The Snarky Files - Euripides' Views on the Week January 7, 2010

 Senator Harry Reid clutches at his heart, demonstrating how nationalized health-care will give Americans permanent coronary disease, from which we will never recover.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

My Big Fannie
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have turned into the monster that ate New York City. And Washington DC. And Los Angeles. And the rest of the US.

According to Bloomberg, US taxpayers stand to lose more than $400 billion (let me repeat that - $400 BILLION) supporting these government monstrosities. Former general counsel to the Treasury, Peter Wallison admits that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were directly responsible for the demise of the loan industry:

Lax regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the mortgage companies taking on too many risky loans, Wallison said.

“It turns out it was impossible to regulate them,” he said. “They were too powerful.” He said no one knows how much will be needed to keep the companies solvent.

Here's the rub: Why is it that the Obama administration can decry the evil private corporations for their insolvency, take them over, regulate them, appoint CEOs, and fix salaries, yet when it comes to the government-based behemoths of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the government can do no wrong?

As Bruce Bialosky points out:

Because these entities have been protected by Barney Frank in the House and Christopher Dodd in the Senate, the two lenders have escaped the kind of brutal public scrutiny visited upon banks and other lenders. While bankers have been on the hot seat and skewered by late night comedians, the people who run these behemoths have escaped unfazed.

It's time to kill the beast.

Obama's Open Health Care Process
Here's a video of Obama's campaign promise to insist on giving C-SPAN open access to the debate on health care legislation. We all know that politicians do not keep most of their campaign promises, but since Obama's campaign focused so much on changing the status quo in Washington, you'd think he'd get some flak for conducting business as more than usual.

This was first posted by Breitbart.  It's worth a good laugh or two.




Nancy Pelosi may have been correct after all. She claimed she would preside over an improved and transparent government. It's painfully transparent what Obama and Congress are doing pushing an unwanted health care bill. It's just too bad that the majority of Americans don't agree with them.

Deluded
This week, Nancy Pelosi dared to defend her position on running a transparent system:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress' work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations. (The Hill)

This declaration of transparency is absolutely true, if you happen to be a liberal and believe whatever line your favorite politician is feeding you at the moment.

To the rest of the US, if transparency means closed door meetings with insurance lobbies, excluding Republicans from the process, calling for the vote at midnight on a Saturday, rushing through the process too fast for anyone to read or understand the bill, midnight deals on amendments which no one knows about, bribing members of Congress with pork so they'll hold their nose and get on board, stonewalling the media, ignoring public opinion, ignoring constituents, if this is what transparency means, then yes, Nancy Pelosi has created historic transparency.

Picking Nits with Health Care
Two news stories came out this week which demonstrate the inherent problems with government interference in the health care industry. The problem isn't enough government regulation. The problem is too much government regulation and far too many government entitlements.

President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. (Associate Press)

What this means is that not only has Obama broken his campaign promise for transparency, he's now broken his campaign promise not to tax the middle class, instead advocating a tax to help pay for the disastrous health care bill making its way through Congress.

As if that isn't enough to get Americans solidly against the bill, how about an extra tax on married couples?

Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress. (Wall Street Journal)

At this point in the process, the argument over the health care bill has become a series of nit picking at the individual points within the bill. The problem, however, isn't in the details, rather it is a systemic problem that accepts the idea that government-run health care is somehow a good idea. These two examples merely point to the inherent problem with the entire bill.

Same Sex Marriage Live!
The National Review reports that gay activists in California are now trying to make the law suit against California's Proposition 8 a public affair. This changes the California court's longstanding prohibition against broadcasting trials to the public.

Why would the judge try to change the prohibition and circumvent the law in trial publication? According to letter from the counsel in support of Proposition 8:

Given all the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters that has already occurred, “it is not surprising,” as counsel’s December 28 letter puts it, that “potential witnesses have already expressed to [counsel] their great distress at the prospect of having their testimony televised” and that “some potential witnesses have indicated that they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse.” The likelihood of intensified harassment of counsel is also obvious.

What this means is obvious. Gay activists are so intent on passing legislation to neuter marriage in the name of civil rights that they convinced the judge assigned to a Proposition 8 constitutionality trial to change the rules. The reason to change the rules is also obvious, gay activists want to use television to publicly ridicule harass witnesses called on to defend marriage.

This sort of ploy can certainly backfire against those trying to foist the idea of same sex marriage onto the people of the US. In my experience, the harassment Californians (and others across the US) suffered at the hands of gay activists only solidified and unified marriage defenders to take a firm stand against this same sex marriage nonsense. Isn't that correct Carrie Prejean?