would be better off backing away from condescending put-downs of people of faith, hypocritically creating their own devils and intolerant creeds in the process. As for the Illinois state (and other) bureaucrats, how about growing a pair and doing the right thing?
Political Cartoon
IBD's Michael Ramirez recalls how self-evident scientific "truths" have constantly been superseded with improved knowledge and technology. I think what astonishes me is how many scientists have bought into the conspiracy as exposed by Climategate, not questioning the predictive validity of current climate models and the nature, extent and replication of purported evidence. Scanning editorial cartoons, e.g., at theweek.com, it was clear that Ramirez' point of view is a minority one; most cartoonists seem to have drawn their cartoons after rewatching Al Gore's propaganda film. The common theme was to mock skeptics: tell it to the drowning polar bears.
Post-Christmas Reflection: Musical Interlude: Live Aid, "Do They Know It's Christmas Time"
God bless those whom see their brother in a stranger, including those far away, and feed the bodies and souls of those in need of a short-term helping hand; let's call it the multiplier of love.
