Wednesday, December 8

"DREAM ACT" - Innocent Children? What about their Guilty Parents?

So out of all of the possible things Congress could do to start digging this country out of the mess it is in, the Democrats have decided to work on passing a mass amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
7:19pm ET: If you stepped away from CSPAN just now you missed a quick, stirring, strong speech from Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee in support of the DREAM Act. She said:
These children have not broken they law. These are are not criminals. [Note: Bullshit] The only nightmare I can imagine is the nightmare of violating the rights of these individuals who want an opportunity to serve America. First of all they have to be in the country for five years already. And they cannot change their status for another ten years…Do we violate our rights and our beliefs about we all are created equal?

And so I ask my colleagues to support a DREAM Act that invests in America, that allows people to serve America. It is not amnesty. It is people wanting to serve this country, pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Stand for what is right. Vote for the DREAM Act. Believe in our values. We are all created equal.
- Link
This is a scam, plain and simple. If this was about simply what the Democrats claim it to be, than the bill would would not have been written with some many crappy provisions in it, including the provisions that allow even criminal aliens to become legal under this proposed act, which is why I call BS Congresswoman Lee's comments above.

Also, keep in mind that by calling the children innocent, there is a guilty party the Democrats are ignoring, the parents of these illegal alien parents. The bill does nothing to punish the guilty party. Hell, the Democrats want to legalize them too. Hell, I might be party open to given these so-called victimless children a shot at legal status provided that their guilty parents are deported. After all, it is these parents that put both their children and us as a country in this position. Me, I say send them home. If their home countries are so bad than this is exactly what they need to reform, US-educated young adults to foster reform and improve living conditions back in their parents home. I do not see how we as a country need to be responsible for the bad behavior of others.

This position might seem heartless, however where do we draw the line? There are millions outside the country in need. how about the US instill it's laws and values on those third world countries? See, now I am evil for supporting an imperialistic America. however, look at the bright side if the US took over these countries:
The illegals will become legal residents
  • They can come out of the shadows
  • They will be free to move about the US
  • They can go travel to and from home without having to sneak across the border
  • Increased wages for those in the new territories due to minimum wage laws
  • Compulsory free education for children
  • Improved health care
  • etc....
Again this bill is a scam. The 'Dream Act' is nothing more that the 'Anchor Baby Creation Act of 2010'.
Add to Google

Liberals Have No Right To Demand That Others Pay More In Taxes Than They Do

It seems that Liberals are all up in arms about the President agreeing not to raise taxes on all Americans. This goes against the Liberal/Democrat demands that taxes be raised for the richest Americans.

First, one argument that Liberal Democrats were making, and something that Congressman Pelosi was using as an argument to raise taxes, was that all Americans were still going to get a tax cut, up to a certain point. In other works that the richest paid the same taxes as those earning less than them for that same portion of earnings, i.e. under $250,000 for couples. This however is disingenuous and the Democrat's first lie, because not all of the tax breaks are extended to Americans that exceed a certain income level. One of those tax breaks that cuts out is the child tax credit.
Credit worth as much as $1,000 per child

If you have children who are under age 17 at of the end of 2009, you can get a $1,000 tax credit per child on your tax return. A tax credit reduces your tax bill dollar-for-dollar, so three qualifying children, for example, can cut what you owe Uncle Sam by $3,000. The credit may be limited if your income exceeds the levels listed below.

And the credit does not affect the exemptions you take for dependents—worth $3,650 each in 2009. The child tax credit is in addition to those exemptions.

Credit is phased out at higher income levels

The child tax credit is reduced or eliminated if your adjusted gross income is above certain thresholds. The credit amount is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds the threshold amount.

The threshold is:

  • $110,000 on a joint return
  • $75,000 for an unmarried individual
  • $55,000 for a married individual filing a separate return
- TurboTax
The argument for higher taxes for the rich made by Liberals also ignores a simple fact that the tax system is progressive and those that earn more pay a higher percentage of tax on their higher earnings with or without keeping the current tax rates. Click on the images below that cover both the current rates (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%) and the previous rates (10%, 15%, 27%, 30%, 35% and 38%) and in each case, the rich always pay a higher percentage in tax on their higher earnings. (Tables found here)

Liberals are also complaining that the announced tax deal by the President is unfair in that it extends the tax break for two years but only extends unemployment for 13 months is another weak argument. Simply put, unemployment payment is supposed to be temporary aid in order to help people find replacement work. It is crazy to extend such payments for years. This has the ability to distort behavior against taking other work, especially if the new work does not pay as well as the old job did. Unemployed were never entitled to unlimited unemployment benefits. To offer up another year is doing little more than creating a class of permanently unemployable 'workers'. This needs to stop.

The argument made by Liberals is distorting the actual cost of extending the current tax rates. they are using the cost to extend the current tax rates for the next ten years. Comparatively speaking, this amount is much smaller than any one year deficit during the Obama Administration. It is also about the same cost as the failure known as the 'Stimulus Bill'. As I wrote before:
As for the number that the President is commenting on there above, while being large, they pall in comparison to the actual deficit total. As for the $700 billion cost the President mentions, that is the cost to extend the tax cuts for the rich for the next ten years. In comparison, 'The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion'. - Link
The argument made by the Liberals also ignores that the richest Americans already pay the majority of taxes. the lower half pay next to nothing. Take a look at the graphic below. The bottom half of the population is paying no Federal income taxes. How is that fair? Everyone should contribute. Many do not and this is distorting rational decision making as they are only looking at the Federal Government in terms of handouts. So it then becomes in their best interest to ensure that the richest are taxed as much as possible. It also perverts the perpetration of fraud among benefit recipients who, instead of reporting fraud, instead also look to benefit by replicating the crime, since it does not cost them anything.

The Democrats in Congress are talking about extending the Tax Cut for the middle class, because the poor don't pay anything. They are also ignoring the real problem which is spending. The Government is addicted to spending. As with any addition, the cure is never more, in this case money, but less. (and do not forget the other problem which is simple waste...)

OK, I got the additional unemployment time wrong:
Just wanted to point out that the unemployment benefits extension doesn't give the 99ers another 13 months. The 99ers are still done after 99 weeks. This new bill just covers those behind the 99ers who are about to lose benefits.

I won't denigrate these people. I will say that people who can't find work for two years should perhaps move to where the opportunities are. - Lou Minatti
As for that last comment about moving, I have written about that before. It is hard to find work when the jobs have moved from your part of the country. Yes, some are moving overseas but many are just moving to cheaper parts of the country. There are lots of jobs here. Just ask all the illegal aliens doing them. See my posts ""The economy will recover faster if workers are willing to seek out and seize distant opportunities"", "Don't Redistribute wealth. Redistribute the poor" and "Don't Redistribute the Wealth - Redistribute the Work!" for more on that.
Add to Google

Saturday, December 4

MAREX - Sea Shepherd Partly at fault for Sinking of ADY GIL

The Maritime Executive has news regarding investigation findings on the Sinking of the Sea Shepherd's ADY GIL:
Both Captains to Blame for Collision Between Activists and Whalers

The January collision between a Japanese whaling ship and a protest boat has now been officially blamed on both sides.

Maritime New Zealand says there is no evidence that either side intentionally caused the collision. The organization has placed blame on both captains saying they both failed in acting properly to avoid the accident. - The Maritime Executive
Given what Sea Shepherd has been up to down there, I would tend to put the blame on Sea Shepherd for the accident. After all, they have been attacking the Japanese and the Japanese certainly have a right to defend themselves. And I would say that the ADY GIL posed a potential huge problem for the Japanese given it's speed. I think it made perfect sense for the Japanese to try and damage the ship if given the opportunity. This is probably why the New Zealand Authorities declined to find the Japanese vessel at fault.

For your enjoyment, here is the video of the ADY GIL's last moments.

I look forward to seeing what the Japanese plan to do to defend themselves next season.

I also look forward to the end of this mindless whaling.
Add to Google

Tuesday, November 16

Airport Security is a Mess Because the Government Refuses to Profile

TSA has gone and managed to piss off the entire country simply because they refuse to employ technology that can help them identify travelers who are more likely to be a threat than others. That technology is profiling.

The nun being frisked as pictured on the Drudge Report? A waste of time. The children getting disturbing in-depth pat-downs, disturbing and damaging to our country's future.

The simple fact is that most every American traveler is absolutely no threat to airline security. Zero threat. Most every real threat can be identified by first profiling the travelers. This is something that they can (and should) be doing from the moment the person purchases a ticket.

Now are security officials going to find things hidden on children and on grandma? Sure they are. History has no shortage of evidence of children being used to smuggle things through security. Are these things dangerous in respect of airline security? No. And I say finding pot strapped to a kid getting ready to board a plane is not the job of TSA. And even then, I bet that profiling will in most cases identify the parents most likely to do such a thing. Anyway, they already have a way to detect smuggled drugs by way of drug sniffing dogs.

The Government, and Democrats specifically, is/are greatly responsible for the problems that resulted in all of us getting probed at the airport. Think about it for a second. Criminals are not put in prison. Dangerous terrorists are let free. Millions of illegal aliens are roaming around this country with de-facto immunity from the same Government Department that is probing the rest of us. As it is, the 9/11 hijackers were well-known to the government already. And with that it is worth noting 'the wall' created by liberals within the Government to actively prevent the sharing of information concerning threats to this country. The ongoing result of this failure to use the information we have is the mess at security checkpoints at every airport in the country.

At this time I for one refuse to let my children go through a full-body scanner. There is no way that the Government can convince me that this is either necessary or done in a way that protects the privacy of my children nor done in a way that does not save the images for future potential abuse. I for one am convinced that the Government is lying that they are not saving copies of the scanned images. After all, they would be crazy not to. Otherwise how are they are going to review what might have happened in the case of a breach of security?

I certainly hope this is a temporary problem. Scanning everyone is not only not fun for passengers but also surely no fun for security screeners. Worse, I believe it helps the real terrorists hide in the crowd of just another person to get the same treatment. It is they who should have a spotlight trained on them. Not the rest of us.

Add to Google

Tuesday, November 9

Gerry Connolly, Kieth Fimian and Tea Party Derangement Syndrome

It figures that the Congressional District that I live in will apparently stay represented by a Democrat. As it stands now, Democrat Gerry Connolly has close to a 1,000 vote lead over Republican challenger Kieth Fimian.

I have to say that I was sorely disappointed with the candidate thrown up by the local Republican Party. I also think that this was a race that the Tea Party missed as Kieth was certainly no Tea Party candidate. Worse, this is the second time Mr. Fimian tried (and failed) to take this seat from Mr. Connolly, so I think it is time for someone else to give it a try. This is unfortunate, as I thought his primary challenger, Fairfax County Supervisor Pat S. Herrity would have made a better candidate. At least I think this will push me to become active in the decision-making process in the next race. I don't mean that I would run. I certainly am not interested in having people go into forensic detail of every aspect of my life. I expect that there is no shortage of things that could be twisted into making me look like a horrible person. At least I have the golden defense, I was a sailor and (whatever) is nothing uncommon for a seafarer...

As for the Tea Party, watch the development of 'Tea Party Derangement Syndrome' among the left as the next Congress comes to power. I think that the influence of the Tea Party, and those who sympathize with their goals, like myself, still has a long way to go. As it is my neighbor was asking me on election day to explain what the Tea Party was, while a Gadsden Flag was flying from the front of their house! Just image how many other people are out there who have yet to organize and take an active part in the election process, both as voters and candidates.

This should be interesting times. The Connolly-Fimian race has not been called yet but it appears to now be Connolly's to lose. No matter, he will be my representative and will need to deal with the concerns of his conservative constituents like myself. Otherwise it might just be that he and others who won election are going to start feeling sorry that they wanted this job.

Add to Google

Tuesday, November 2

I Voted (With Bonus Harrasment by the Election Officer)

Just got back from voting. I took my two kids with me and had them helping me with the touch-screen voting.

I did not have any problems with the machine, but I did have a run-in with the head election officer. She came up to me just as we were finishing and she told me that children were not allowed to touch the machine. My first reaction was 'Really?' She said yes and I asked her to show me the rule. She told me that that would take so time and I asked her to get it. She walked away and then comes back. Not with the rule but with the complaint that there were three of us at the machine and even made the snide comment about how many times we were trying to vote. As far as I know it is impossible for me to vote more than once. Isn't that the point of electronic voting, to make sure things like that don't happen. And it's not like my kids, 3 and 5, were going to hack the machine. I took them along just like my parents did with me. Although back then, we used the large machines with the curtain that offered some privacy from troublesome election officials.... I pointed out that if there was a problem with me taking my two kids to the voting booth, that is was something that should have been told to me when I went to the registration table. They of course were happy that I brought my kids to participate in the experience. By this time I was just pressing the 'VOTE' button and in the back of my mind I was wondering if she was trying to goad me into a situation that was going to end up with me being arrested. So in response her her demand for my voter number I simply replied that I was done voting and was leaving. I have no clue what was her problem. I never saw a person have a problem with kids coming to help parents vote. Also I was not interesting in escalating a situation where she was probably volunteering her time to begin with.

Just to be clear, I did not let me kids touch the machine after she told me they could not touch it. After all, there could be a valid rule, in an attempt to prevent kids passing on germs to the touch screen, or more likely getting something off the touch screen. But if any of these are the reasons, she should know the reason why and she had no clue.

This is not the first time that I have done this. I did the same in McLean for the last election and not only did I not have trouble, but the kids also got candy. I think that was why they wanted to come in the first place. Well for that and the sticker. And I bet the election official yelled at the helper for giving us three.

No matter, I voted and look forward to the results tonight.

Update: I voted at North Springfield Elementary School.

Add to Google

Thursday, October 28

Top 10 Congressional Candidates I want to see lose on Tuesday

Here is a list of the top ten Congressional Candidates (House and Senate) I want to see lose on Tuesday.

1. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) - My current Congressman. My thoughts on him here. His opponent is Kieth Fimian and I will be voting for him.

2. Lisa Murkowski (write-in-AK) - She is a snake in the grass. When she failed to win her party's nomination, she decides to wage a write-in campaign, despite promising to honor the results of the primary. This I think is the lowest kind of politician. She agreed to participate in a party system and when she did not win, decides to go it alone. Then there is this crap she is pushing 'Frank Murkoskiwitcski's Little Princess To West Point Grad And Decorated Combat Vet: You Are Not Fit To Lead'. Her opponent is Joe Miller he is the only qualified person in this race to represent the people of Alaska. Ms. Murkowski wants the power for herself and her actions show no respect for the people of her state.

3. Charlie Crist (FL) - He is the same kind of snake as Murkowski. The two of them are not interested in serving the people at all. They are all out for a position of power. We do not need politicians like this. What we need are tools to do out bidding. After all, this is why we have them in the first place. His opponent is Marco Rubio. Mr. Rubio already beat Mr. Crist in the primary. Hopefully the second time is the charm, unless Mr. Crist is some sort of zombie that comes back from the dead.

4. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) - This is the Congressman who called for boycotting his own state for wanting to enforce Federal Immigration law. As a Congressman, it is his responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government does it's job. So 'Congressman' Grijalva has failed his state twice. First for not seeing that the Federal Government fulfills it's obligations and then for financially harming the citizens of the state he represents for calling for a boycott against those people who are merely calling for Federal Immigration laws to be enforced. He is the perfect example of what is wrong with our Government. As a bonus, we have the opportunity to replace this poor example of a politician with an actual rocket scientist. Her name is Ruth McClung and would be a great addition to Congress. Also, this is the district where thousands of bogus voter registrations has be discovered (See 'Raul Grijalva ally commiting voter fraud in Yuma County'). Their actions should be rewarded with defeat for the candidate they are trying to steal the election for.

5. Barney Frank (D-MA) - What's to say. He is a smug politician who is a huge contributor to the financial mess that this country is currently in. He is a cancer in the House of Representatives. (See Ace for more.) Sean Bielat is running to replace him and I think Massachusetts is lucky that they have an opportunity to rid themselves of Barney Frank with a good replacement.

6. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - Again, another smug condescending politician.

Carly Fiorina is running against Barbara Boxer and polls give her a fair chance at actually removing Boxer from Congress. Mrs. Boxer has forgotten long ago that she is a servant of the people and needs to go. Remember, they do not tell us, we tell them.

7. Harry Reid (D-AZ) - As leader of the Senate, he was the enabler of Obama's ObamaCare and of the failed 'Stimulus' Bill. He is the one who traitorously declared the War Lost. Plus he irritates me. His opponent is Sharon Angle. She truly out-shined Harry Reid when they debated demonstrating that she is clearly the better choice.

8. Joe Sestak (D-PA) - Mr. Sestak has yet to answer outstanding questions regarding a possible illegal job offer from the Obama Administration to drop out of this race, when the seat was still held by Arlan Specter. His opponent is Pat Toomey.

9. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) - This tool is the guy who can't explain how to create jobs (video) and thinks that he has business experience because he has been suing businesses for years. You can't get much more disconnected from reality than that. His opponent is Linda McMahon.

10. Chris Coons (D-DE) - This is my longshot. I picked it because I hate driving through Delaware and I hate the fact that this guy at one time was so enamored with socialism that he wrote “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.” His opponent is Christine O'Donnell. Despite being a longshot, it seems that she is just about to meet her goal of raising another $1.65 million after blowing past an initial goal of raising $1 Million. I love the tagline 'Help us raise $1 million to stop a trillion dollar tax increase'. If she wins, she would sit in the lame-duck session and would make it that much harder for Democrats to ram anything through at the last minute. That alone should be incentive enough for conservatives to come out and vote for her!

Close Runner-ups.:

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) - While I would like to see her lose her seat, I am content enough to see her relegated to a minority party. Then I think we will see her true colors and nasty attitude come out in full. There are now predictions that she will resign upon losing her senior position. That would be a nice side-benefit of this election.

Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) - While it would be nice to see both of these horrible Congress-critters lose their jobs, I realize that the part of the population they represent will vote for them no matter what wrongdoing they are caught doing. So hopefully when Republicans take control of the House the Tea Partiers in the group will push to have these two investigated and punished to the full extent for their ethics violations with appropriate criminal charges to follow. Unfortunately, their trials are scheduled for the lame-duck session.

There is now less than a week until the election. I am ready to vote. I am also ready to make sure that the new Congress dedicates itself to getting the country back on the path to recovery with a smaller leaner Government. Some people think that the feelings in the country represented so nicely by the 'Tea Party' will go away. I doubt it.

Add to Google

Friday, October 22

Virginia's 11th Congressional District - Fimian over Connolly

First, I am not a Tea Partier. That said, I wish that the Tea Party paid a little more attention to Virginia's 11th Congressional District race. I say this because I would like to actually be excited about who I am voting for more so than I am about voting out my current Congressman. Then again, there is lots to like about voting against the current guy.

For starters, given that I can't stand having Pelosi in charge of the House of Representatives, there is no way that I am going to vote for the Democrat, Connolly. Since I can't vote directly against Nancy Pelosi, I have to do it through her local proxy, which is Congressman Gerry Connolly. He voted for the 'Stimulus' Bill as well as for ObamaCare. So he needs to go.

This leaves the Republican challenger, Keith Fimian.

On the surface he sounds like a good choice. He is both against illegal immigration and for appealing ObamaCare. As it is, one of his promises is to introduce legislation to repeal it if he is elected:
The Pelosi-Connolly Healthcare Plan is Wrong for America

What is for certain is that government-run healthcare bill Democrats rammed through Congress will reduce the quality of care, increase costs, stifle innovation and create yet another unresponsive government bureaucracy that views Americans as statistics and not as individuals.

The plan is based on cutting $200 billion out of Medicare, raiding social security, and may threaten the healthcare benefits our nation’s veterans have earned.

The American people do not want this legislation. That is why Democrats used procedural maneuvers pass it. We can address each real problem with our system with stand alone legislation, not another massive bureaucracy and 2,300 page health care bill whose proponents have yet to even read it.

I will introduce legislation in Congress to repeal it. - Keith Fimian for Congress
The Washington Examiner also comes out with an endorsement for Fimian:
Incumbent Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly exemplifies the fading political fortunes of the freshman tax-and-spenders who rode President Obama’s coattails into Congress two years ago. The former chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and president of the 2008 congressional class, Connolly loyally cast votes for the president’s $814 billion stimulus bill, bank bailouts, cap and trade and Obamacare. RealClearPolitics rates this year’s rematch of Connolly and businessman Keith Fimian as a “toss up.”

Connolly’s inflammatory campaign ads paint Fimian as an “extremist” and himself as a fiscal conservative. Both claims are false. Voters should disregard these distractions from Connolly’s record in Congress and send him back to Fairfax. Fimian, a William & Mary football captain and CPA who built a nationwide home inspection business, has a vision for reviving the national economy. This requires removing the paralyzing uncertainty now facing small business created by the same legislation Connolly voted for. One less career politician — and one more job creator — is what Congress needs and Fimian will be. - Washington Examiner
The NRA has come out for Fimian while at the same time slamming Connolly for what is basically a lack of respect for rights that were guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights.


Dear Virginia NRA Member: October 13,2010

The NRA-PVF ( has endorsed Keith Fimian for Congress. It is critical that you vote for Keith Fimian for Congress, and urge your family and friends to do the same. We need to bolster our ranks in Congress to keep this White House from pursuing an anti-gun agenda after the 2010 elections.

That's why it's more important than ever that we elect Keith Fimian to Congress to firewall around our Second Amendment rights. Keith Fimian is rated an "AQ" by the NRA-PVF for his pro-gun responses to our federal candidate questionnaire, and he is committed to opposing federal gun control and support pro-gun reforms.

By contrast, his opponent - Congressman Gerry Connolly - has earned an “F” rating for his extreme anti-gun positions, and for accepting campaign contributions from national gun ban groups like the Brady Campaign. Connolly was one of the few congressmen who signed the anti-gun “friend of the court” brief in the landmark McDonald case arguing that the Second Amendment is NOT a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans and supporting the Chicago gun ban. Connolly also has cosponsored federal legislation to regulate gun shows - like the one held quarterly at the Dulles Expo Center - out of business. Connolly voted last year against allowing carry permit holders to carry and transport firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. Finally, Connolly refused to answer our federal candidate questionnaire this year - a clear indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to the rights of gun owners and sportsmen.

The choice is clear! All gun owners and sportsmen in Virginia's eleventh congressional district should support Keith Fimian on Election Day. If you can volunteer to help, please contact his campaign at and703-621-7169. Also spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners. And on November 2, Vote Freedom First - Vote Keith Fimian for Congress!


I think the choice is clear and easy. As far as my neighbors go, I am not aware of any of them who are not voting for him, other than the family with 'LIBERAL' license plates. And even then I am not sure because I have not talked with them.

UPDATE: OK, my blog is running anti-Fimian ads despite my attempts to filter them out. Whatever, go and see that the Democrats have against Fimian. It does not effect the reasons stated above. this election is more than about the candidates above, it is about which party controls Congress. If you want Pelosi to ram through more crap legislation, then pull the Democrat lever. If not, than you need to pull for the Republican candidate. Simple as that.

Add to Google

Wednesday, October 20

Chamber of Commerce Money and ObamaCare Funded Abortions

The Obama White House has been trying to hammer the Chamber of Commerce with false accusations that they are using foreign money to run election ads against Democrats.
“I challenge the Chamber of Commerce to tell us how much of the money they’re investing is from foreign sources,” Biden said Monday. “I challenge them. If I’m wrong, I will stand corrected."

White House adviser David Axelrod took heat from Bob Schieffer of CBS News Sunday when he did not provide any specific evidence of what was leading the White House to draw such conclusions about the Chamber's collection of funds overseas, saying only: "Do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?" - Politico
Basically, the claim is that since the Chamber receives foreign money, that it's ad program is subsidized by these foreign funds. It is an interesting claim, but as the recent news comes out, if this is an accurate claim, then it is something that the Democrats are guilty of as well.

But this issue has bigger problems for Obama, because it strikes at the heart of the Democrats argument of including abortion funding in ObamaCare Legislation.
In the state-based exchanges that the law creates, people without employer-based coverage will be able to buy private insurance using a combination of their own money and federal subsidies that most will receive based on their income level. Drafters of the law attempted to assuage both sides of the abortion debate through a compromise that ended up pleasing neither.

Insurers are allowed to include abortion coverage in their exchange plans, but everyone who buys such a plan must make two separate premium payments: one covering the bulk of the policy and another, far smaller one, as little as $1 per month, for the plan's abortion coverage. Any federal subsidies can be applied only to the first payment.

Antiabortion groups complain that the arrangement amounts to little more than an accounting gimmick. Unless plans that accept federally subsidized customers are barred from covering abortion, they say, the government will effectively be using at least some tax dollars to fund abortions. - Washington Post
So once again the President and his Democrat allies are taking both sides of an argument, simply to meet their needs of the moment.

Add to Google

Friday, October 15

"German Farm Girls Calendar 2011"

It's that time of year! Now I am not too eager to start thinking about Christmas or New Years, but I will make an exception in this case.

German Farm Girls Calendar 2011

Milking a cow in lingerie? Handling a scythe in only a bra and panties? The 2011 edition of a calendar showing scantily clad German farm girls has just been released for fans of rustic erotica. -
More photos of the calender here.

Add to Google

Thursday, October 14

Democrats Hate the Idea of Private Social Security Accounts - Because They Cannot Steal From Those Accounts...

One issue that keeps coming up in US politics is the Democrat's claim that Republicans will wreck Social Security if they ever get back into power.

One way that they mention the Republicans will do this is by changing Social Security to permit workers to put at least part of their Social Security payroll deductions into private accounts that they can then influence how they are invested. One benefit of this change put forward is that the money put into those accounts is dedicated for the person who earned the money and gives the possibility of a better return on the savings than the Government might be able to provide. The Democrats in turn has falsely labeled this plan as just another way to steal money from workers and give it to Wall Street.
Democrats are wrong to claim that personal accounts would hand Social Security over to Wall Street because - unlike having Washington centrally manage investments, as Bill Clinton favored - individuals would make their own decisions along with their choice of financial advisers.

The idea would be to take control of retirement away from politicians in Washington and from politically connected Wall Street insiders and put it in the hands of workers themselves. The upside is that the accounts would be able to provide much higher returns than the current Social Security system even promises, let alone what it can actually pay. They can therefore be sold to the public as what they are - benefit increases. - Washington Times
The one real problem to the Government (and to Democrat's demand to ever increase spending) with moving to private accounts is that the Government would no longer be able to take Social Security money and use it for other purposes. And how much of the Social Security surplus has the Government taken? How about all of it. Over $2 Trillion.
Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)). Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion. - Wikipedia
So on the one hand, Social Security has a surplus of over $2 Trillion to meet it's needs. On the other hand, all of that money was traded for Government bonds. The bonds are a promise from the Government to repay Social Security.

The Government took the money and spent it. The Government now either needs to pay that money back to Social Security, and with running a deficit, would need to borrow that money to repay the bonds. That could be a serious problem given that the Government already needs to borrow to cover the current year's spending deficits. And that is a problem with the idea of selling the bonds held by Social Security. Doing so increases the amount that needs to be sold into the market, and the Government is already having trouble selling the bonds it needs to need to cover current-year deficit spending.

Of course they could just print more money. I am not sure exactly how that would work out.

So remember, no matter how the politicians try to claim that Social Security has no problem, keep in mind that these same politicians turned the Social Security Trust Fund of $2 Trillion and turned it into added Government debt.
Add to Google

Saturday, September 25

1994 BMW - 200,000 Miles

My 1994 BMW 325i just hit another milestone this last Monday as it passed 200,000.

The question now is 'Now what?'
Add to Google

Sunday, September 19

Congressman Rangel emails all taxpayers soliciting for donations

Upon hearing that DC House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton was out soliciting lobbyists with issues before her Congressional Committee, Congressman Charles Rangel realized that, he too was Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which among other things, oversees Taxation, Social Security and Medicare. With this in mind, he too decides to ask for cash from those whose livelihood his work in Congress has impacted; Every taxpayer in the US. Since there are too many to call, he decides to email everyone.

Here is a copy of one of his solicitation emails:
Dear Taxpayer/Social Security or Medicare Recipient,

This is Congresswoman Charlie Rangel. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues in Congress.

I am a, um, Senior Member, a thirty nine year veteran and recent Chair of the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means. I’ve handled the writing of our tax laws which govern how much taxes people pay and how much (if any) benefits people receive.

I was, frankly, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and it’s been essentially having a direct impact on your quality of life.

I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As a recent senior member of the um, committee, we have (chuckles) obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

I’m asking you to give to Rangel for Congress. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again. - Transcript found at Big Government
Clearly, he didn't send this email. But if Congresswoman Norton can solicit funds as she has been caught doing, then Congressman Rangel can solicit as I suggest above. This is merely an example of why this kind of donation solicitation is wrong. Her message sounded like a shakedown. Given that the recipient released the message to the press, he clearly thought so as well.
Add to Google

Friday, September 10

Obama - Raising Taxes vs Tax Cuts: 'I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend that money'

To add to my post from yesterday 'Bush Tax Cuts Are not the Problem, Spending is...'
What I am saying is that if we are going to add to our deficit by $35 billion, $95 billion, $100 billion, $700 billion, if that's the Republican agenda, then I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend that money - President Obama (Via The Hill)
Of course he does. Hell, if given the chance, President Obama and his Democrat buddies have no end of 'better ways to spend your money'. The trick is, they have no plans of spending it on the people that they are taking the money from. Worse, they have no plans on spending this money on you either.

At least the President's words give good insight into how the President thinks. Basically he sees letting people keep their own income as Government spending. It is backwards and wrong. This money is owns and somehow we collectively decided to lets the idiots in control of the Government spend it on our behalf.

As for the number that the President is commenting on there above, while being large, they pall in comparison to the actual deficit total. As for the $700 billion cost the President mentions, that is the cost to extend the tax cuts for the rich for the next ten years. In comparison, 'The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion'.

Government spending is a reckless joke. Look at all the money that has been spent and basically wasted. Just how much more needs to be spent before we all feel good? Me, all I am thinking about is my income tax going up at the end of the year and eating away any raise that I might have coming. It get worse given the tax on dividends will go up. There is nothing that the Government can do for me to compensate for the additional tax money they are going to seize from me. And frankly, I am not interested in having that money being used to help other people, like in the recent billions spent as called for by the President to save teachers jobs in a number of states. That for me is a state issue. If those states are willing to lay off teachers, firefighters, whoever, then that is their decision. If they want to keep them, then the state needs to figure out how to pay their salaries. It is asinine to force me to pay for teachers in another state in addition to paying for those here.
Add to Google

Thursday, September 9

Bush Tax Cuts Are not the Problem, Spending is...

Seems that President Obama has set his sights on letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the richest Americans at the end of the year. This move is purely designed to both punish the richest Americans as well as a political move for the next election to show his core voters (Other than those rich idiots who voted for him) that he is doing his best to 'stick it' to the group of American who already pay the most taxes. They claim that the rich need to pay more because otherwise the deficit will continue to grow.

The reason why I call BS on this is that reinstating the Bush Tax Cuts will do absolutely nothing to reduce the deficit. Take the following story found on the Huffington post noting that the cost to the Government to keep the Bush Tax cuts for the next ten years is between $2.5 and $2.9 Trillion. That is about $250 billion a year.
President Barack Obama favors making the cuts permanent for middle class families, those individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates it would cost $2.9 trillion over the next decade to extend all the tax cuts, while Obama's plan is estimated at $2.5 trillion over 10 years. - Huffington Post
Now take the following recent news noting that President Obama's Administration has managed to add over $2.5 trillion to the national debt in just 19 months in office.
( - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. - CNS News
Given the numbers above, any politician who claims that we have to end the Bush tax cuts for the sake of the national deficit should be run out of office. These idiots in power will just use the addition revenue as a reason to spend twice as much.

Take a look at this graph (from Wikipedia) noting the difference between what the Government is taking in and what it is spending.

The problem is not revenue collection. It is spending. The amount of additional revenue by expiring the tax cuts for the richest would not be enough to cover Medicare spending in the graph above. And as you can see, it is a mere sliver of the additonal revenue needed to close the gap.

And for all these people out there saying that it is OK for people earning more than you to pay more taxes, keep in mind that they already pay more.

Also, as noted in my post 'Obama's 2010 Budget Spends Almost $12,000 Per American!' the level of Government spending is not only unsustainable, it is truly an irresponsible amount of spending:
Now comes the President's 2010 budget that is also screaming that this is something the Country can't afford.
After taking office in January, Obama released a bare-bones version of his budget in February that offered a spending plan for 2010 carrying a price tag of $3.55 trillion. The White House revised up the size of the spending plan to $3.59 trillion. - Yahoo News
At $3.59 Trillion, the Government will be spending around $11,970 per American (Given 300 million Americans). That comes out to Government spending of $47,900 for a family of four.

This is an impossible spending figure for the country to sustain. Hell, it will take years, most likely decades of taxation just to pay this one year's deficit back. - Link
I can't believe that there is any excuse to continue spending like this. None.

Add to Google