novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

It appears, that House Democrats have also joined Obama in measuring curtains. The tax onslaught is beginning :

House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at The New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Mr. Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

Under Ms. Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ms. Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Read Story at InvestmentNews

While Social Security is a safety net, 401Ks have been the primary vehicle for middle class retirement savings, and now the Democrats appear to believe that too is something that must be nationalized. A college professor deciding for us that not paying taxes on 401K contributions is a “federal subsidy”, and must be stopped ? Preposterous !

If the tax break goes away, so does employer matching of employee contributions. A very bad deal for middle class working families, and just one more example of how the Democrats want to “look out for” the middle class.

A premonition if I ever saw one, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most Presidential candidate can point to a long list of accomplishments. Carter, Bush and Clinton point to running a state well. Other Presidents point to introduction of legislation that helped do this or that. Try as I might, Obama seems to have been invisible. He hasn’t done anything. There isn’t anything with his name attached as the author of any bills. There aren’t even any proposed legislation with his name on it.

The guy talks a lot, but in two years in congress, he has shown absolutely no leadership in getting anything onto the floor. No leadership in proposing anything that even did NOT make sense. He is a do nothing sort of guy.

He did line his pockets with money … he seems to know how to do that … but no positive (or even negative) initiatives. He follows? Is that what we want for a President?

The only person I can find that has any positive to say about his record is in this article, and even then, it isn’t on anything in two years he has as a senator. The author falls all over himself at how wonderful Obama was back in the state legislature. Nothing for the last two years? “What have you done for me lately?”

The guy is a lightweight, and the world knows it. His running mate knows it. Obama has never put forward any initiative in the senate. He should not be trusted as a president.



Imagine if you will :

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, behind closed doors, mapping out their vision for a new America.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, and Dodd, behind closed doors, trying to find ways to further increase Fannie and Freddie’s underwriting of sub-prime mortgages, with more federal subsidies, and less oversight.

Obama and Education Secretary Ayers, behind closed doors, drafting the next No Child Left Behind Act.

Obama, Reid, and Clinton, behind closed doors, working out a plan to ramrod a Clinton SCOTUS appointment through the Senate.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg, Boxer, and Feinstein, behind closed doors, brainstorming new ways to test, and ultimately challenge the Heller decision.

If Obama prevails, all of this is within the realm of possibility. Some of this, very likely.

According to Philip Berg, Democrat District Attorney of PA,  the reason Obama has not released his college records is because he filed for aid as a foreign student.  According to Obama is a citizen, the problem is that FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg foundation.  Here is a video …

Considering that there are currently reporters and lawyers digging inside dumpters in Alaska in order to find out all there is to know about Palin, can someone in MSM do a little digging on the One?


PHILADELPHIA (AP) – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president

Here is 0bama’s healthcare plan, and the core of that plan is summarized on page 5:

The [0bama-Баиден] plan provides new affordable health insurance options by:
(1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans;
(2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance;
(3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit;
(4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for
their employees or towards the cost of the public plan;
(5) requiring all children have health care coverage;
(5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and
(6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans.

(Yes, there really are two (5)’s in the plan.)

The first two points of the 0bama-Баиден plan are the most important to understand.

continue reading…

I’m working from the Ritz-Carlton, Naples, one of my favorite places in the world.
ritz carlton naples

It was a cool bird situation today, not sure of species exactly but I think we are in the heron, egret, tern and maybe sandpiper departments.

UPDATE: more photos …

continue reading…

“Safe, Legal, Rare” is a campaign slogan and a bumper sticker. It also frames the debate in a way that totally misses the point: one should not pawn the consequences of one’s bad decision off on the baby one has conceived. Getting liberals to discuss abortion on those terms is mission impossible. Still, this is the essence of the good fight.

Is Abortion Safe?
It is never a safe procedure for the baby. For those that actually survive the abortion most later die from complications due to the procedure. For this reason, the federal bill regarding applying life saving measure to those that survive the ordeal was passed.

If the procedure is done in a licensed medical facility, it is safe, most of the time, for the mother. However, there is a certain percentage of women who do suffer complications. This percentage is higher than for those women who have gone through with the pregnancy and allowed the baby to live.

Should We Keep It Legal?
Keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land is legislating from the bench. Judges ought not to be making law. I would be far and away more tolerant of this were it given back to the states. Inventing rights and distorting the constitution is a terrible way to govern — look at the 35 years of acrimony. If Virginia makes abortion legal on its own, then that is the will of the people.

As noted, currently abortion is legal throughout the U.S. by judicial fiat. Like Kelo, it is really bad law. I would prefer to see this go back to the states where it belongs. In 1970, abortion was already legal in some states. Why force people to fund things they do not agree with, that do not benefit them, and that they find ethically repugnant?

My personal preference would be to make the procedure illegal. Women today have dozens of birth control options they did not have when Roe made it up through the court chain. No one is forced to be pregnant anymore, unless they are Islamic or belong to some cult. In 1967, women had access to condoms only in some jurisdictions. Today there are over a dozen options for birth control — aside from abortion — at any pharmacy or clinic.

Furthermore, when one considers that nearly all states allow one to drop a baby off at the hospital with no-questions-asked, one wonders, “To save a life, can’t you be bothered for 8-9 months?” With all the contraceptives out there now, one continues to wonder, “Could you not have taken the 5 minutes needed to stop yourself from getting pregnant?”

Since it is a woman’s body, the consequences of what she does with it should be hers and hers alone; someone else should not have to pay the ultimate price.

One of the arguments for keeping it legal is that back alley abortions would kill more than the continued situation. 1.5M women per year did not die from botched abortions. Frankly, this number never went within three orders of magnitude of the current number of aborted babies. The ‘unreported argument’ does not bring the number over a thousand per year. The morgues would have filled up with Jane Doe’s had it even approached 10K per year, let alone 100K or 1.5M. Since the county morgues did not fill up with the bodies of 1.5M dead women each year, or 100K each year, or 10K each year, then one can retire the ‘under-reported’ argument as political fantasy.

All things considered, Roe would be overturned in only a few states, but at least it would be the people’s will. We would more than likely see an end to second- and third-trimester abortions in many more states. Then the question would remain what to do about the first trimester.

How To Make Abortion Rare
There is the practical aspect that ‘rare while legal’ the left really bumbles upon … once again the liberal mind removes the most critical aspect of the equation … human nature. The argument for legality on the grounds that it can be made rare is preposterous. All the countries that have legalized this practice see abortions occurring in the thousands. If it is legal, it happens more often — one will not escape that except in Utopia. Yes. Utopia, the land to which all good Socialists look to for guidance, but we don’t live there.

1.5 million abortions per year is not rare. That means if the abortion clinics are closed on weekends we see 5769 abortions per day. I have a feeling that it is higher, as the clinics are also closed on Christmas and other Federal holidays.

The historically proven way to suppress an activity is to make it illegal. Social taboos and the threat of punishment what have worked since the dawn of time. Providing funding, legality, and eliminating social stigma for a behavior will have only one effect — to cause the frequency of a given behavior to escalate.

But, if it were rare, would keeping it legal be palatable?
The liberals’ assertion behind safe-legal-rare is, “A compromise that keeps abortion legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.” There are several issues with this; but let’s go down this rabbit hole.

Try this minor rewording of the original sentence and one may begin to see what I see …

A compromise that keeps BANK ROBBERY legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.


A compromise that keeps LITTERING legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.


A compromise that keeps PLAGIARISM legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.

All of the above are activities that are convenient or beneficial to the individual who is perpetrating the act, just like abortion, so how could you come up with a ‘compromise’ that would make these activities RARE if they were legal?

Let’s try one last example:

A compromise that keeps MURDER legal but renders it a rarity would be acceptable to the conscience of the nation.

The Price
There is no free lunch. Many will trot out the proverbial “nine-year-old who was raped by her father” case, or some other tragic poster-perfect situation that says ‘how can you force her to bring the spawn of this monster to term?’ OK, we can make an incest, or rape exception, but again, why make the child pay for the father’s crime? Answer that. Why should Jr pay for Dad’s criminality? Put the father to death, not the child. The situation is already tragic. Why compound it with the state-sanctioned killing of an innocent? The other side of the coin is where we are now — 1.5M dead per year.

It is not a simple matter of making abortion acceptable. It is the fact that abortion is murder. If a deer fetus is considered a deer when someone poaches the mother, then why is a human fetus not considered a human? This is another political fiction, a bit of mendacity to support the killing of close to 6000 children per day. This fiction has lead to the ending of over 40M lives since 1972. Technology has changed since then, do our most innocent have to continue to pay the price for our irresponsibility?