Fannie and Freddie: The Sequel
About my previous missive on the government bailout of private companies, a reader wrote this: “Who authorized the ‘government’ to bail out these companies? (Was it) even debated in Congress? The millions of Americans who have lost their homes or are in danger of losing their homes would surely have a different opinion about what those blank checks should be used for.”
The question isn’t just a fair one. It’s a critical one.
AIG, Fannie, Freddie, free markets and frustration
Get out your checkbooks America.
The U.S. government decided to get into the mortgage-lending business and now holds an 80-percent stake in a major insurance company, and that means you and I must pay.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the only “private” lending institutions in the country with every penny of their loans backed by the U.S. government, have seen their default rates climb faster than a cat chasing a canary up a tree.
And their holdings have melted away like the Wicked Witch of the West hit with a bucket of water.
Knuckle under buckle boy
I often question America’s education system, even though I have spent plenty of time in it.
So much energy gets directed toward things that have nothing to do with “education” and to action that affronts learning.
The latest example comes from a lawsuit making its way through the Tennessee courts, a suit against the Anderson County School Board and several county education officials. It serves as another testament to the way school administrators can find evil lurking behind every kid’s locker or in this case, every kid’s belt buckle.
Government tobacco policies: the butt of a bad joke
For the purpose of transparency, I want to stipulate that I do not smoke cigarettes and never have.
But I think Americans who use tobacco products—and many who don’t—have similar and increasing levels of frustration when it comes to the U.S. government and its policies on tobacco products, especially cigarettes.
Cigarette smoking kills people. No one successfully argues against that point—not even the tobacco companies.
Predicting the future
The job description for U.S. Supreme Court justice does not include the ability to predict the future. Federal appeals court judges must rule on constitutionality, not probability.
But through the years, the “likelihood” of something occurring based on a law or an action under review by the court seems to have crept its way into rulings.
That may have merit, and it may not.
Pants police cause the real problem
Nothing undermines efforts to get people involved in governance more than political pandering by politicians and bureaucrats.
While our communities and our country seem to spiral out of whack, leaders focus on benign issues that get media attention but do little to address community problems.
Lately it seems that community leaders throughout the country think high gas prices, rising unemployment, crime and underachieving public schools can all disappear if we go after kids who wear droopy pants.
Checking out library users
Libraries remain a focus of the debate over personal privacy in the age of terrorism. A recent Associated Press news story reminded me of that and how government often uses terrorism as a trump card in the privacy game.
In the Randolph, Vt., library, children’s librarian Judith Flint recently found herself confronted by state police detectives. They wanted to seize the library’s public-access computers. She refused them access.
Freedom's words
Back in the early 1990s, my students and I at Troy State University pondered ways to raise money for the Society of Professional Journalists’ Legal Defense Fund. The fund, all private donations, primarily gets used to support the legal battles of individual journalists and to support cases where journalists seek access to government records.
We decided to sell T-shirts. I came up with this verbiage: “Talk is cheap, free speech isn’t. Support SPJ’s Legal Defense Fund.”
Honesty amidst the stupidity
Saying something really stupid does not disqualify someone from becoming president. In fact, I think we can safely say that saying myriad stupid things neither disqualifies a candidate for president nor a standing president.
But it clearly begs the question, “How can someone we are being led to believe is so intelligent and so equipped to lead, say something so incredibly stupid?”
For the short-term example, we turn to Hillary Clinton and her now “old news” comments about staying in the race because Barack Obama might get assassinated.
Making the argument for arguing
The expression “Why can’t we all get along” doesn’t set well with Howard Fineman — at least when it comes to Americans.
Look to Fineman’s recently published book to see why, “The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country.”
Fineman sees “arguing” as part of America’s DNA. He admits that certain aspects of that arguing pose problems — shouting, hate mongering and name-calling.
But for the most part, Fineman sees the “argument” as the thing that most makes America and Americans special.
