Does Carol Shea Porter want your 401K?

Coming today from Rush Limbaugh, I heard that House Democrat George Miller has suggested that 401K tax deductions may be on their way out because the government needs to find more revenue sources. (I’m Paraphrasing) Well isn’t that just great.

It occurs to me that Carol Shea Porter holds a seat on the House Education and Labor Committee from which Miller offers us this wisdom, a committee that brought us card-check, and the new minimum wage increases—all (I beleive) the brain child of George Miller. 

This committee has apparently been collecting data and inspiration on a proposal to demolish private 401K’s and replace them with a government controlled system to be administered by the Social Security Administration.

The plan would end private retirement accounts. The government plan would require you to invest 5% of your annual income—most likely deducted from your paycheck by the government—and they would invest it in federal bonds with a guarantee of a 3% return. 

In short, the government would assume control of new and existing 401K’s, removing billions of dollars of investment and growth potential from the decision making process of millions of private investors, and give it all to the Federal government. They would end your tax deduction for contributions into a retirement account. (Allowing them to tax you more).  They would define how it will be invested (Governmetn Bonds), and the rate of return you would receive.

And, most importantly, the payments to retired persons—the MASSIVE 3% growth--would have to be funded entirely from the tax dollars of every working American. (No mention of how this puts even more pressure on trillions of dollars in existing unfunded entitlements we but why dicker over the particulars. This is socialism people—we’re just supposed to nod our heads and say thank you.) 

The European model for this has failed miserably, as declining populations of workers, and increasing populations of those ‘on-the-dole’ are bankrupting their system. These governments will forcibly impoverish entire generations who failed to see the long term consequences of relying on a system that cannot sustain itself without an exponentially larger population in each succeeding generation to fund it. 

So you might want to find out if Carol Shea-Porter, who sits on the committee that will give birth to this disaster and who has accepted some serious campaign cash from George Millers Political Action Committee this campaign season, if she supports the socialization of your retirement funds and the end of private 401k’s. 

If she can’t give you a straight answer call it a yes, remembering that any kind of sustained Democrat majority, with a potential Democrat President, WILL ram through every piece of socialist garbage they can in 2009-2010.  Are you prepared to give up yet another freedom to the government so they can screw you some more?  Ask Carol where she stands and vote accordingly.

Hodes-sie do's and Hodes-sie don'ts and Rose Marie Hughes McNamara

Paul Hodes never demostrated any backbone by voting against the bail out (nor did CSP), he did exactly as he was told, just like all the other freshman democrats who were at risk. 

But Hodes history of doing as he is told has historical significance here in New Hampshire.  When he was told by his Shaheen law firm to represent Rose Marie Hughes McNamara in the parole case against a Shaheen appointed AG's office and a Shaheen appointed parole board, he did as he was told. 

They got McNamara off light after she stole at least a million from the town of Ashland, owing but a fraction of the sum embezzled and serving but a few years for a gross misuse and abuse of the public trust, all thanks to the Shaheen Cabal that owned both sides of that debate.  They managed to close the door on any potential State incompetence and end the public embarrasment of McNamara's obscence undertaking while Ashland and the people of New Hampshire got the shaft in the process. And they sent a message, loud and clear,  that the serial robbing of taxpayers was a crime for which you just might be able to do the time.

And so the tradition continues as Hodes freshman term demonstrates.  Even if we were to accept his epiphanal fiscal conversion on a bail out loaded with the kind of graft he'd approved of throughout his time in office--birthed as it was upon a moment of political convenience--his voting record demonstrates that he willingly follows wherever the bigger donkeys lead him, no matter what the cost might be to New Hampshire. 

He's clearly not concrened about conflicts of interest, just doing whatever gets him traction with whoever is pulling his strings.

I say cut the strings. 

What about this Mike Kaelin guy?

Mike Kaelin signs just started popping out of the concrete like weeds. Then I read an article where he goes after Sheila Roberge, whose Senate seat he seems intent on taking. So now I'm wondering, who is this guy.

Turns out he's Green. In an August 8th editorial in the Union Leader, emploring us to explore ways to cut energy costs, this Lyndborough rep makes a case for green pastures, but from the very first paragraph I run into problems with his numbers.

Roughly 30 to 40 percent of our energy usage in the home is for lighting.

 Roughly?  Roughly?

I'm not sure where he gets his numbers but the closest I came was commercial office buildings, whose lighitng consumption--according to Energy Star--tops out at 25-30%.  The US DOE pegs the residential usage number at at 11% while another source put it at 5-10%.

Hardly an auspicious beginning.  We're talking about a 25-35% exaggeration on residential energy use.  Heck, I'm already saving money based on Mike's numbers and all I had to do was google "residential lighting use."

Next up we have wind power.  Mike's wishing upon 1100 megawats of wind power from the north country.  He's excited at the prospect of closing a coal plant with a similar output.  I'm excited too, except that to get that 1100 megawats from wind we need to cover several towns (Blade tip to blade tip) with windmills, and even then there is no guarantee that we'll get what we need.  Oh, and it will cost a bloddy fortune, and not just for the turbines that can run up to $70K each; special transmission lines are required, as well as all the legal fees when the battles start over dressing the touristy landscape with giant metal wind turbines.  And yes, taxpayer--you get to pay for all of that and more!

Mike is real proud of RGGI, which he voted for, but it's cap and trade. EU businesses are dying to get out from under Cap and trade and they are preapred to leave Europe to do it.  It sets a carbon tax which launders cash from businesses and citizens--through the energy companies--into the government.  I have argued elswhere that this is simply a broad-based shadow tax--which it is; no one can escape it, and there is no reason to believe the State's promise to offer rate relief is genuine, or that it even matters.  If you didn't take the money from me in the first place I wouldn't need the rate relief--(not to mention everything I buy would be cheaper because businesses wouldn't be offsetting their rate increases against cost of goods) and all this after a government handleing fee. 

But no, citizens of New Hampshire are apparently not smart enough to make wise-decisions about good energy and bad energy.  So we are being denied the fruits of our labors at the hands of a state mandate, (Mr. Kaelin, and Mr. Lynch--among others) for a game of taxpayer smoke and mirrors.  But Mike is proud of it.  I'm Happy for him.

HB1628, a Kalin sponsered bill that Lynch signed into law offers money to residents who are smart enough to buy green energy technology for their homes but just can't afford how smart they think they are.  So HB1628 will give up to 200,000 people up to $6,000 dollars per system max to help them go green.  (A tiny dent in the grossly expensive undertaking)  So Mike is basically giving your tax dollars to other people instead of looking for ways to let them keep their own money to offset their personal desire to invest in renewables on their own.   That's a max of 1.2 million dollars by the way, so it really isn't easy being green, not without first bilking taxpayers for the privelage.

Now to be honest, Mike's ideas about conservation sound great, but his motivations are perhpas misplaced. 

He's all for more efficient bulbs, yet his answer was to misguide us about consumption in his article. And if we look at his record, he also sponsered legislation that would eventually limit residential lighting choices to consumers by tying New Hampshire to the EU standards for lead-free material. (HB1417).  Mike tried to mandate the types of light bulbs we could make in New Hamshire.  Do you really want your legislators telling you what your light bulb choices are, particularly when at present the alternatives are quite a bit more expensive?  Shouldn't you be free to decide how to spend your money? 

He also points out that half of New Hampshire's energy is already exported (most of it nuclear) but never mentions that rate payers in our state see no rate benefit from this massive exportation of a recognized renewable energy source.  I think it might be higher than half, but why are we paying above the national average when we already make twice the energy we use?  Instead of pulling some back, he's offering cash for renewable systems, and talking about adding expensive wind projects that would cost taxpayers and New Hampshire businesses billions of dollars, with little hope of getting past the litigation process we'd confront to erect a farm big enough to do the job he suggests.  (75 miles square at a minimum)

Mike has clearly used his time on the Technology and Energy commitee to communicate his views on conservation--which I applaud (minus the iffy numbers on consumption)--but once we get past suggestions, the government role should be limited to making the business environment conducive to innovation, and to offer consumers the tools to make good choices.  Mikes record tends to demonstrate a desire to tax energy more so government can define our choices for us.  That makes the business environment less attractive.  That's not exactly what I'd call a 'Live Free or Die' approach.

Can someone explain this to me...

I have met a few people who were huge Ron Paul supporters, but who now claim they are voting for Obama?

Huh?

I don't think you can't get further apart on the spectrum than those two guys on almsot any issue.

Anyone want to guess how they made that leap becasue I can't get anyone whose made it to explain it to me?

Obama's impending Thugocracy

I have to wonder how much longer we'll be able to keep NH Insider running if Obama's thugocracy takes power in January.

When it was Palin who was getting hammerd by the Obama thugs it seemed grossly unfair, but at least it was a political challanger.  Now we've got some guy named Joe, who happens to be a plumber, who asked a simple question, which openly demonstrated what a socialist wealth-redistributing dirt-bag Obama really is, and now Obama's thugs and their media buddies are tearing this guy apart before he can become a ralleying cry for the opposition.

He just asked a question and he's getting gang raped.

How many people are looking at this and saying to themsleves, gosh, I'm not that interested in knowing what Obama really thinks, or questioning his policies.  They could be coming to tear my life apart next.  I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Right now, Obama wants DOJ to begin criminal prosecutions against McCain and Palin/and everyone who is questioning the legitimacy of ACORN's voter registration practices.  He wants criminal prosecutions against anyone who is questioning the ethics and illegal behavoir of a group he was a part of and that his campaign supported.  What kind of freedom does that protect?

Obama has promised to create an army of Americans who will work-hard for him and his policy objectives to create an America they can be proud of.   Try an America full of domestic spies for the Chosen one.

And Obama has told us we can't just do whatever we want.  He's actually said it publicly.  We can't heat or cool our homes or businesses, or drive whatever vehicle we want, just becasue we want to.  And he's got plans to straighten us out.  What else won't we be able to do and who do we know that might rat us out?

The Obama campaign has been using legal pressure and threats of license-pulling againt any media outlet that brodcasts opinions they do not approve of.  They are actively trying to supress political speech.  And to extend this threat they want to change the FCC rules to force relicensing every two years instead of the current eight; this just happens to allow the government thugs more opportunities to crush private media owners who do not comply with thier desires, or limit their political speech to the favored party line.

Obama want's to regulate your lawn mower, your weed wacker, or anything else than runs on oil or gas, and if the Congress won't do it ASAP, he's threatened to use the EPA to create an executive mandate that will tell you what you can do and how you can live when it comes to using any fossile fuel.  You wil live as he directs you, and if you don't you'll get prosecuted.  Will your Obama loving neighbor rat you out?

Anything anyone says about Obama's ideas, his speeches, or hispolicies is twisted into a cry of racism, even though it has nothing to do with race? How will that play out moving forward? 

Obama will pass the Fairness Doctrine, whose sole function is to limit a specific kind of speech--speech that contradicts what Obama want people to hear.  Speech we rely on here to stimulate debate.  What will we talk about then?  How great Obama is?

And to make it all that much worse, Obama wants to take all of our guns away.  So what's left?

As president Obama will have influence over the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, and every other policing mechanism in America.  He'll have executive authority over evey government agency; education; health; FCC; EPA, and on and on.  With an army of green-shirts  at his side, how long will it be before your dissent is made public?  How long before your another Joe the plumber?  And how many people will be willing to object to anything Obama says or does with that kind of threat hanging over their heads?

I'll save you a spot in my jail cell becasue I'm not going down without a fight.  Here's to hoping it wont come to that.

Update on Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 12:02PM by Steve Mac Donald

On matters of oppressing speech; Michael Graham this morning, has been slamming the MA Sec of State, (Bill?) Galvin, for dropping the ball on tracking ballots for people in the military serving overseas.  He has made the case that his indifference is politically motivated.

Galvin refused to appear on the program.

And just before Graham went off the air, Galvin had apparentyl filed a complaint with the FCC to shut Michael up.

Sound's like an attempt to suppress speech to me?

So who needs to get a new hobby?