First, second, and now… third-hand smoke!

My head just exploded.

eHarmony dot com: A Cautionary Tale

“Do as we say, or we will destroy you.”

I don’t blame homosexuals for what has happened to eHarmony.com, no more than I blame women for what happened to the men’s Rotary Club in the 80s.

I blame leftists.

There are sites on the internet that specialize in African Americans dating other African Americans. There are sites that specialize in interracial couples. There are sites that specialize in lesbian couples. There are TONS of gay dating sites.

There are even sites to fascilitate dating for your pets– and help you find another pet-lover while you’re at it.

If I decided to sue any of the sites above for not equaling advertising and servicing me as a white person, I would be labeled a racist.  Yet these leftist activists- whose own intolerance for the opinions and liberty of others (namely Evangelical Christians and Mormons) eclipses the supposed intolerance of Neil Clark Warren or James Dobson or any other of the “anti-gay” or “racist” or “sexist” or “anti-immigrant” boogiemen you wish to name- are not labeled as what they are. They are anti-liberty for anyone who disagrees with them.

There is no moral, legal, ethical, or logical reason why eHarmony.com should not be allowed to offer their services only to heterosexual couples if they so choose. None.

This court ruling is wrong, and this is not a heterosexual vs. homosexual issue people.  This is a conflict between those who believe in the centrality of liberty and private property- allowing companies to operate how they wish- and those who value the feelings of the individual over the good of society.

Does it hurt your feelings that eHarmony won’t match you with someone of the same sex? I certainly understand why that may be painful, but imagine how much more painful it will be when the liberties our country were founded upon cease to exist in the name of making everyone “equal”.

Bend over and grab your ankles, America.

There is $4 trillion sitting in 401k and IRA retirement accounts out there.

And the Democrats want to take it from you.

Congratulations America- this is what happens when you hand over power to the Democrats.  Listen- the fact that they are even talking about this- and according to Neal Boortz’s radio show today, they have been talking about this for 16 years- is reason enough to never, ever ever vote for a Democrat.

Dems look at converting 401Ks and IRAs accounts into Social Security Administration.

By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression

Even Ferris Bueller’s high school economics teacher can tell you that Barack Obama’s proposed policies will prove ruinous if they are ever realized.

Obama’s protectionist fiscal policies- his apparent aversion to the North American Free Trade Agreement, other agreements, and globalization, his desire to raise taxes on successful corporations that produce wealth, and his subsequent (but unstated) desire to rid the US of low-cost consumer goods- will ruin this country economically if they are enacted.

You don’t raise taxes on anyone during economic downturns.  It just isn’t done.

Except we have seen things like this tried before- in 1929, Republican president Herbert Hoover tried stuff like this, and it was a disaster.  If you don’t believe me, just watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:

Economics teacher: “In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the… Anyone? Anyone? …the Great Depression, passed the… Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered? …raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. “Voodoo” economics.”

A subprime primer

I’ve been posting links to different articles and such as  I come across them which are helpful in explaining the whole financial meltdown thing.  I am doing this because EYE really want to understand it but don’t, and assume a lot of people are in the same boat.

This cartoon is absolutely brilliant and hilarious at the same time, and is probably as good an explanation as I have seen anywhere.

Warning: a little bit of bad language. It’s entirely worth it though.

We’re all gonna DROWN!!!

Oh dear God in heaven!

Newt Gingrich sucks now

Spending money to combat climate change could easily be the most ridiculous political proposition around today. It’s definitely worse than making kissy faces at Iran, absolutely worse than McCain or Obama’s economic proposals, and possibly worse than rolling back our relationship with Israel.

Look- even if you believe global climate change caused by man is a major problem, it doesn’t immediately follow that spending large amounts of money to fight it is a good idea. Think about it this way. If you had termites in your home, you would call the local bug guy to come zap them. However, if you were say, George III somewhere around the time of the American Revolution, and you had termites in your summer home in Wessex or Sussex or Dorkshire or wherever, it wouldn’t be the smartest idea to sink large sums of money and effort into combating them. There just isn’t a whole lot you can do about it. You could burn down your house, sure, but that’s pretty drastic. The only option you have is to adapt. Keep an eye on the problem, fix disasters as they occur, and perhaps research any promising ways to address the problem through new technology.

My point is that when it comes to the global climate and our ability to do anything about it, we are more like George III dealing with termites in 18th century England than we are Dr. House combating a mysterious disease. We simply don’t know enough, aren’t powerful enough, and don’t have enough tools to do much about it. Sinking billions of dollars into a problem we can’t fix is, frankly, crazy.

And it doesn’t help matters that Newt Gingrich, former champion of the contract with America, has bought into it.

It’s sad but true:

Amy Adams Anonymous

I need to start a group or something.  AA.. um.. A? But that’d be triple A. And that’s taken.

I’ll keep working on it.

In the meantime, I’m pleased to announce that Herc over at AICN has just reported that Ms. Adams will be appearing on the upcoming season finale of The Office, presumably reprising her role as “Hot Girl”.

What will happen?  The word is there will be an engagement on the season finale- not hard to guess which two officers (officers! see what I did there? funny!) are likely to enter into marital bliss.  However, what hijinx will ensue when one of Jim’s old flames shows up??

I’m such a ridiculous tv addicted American… somebody somewhere, please, find me a life to live, because I certainly am not doing much with mine.

What’s a conservative to do?? Plus mid-post bonus: Super Bowl joy

So long, Mittster. It was nice knowing ya.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that the results of Sooper Dooper Yooper Wooper Tuesday aren’t good for conservativism. It seems that, far from being a contender, Romney is a goner. And so that leaves McCain (McYuck) and Huckabee (I’ll refrain from the obvious slur on this one). I would not be surprised at all if Romney drops out this week.

It’s amazing what the roller coaster of life brings along. Just 2 days ago I was reveling in the pain of the object of my despisement (new word!), Mr. Tommy Brady Bunch. So, in the interest of cheering myself up, I’ll revisit that a little now…

HAHAHAHAHAAH!~!!!!!!!!! TOM BRADY IS A LOOOOOOOOOSER! How’s it feel now, mr. dump my pregnant girlfriend for a supermodel? eh? eh? Oh oh what’s that? Not the best ever? Can you say choke? choke choke choke??? No? How about lackluster performance? Can you say that? Oh wait, it’s not monosyllabic. I apologize.

Anyway. Back to the the end of conservative politics and the republican party as we know them. I am feeling sober this morning about the future prospects of many of the principles in which I firmly believe, but I haven’t lost hope. If there’s anything this whole process has taught me, it’s that KNOW ONE knows the future. Nobody, for example, would have predicted a scant 6 months ago that McCain and Huckabee would get this far. That being said, this election cycle is pretty much over for me. I have zero interest in any of the candidates left, and figuring out what I’m going to do in November in the voting booth will be a long difficult process. On the bright side, the very late May Kentucky primary might actually have some say in who wins the noms for a change.. it’s really too bad that they can all just go eat rocks as far as I’m concerned.

Now, although neither I nor anyone else can possibly predict what’s going to happen, I will try to get lucky.

I am sticking with the same prediction on the Democrat side that I’ve been making for over a year: Hillary wins. But, unlike what I had thought previously, it will not be by a landslide, but by the tips of her chest hair. And honestly, that’s the better thing- an Obama presidency would be a disaster.

On the Republican side, I’m sticking with what I’ve been saying since just before Christmas: McCain wins the nom, and ultimately loses the job to Hil Rod. Get ready, America.

And what of the Huckster? Unfortunately, I think we’ll be seeing him again in 2012 (how’s THAT for a prediction?!).

McCain bites it- sortof

This is quite unexpected, at least by me.

In yet another rather unpredictable result for this election cycle, Romney comes out on top in MI, and by a sizable margin. It would not be entirely correct to say he trounced McCain, but I will anyway because it makes me feel all warm an gooey inside to think of John with a little dirt on his face. So here goes: McCain bit it tonight.

Now, I still think McCain will ultimately win the nom before it’s all over, and we’ll have a vanilla McCain vs. Hillary election where there is basically no difference between the 2 candidates except on abortion, and a slight difference in the way you draw the letter of the alphabet appended to their last names (R or D). Such an election will surely drive me to drinking, and no matter who wins I’ve decided that it is pertinent to begin the process of locating the local chapter of AA, and postpone finishing my engineering degree this fall.

Especially in the eventuality of, as Blogging Superboy (and reliably anti-Romney pugilist) Daniel Larison suggests, the awful Mike Huckabee receiving the veep nomination. Can you imagine a world where McCain gets elected, bites it in the existential sense, and we suddenly have President Huckabee signing laws prohibiting fast food? Similar things have happened.

Such gloomy thoughts. I need to think on nicer things.