The Rucki Saga Continues

                                                        (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki)
David Rucki is planning on violating another court order, but it is his ex-wife who will be in the proverbial hot seat.

David Rucki has been required to provide detailed financial documents in his child support hearing, but I have learned that he will refuse, arguing that he’s concerned that tax documents will be leaked if he provides them in court.

Though David Rucki received 100% of their multi-million-dollar estate- including a multi-million dollar business, four homes, and nine classic cars- a Magistrate named Maria Pastoor still found in 2016 that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki owed her ex-husband $975 monthly in child support.

Grazzini-Rucki has been fighting the order ever since.
There are only two Rucki children (they have five total) who are now under eighteen- they had three under 18 at the time of the order- so that has now been reduced to $848 per month. 

On July 19, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jan Davidson held a hearing on a motion by Grazzini-Rucki to reduce her child support.

At that hearing, Davidson noted, “she did not have any information about Mr. Rucki’s current employment and it appears that his wages were coming from his own company.” according to a filing by Grazzini-Rucki. 

David Rucki was then ordered by Davidson to hand over his tax returns and other personal financial documents.

“I will not be turning over my tax returns and/or private financial documents,” David Rucki is planning on saying.

Furthermore, he’s provided his ex-wife with no tax documentation while I’ve learned he most recently claimed to make less than $25,000 yearly, without ever providing proof.

He further states that his income has not changed since 2016, a dubious statement given he’s a multi-millionaire now claiming to make less than $25,000 per year.

It is a laughable figure since he lives in Lakeville, Minnesota, one of the most affluent suburbs in the country.
The assertion is even more laughable given that David Rucki claims to work for TL Rucki Trucking, a company he's owned but recently claimed was moved into his sister's name a couple years ago. 

It’s the latest in a series of moves by the new judge, Jan Davidson, which has continued a pattern of harassment against by Dakota District Court against Grazzini-Rucki.

Davidson has refused to mail to Grazzini-Rucki her order (which required the production of loads of documents) from the previous hearing.

She continues to allow Lisa Elliott to serve Michelle MacDonald, who was Grazzini-Rucki’s attorney but has since been removed from the case. Though MacDonald has not been on the case for approximately six months, Elliott regularly submits copies of her filings to MacDonald.
Meanwhile, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is still on probation finishing her criminal sentence from approximately two years ago. With six felonies on her record, she has little hope of securing employment to pay the child support; she has been left homeless, moving from home to home, since being forcibly removed from her home in September 2012. 

What is Social Security Title IVD

Remarkably, David Rucki is attempting to collect this child support from his ex-wife using Social Security Title IVD funding.

Social Security Title IVD “was created under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act to help ensure financial support for children throughout the country. The IV-D child support program, federally administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), helps parents establish legal paternity and obligations for child support, and to enforce support obligations. IV-D child support programs are operated by every U.S. state, managed either by the state or individual county of the applicant.” According to a statement from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS).

In other words, David Rucki, a multi-millionaire with access to the best lawyers, is using a federal program which sends money to the state to hunt down his ex-wife and chase her for child support.

Remarkably, David Rucki qualifies because the program is not means tested; here’s more from the Minnesota DHS: “In Minnesota, most cases are managed by the county of the applicant and awards are made by the courts in that county (sometimes a second county could get involved if a parent moves). Child support services are available to anyone who applies (emphasis mine). To be clear, the Child Support program does not provide ‘financial benefits’ to anyone. It does provide services to parents who need to establish paternity, establish a child support order or enforce a child support order. These services are intended to ensure children receive financial support from both their parents.”

Because they are not means tested, Anne Stevenson, writing in Huffington Post noted of Title IVD funding: “These HHS policies created a new breed of dangerous Welfare Kings through HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement when it began subsidizing the homes and legal battles of the unfit, unwilling, and violent fathers.”

She quoted Larry Holland and Jason Bottomsly who said: “Despite the original intent of the IV-D welfare program, it now provides an incentive for the states to use their family courts to produce forcibly absent parents in order to increase the states’ IV-D welfare caseload.”

The Dakota County Operations Manager, Jean Baldwin, did not provide any comment, only saying that all these issues should be argued at the next court hearing, August 7, 2018 at 10AM Central Time.

Emails to Judge Davidson along with Lisa Elliott and Beau Berentson, the public affairs officer for the Minnesota Courts, were left unreturned.

Fear Mongering is in the Eye of the Beholder

For the last eight years, Bush's opponents, and mostly the far left, have attached fear mongering to nearly each and every one of his policy positions. For some on the far left the entire GWOT is nothing more than a giant fear mongering exercise to consolidate more power into the hands of President Bush. Less extreme though, you will find that every time the alert is raised, a warning about chatter, or just about any other aggressive GWOT measure is executed some Bush opponent will throw out the term "fear mongering". Fear mongering was attached to the Patriot Act, the terrorist surveillance program, warrant less wiretapping, and GITMO. On a smaller scale, when President Bush attempted a major overhaul of Social Security, his political opponents also threw out the label of fear monger. Most Democrats claimed that Social Security wasn't in trouble and thus not in need of any overhaul.

That's why this email that I got from Nancy Pelosi is both ironic and curious.

The latest bleak economic news -- that 554,000 Americans filed for jobless claims (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0928) -- illustrates the struggles that workers face as they search for jobs, worry about layoffs, or fight to make ends meet. Democrats are working to pass an economic recovery plan as soon as possible, which will create or save 3 million American jobs and make long term investments in our economy.

With more than 2 million American jobs riding on the outcome, President Bush's announcement last week of a plan to give General Motors and Chrysler a bridge loan provides an opportunity for the American automakers to become viable and competitive while securing millions of jobs. However, the White House proposal unfortunately singles out workers and clearly puts them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun. It is essential that the development of the restructuring plans proceed in a fair and equitable manner, that the necessary sacrifice be mutual, and all laws governing fuel efficiency, emissions and improvements in automotive technology be preserved. The auto companies and all other parties must now engage in comprehensive negotiations that will require all parties to make concessions.

It has become standard operating procedure for any supporter of any bailout to proclaim an unmitigated disaster if a failing company or industry isn't saved. Now, whether or not their doom is warranted is a matter of debate. On the other hand, their doom and gloom proclamations certainly have the stench of fear mongering. When President Bush proposed aggressive GWOT policies, these folks called it "fear mongering". Now that Bush is proposing liberal economic policies, these very same folks have no problem claiming the end of civilization as we know it unless they are instituted.

Of course, this is no knock on Democrats per se. I am not so fool hearty as to believe that only Democrats would be so brazen, hypocritical, and totally disingenuous. That is the problem. This sort of blatant, brazen, hypocritical, and disingenuous behavior is common among almost all politicians. In fact, this is a clear illustration of why so many regular folks hate politics and especially politicians. The reality is that almost all politicians are exactly as brazen and hypocritical as Nancy Pelosi. When she found a policy she didn't like, she called it fear mongering. Now that she has a policy she does like, she has no trouble spelling the end of the world if it isn't instituted. Fear mongering, you see, is in the eye of the beholder.

Note to John McCain: You Can't Cut the Payroll Tax

Finally, there appears to be a serious examination of Barack Obama's tax policy. It appears the MSM has noticed that some of his numbers are dubious. For instance, while Senator Obama claims that 95% of the people will get a tax cut, he makes no mention of the fact that about 40% of the people pay no taxes. The Democrats have already come up with an answer to this point. Often, Democrats point out that these tax cuts will toward crediting the payroll tax.

Senator McCain needs to be ready for this answer and shoot it down. First, let's go through the nuts and bolts of the payroll tax. The payroll tax is the tax that goes toward social security. The tax works as a credit. In other words, the more that someone pays in payroll tax, the more they have earned towards their social security. As such, any reduction in a person's payroll tax burden should lead directly to a smaller credit toward social security retirement benefits.

Of course, that isn't what Senator Barack Obama is proposing. He is proposing to cut the payroll tax of someone that pays no federal taxes, and yet keep their social security credit toward retirement the same. It's easy to balance the budget on such a tax credit. That's because the bill for such a tax credit won't come due for thirty years or long after Obama is out of office.

Think about it. About 40% of the folks pay no federal taxes. All they pay is the payroll tax. That payroll tax is credited toward their social security benefits. These folks will get a credit to offset this payroll tax, and yet the benefits they earn will remain the same. In other words, Barack Obama is proposing that we cut a tax for which the bill won't come due until long after he is out of office. To say that Senator Obama will cut the payroll taxes of millions of Americans that pay no federal taxes, is give a tax cut for which the bill won't come for twenty to thirty years.

The Irony of Cynicism

I have lost track of the number of stories that Barack Obama has used to explain his racially tinged quote.

And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.'

After first proclaiming with righteous indignation that this had nothing to do with race, his campaign manager in this interview admitted that his comment was racial. (about 3 minutes in)


Now, Barack Obama is attacking John McCain for being of all things cynical.

Sen. Barack Obama denied Saturday that he is playing the race card against Sen. John McCain following several speeches in Missouri last week in which he said McCain is portraying him as scary and risky because he doesn’t “look like all the presidents on the dollar bills.”

“In no way do I think that John McCain’s campaign was being racist, I think they’re cynical” Obama told CNN during a Saturday morning press conference. “I think they want to distract people from talking about the real issues.”

“Their team is good at creating distractions and engaging in negative attacks and planting doubts about people,” Obama said, noting McCain’s recent comparison of his celebrity to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and the repeated accusation that the Illinois senator skipped a visit with wounded troops because he couldn’t take the press.

Now, when Barack Obama calls John McCain cynical, I am reminded of the pot calling the kettle black. It isn't that Barack Obama is anymore or less cynical than other politicians. Rather, it's that all campaigns that last longer than five minutes become cynical more than anyone would like. That is one of the unfortunate truths of politics. This is not new, look at how Ed Morrissey described the election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

Viewers of the excellent HBO miniseries John Adams will already know this, but others may find themselves surprised at the ferocity of the founding fathers of this nation. Adams himself avoided participation in the vilification of Jefferson as a “debauched deist” and the rumor-mongering regarding Jefferson and his slave Sally Heming, while Jefferson quietly funded attacks on Adams as an Anglophile likely to reunite the US with Great Britain, or perhaps proclaim himself as monarch rather than President. Larson makes the point, which should be rather obvious in retrospect, that revolutionaries do not tend to be calm, mild, and milquetoast, and points to the somewhat hyperbolic list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence as proof.

Is there anything more cynical than painting a patriot like John Adams as secretly hoping to reunite with the very same Great Britain that he helped lead the independence from only two plus decades earlier? When the campaign is this long and the stakes this high, then yes Virginia often times the attacks become cynical and often even unfair.

What is truly cynical is the idea that Barack Obama himself is above such cynical attacks. Frankly, what he said in Missouri itself is cynical. I don't know anyone that is trying to scare people about Barack Obama because he looks different. Of course, this statement is just the latest in a string of cynical attacks.

Let's look at a few more. Here is how Obama described McCain's plans for social security.

Hours before being greeted by the biggest crowd of his campaign, Democrat Barack Obama quietly told a small group of seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security they depend on because he supports privatizing the program....

So if you support private social security accounts, you are actually threatening Social Security for seniors. Does it get anymore cynical than that? How often has Barack Obama referred to John McCain as Bush's third term? Given that McCain has opposed the Bush tax cuts, multiple rounds of spending increases, and the Iraq war strategy for its first four years isn't it cynical to paint the two as the same.

How about on real estate? Barack Obama is fond of saying something like this.

Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up.

Felicitas came to Las Vegas from Arizona. Francisco came from Mexico. And together, in this city of dreams, they built a life founded on hard work and family; patience and perseverance. For two decades, they raised four daughters on a modest but dependable wage – thanks in part to their ability to organize with other workers in the Culinary Union. Today, she works as a maid –and he works as a porter – in the Bellagio, down on the strip.

Like so many working people, their lives have been shaped by sacrifice for their children’s future – the promise that each generation has the ability to reach a little further. And theirs have been lives lived rent check to rent check, with the promise of a home sought through the little savings that they could put aside week after week, month after month, year after year. Finally, three years ago, they were able to reach that destination in their pursuit of the American Dream. After so much hard work, Felicitas and Francisco were able to move into a home of their own.

Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away.

Yet, while he presents himself as a man of the people, we find out that he got his own VIP loan in which he saved about $1000 per month over what the average person would have received. At roughly the same time, we found out that he used his position as a State Senator to line the pockets of high profile real estate developers like Tony Rezko while folks in low income housing wound up living in unlivable conditions. While all of this was going on, he was presenting himself as some sort of populist figure out for the "little guy". How cynical is that?

He presents himself as an outsider in a perfect position to change D.C. Yet, he says nothing about being the ultimate insider of Chicago, Cook County and Springfield the cesspool of politics. He says nothing of the political machine that he rose through and gained power. If all he did was become a part of the political machine in Chicago, how exactly does he plan on shaking up D.C.? How cynical is it for him to claim otherwise.

In politics cynicism is a two way street. That said, there is really nothing more cynically ironic than to proclaim your opponent a cynic all the while lobbing cynical attacks and making duplicitous statements.

Perspective on McCain and Social Security

A couple days back, John McCain said something about social security that was politically tone deaf. Here is the statement.

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.

McCain would be better off attacking Santa Clause than Social Security. President Bush found out just how tricky it is back in 2005. Nothing has been lionized and turned into a third rail more than Social Security. That is a shame because it limits good honest debate on a program that I have compared to a Ponzi Scheme.

Because the left has turned Social Security into something equivalent of a saint, it has limited much needed debate. I am actually shocked that McCain hasn't been hit harder for his comments.

For McCain's part, he doesn't seem to grasp that Social Security has always worked so that current workers pay for current retirees. Of course, that is exactly how a Ponzi Scheme works. Find suckers to invest with promises of future returns, and then that money is used to pay for suckers who's returns are due. The only difference is that this one is mandated by the government.

Can you imagine a politician using the provocative language I am using in describing Social Security? Bush got hammered for even suggesting there was a problem at all. Nearly every single solution is demonized. If anyone dares to raise the income limit, the age limit, or limits the benefits they are immediately demonized. The only safe fix to social security is equivalent to what Obama has suggested which merely forces the very rich to pay even more.

As such, we are headed for a disaster and most every politician tip toes around the problem and offers half hearted solutions. Privatizing, the only legitimate solution, has been so demonized that any and all mention of it is met with immediate attacks. The Social Security debate, much like everything in D.C., has turned into nothing more than finger pointing and attacks and in the meantime a terribly flawed program continues to drift towards insolvency with no legitimate solution in sight.

Barack Obama's Regressive Payroll Tax Canard

Barack Obama recently proposed that along with taxing the first $102,000 we also tax all income over $250,000.Here is how he justified his plan.

The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

The 6.2 percent payroll tax is now applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire amount for most Americans. Under Obama's plan, the tax would not apply to wages between that amount and $250,000. But all annual salaries above the quarter-million-dollar amount would be taxed under his plan, Obama said.

Of course, this explanation belies the way in which Social Security, that which your payroll tax goes to, is supposed to work. The payroll tax works like. The more you put into the system in taxes the more you receive in Social Security benefits. In other words, someone that made $100,000 their entire careers would get much more in Social Security benefits when they retire than someone that made $30,000. What is really regressive is that someone that made $100,000 needs their benefits significantly less than someone that made $30,000.

No other tax works like this. A wealthy person doesn't have more access to welfare, unemployment, or any other service. In fact, some services work in the exact opposite way. Food stamps, for instance, are only available to those below a certain income level even though they contribute far less to the system.

What Barack Obama is proposing would be a fundamental shift in the manner in which Social Security would work. Under his plan, your first $102,000 would be taxed and earn you credit to go toward your retirement income. Anything over $250,000 would go strictly to pay for the retirement income of someone else. Think about how unfair that is for someone that is wealthy. Let's say you make $500,0000 a year. Your first $102,000 is taxes at the 6.2% payroll tax or just under $6,500 yearly. That tax earns you a credit to go toward your retirement income from Social Security. Then, another $250,000 is also taxed at 6.2%, or just over $15,000, and this will go to paying for someone else's retirement income. In fact, for the first time, Barack Obama will introduce a tax that someone has absolutely no access to. While the wealthy are quite unlikely to use services like food stamps, Medicare, unemployment, at least those are available to the wealthy in case they ever got poor. This new tax on any income over $250,000 would go exclusively to pay for the Social Security retirement income of someone else.

By proposing this new tax he has implicitly admitted that Social Security is a failed system. That's because the sort of tax he is proposing was never meant to be included in the system. Social Security was always meant to be a forced retirement savings. Everything you put into the system was supposed to come back to you when you retired. By putting in a tax meant to pay for someone else's retirement, what Barack Obama is really doing is income redistribution. While, under the right salesperson (say someone extremely charismatic) it can be sold politically, income redistribution has all its roots in Socialism.

In fact, this new proposal is a double whammy on the really wealthy, because Obama plans to raise their regular income taxes as well. Not only does he want the Bush tax cuts to expire but he wants to raise their incomes another 3%. This means that someone making $500,000 could face up to an extra $30,000. Keep in mind most of these taxes go to entitlement programs that go to providing for the less fortunate. Thus, the typical wealthy person could face $30,000 in extra taxes to pay for services that they will likely never use.

Then, he has the chutzpah to claim he is doing this in the interest of fairness.

"Imagine if Your Retirement Were Tied to the Dow Jones"

Those were the words uttered by Barack Obama today in talking about his plan to save social security. Obama proposed that incomes over $250,000 be taxed at the payroll tax rates of 6.2% along with the current taxes up to $102,000. Incomes in between $102,000 and $250,000 would remain untaxed.

Obama also criticized McCain for being open to letting taxpayers invest part of their Social Security payments in private investment accounts.

"Imagine if your security now was tied up with the Dow Jones," he said, alluding to the recent slide in stock prices. "You wouldn't feel very confident about the security of your nest egg."

Of course, this statement is wholly without merit and furthermore, it totally disregards the principle upon which private social security accounts would work, long term investing. First, private social security accounts wouldn't necessarily have to be put into a vehicle that is tied to the Dow Jones specifically, but whatever they were put into, they would be there for the long term, up to 40 years.



Let's put Obama's statement to the test. Let's take a look at what an investment tied to the Dow Jones would have done over the last thirty years.














That is a graph of the Dow Jones since 1900. About thirty years ago the Dow Jones was about 1000. It is now about 13000. . That means a $1000 dollar investment would now be worth $13,000. This is the sort of investment return that Barack Obama wants to make sure current young workers don't have access to in their Social Security accounts.


Keep in mind that Social Security returns about 2% yearly on its investment. That means over the same time frame, the current social security account would turn a $1000 investment into just less than $2000 over the same time period. Again, Barack Obama wants workers to be able to see this return over the one they would find in the Dow Jones.


I recently a piece in which I defended the concept of private social security accounts. It is amazing that such a concept could so easily be demonized even though it makes perfect sense. Private social security accounts are in no substantive way different from a 401k or an IRA, and yet the same politicians that demonize them so absolutely nothing about those two vehicles.

The stunning lack of understanding by Barack Obama about simple investment principles is only matched by those in the media that leave it unchallenged and the sheep that follow him even though his ideas run counter to basic logic.

Demonizing Private Social Security Accounts

Apparently the politics of fear is exempted when talking about Social Security. Let's take a look at what Barack Obama said about private social security accounts.

Hours before being greeted by the biggest crowd of his campaign, Democrat Barack Obama quietly told a small group of seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security they depend on because he supports privatizing the program....

"We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden onto seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity," he said.

Now, let's leave the utter hypocrisy and cynicism of this statement for a minute. Anyone that believes that Barack Obama is what he claims to be isn't reading this blog and nothing I say will change their opinion anyway. While this statement is everything he claims to be against, that is not the issue I want to focus on.

The fact is that private social security accounts are demonized is because those that support their existence can't explain them well enough to the masses. I am of the opinion that if I am the one that needs to defend private social security accounts then the problem is that the politicians that support it aren't doing a good job.

First, if you did calculations of Social Security, you would find that your social security taxes return something in the neighborhood of 2% yearly in future cash flows. That assumes that you live something near eighty years old. Furthermore, social security returns aren't transferable. If you die, everything you have put into the system is gone. I have already pointed out that Social Security is nothing more than a complicated government mandated Ponzi Scheme. Of course, it is. The retirees will have their social security income provided for by the current workers and so on and so forth. That is how Ponzi Schemes work. One sucker pays for the income of another sucker and everything is fine as long as there are new suckers to find.

Privatizing social security will turn social security into something like a 401k plan or a Roth IRA. I don't know anyone that thinks that those two vehicles will threaten the retirement income of anyone. In fact, they provide the retirement income of almost everyone. Keep in mind that a 2% yearly rate of return, about what Social Security provides, is about what a reasonable money market fund will get you. In other words, if social security were privatized, we could earn the same return just by putting our social security taxes into a money market account.

What privatization gives to seniors, and everyone in social security, is control. Rather than having the government control even more of your money, you will control it. The only difference then between social security and a 401k (besides those 401k plans that are matched) is that social security will be forced savings. I wouldn't much mind the 7.5% tax if I had control over that money. If social security became a sort of forced 401k, then it would become the best kind of tax. It would be a tax that only benefits the tax payer themselves. Rather than having my social security pay for someone else's retirement, like it is now, it would pay for my retirement.

Now, here is the other thing that privatizing social security will stop. It will stop the government's brazen looting of the social security fund. If social security is privatized, then each individual has their own account. No more can the government loot the fund and hope that they will pay it back later.

In fact, the only thing that will eventually save social security is full privatization. That' s because full privatization removes the faulty Ponzi Scheme it is currently on. If each individual fully controls their own account, it no longer pays for the retirement income of someone else. In fact, full privatization is the only thing that makes sense in saving social security is full privatization. If social security becomes a forced government mandated 401k then that is something I can support. Too bad its detractors demonize it and its supporters don't know how to defend it.

The Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security

UPDATE: While the story about Obama getting smacked is dated by a month and a half, the story of social security remains the same.


This is Charles Ponzi and he is the inventor of the scheme bearing his name, the Ponzi Scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. It is named after Charles Ponzi.[1]

This has long been illegal when tried in the private sector and yet I will attempt to show that the publicly financed Social Security is structured no differently than the most sophisticated Ponzi Scheme Charles Ponzi could have dreamed up. But first...


A hat tip needs to go to Michelle Malkin for pointing out this story. It seems that Barack Obama has made enemies with the nutroots recently. His crime is pointing out that social security has some problems. Social Security is the third rail for the base of the Democratic Party and much like someone's ugly wife, criticizing it brings an emotional response. He got hit by most of the usual suspects

All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders

....Barack Obama, please realize that you are assisting the right’s efforts to get rid of Social Security. Their strategy is to make the public think that the program is in trouble and then sweep in with their “solution.” …IS your heart in the right place? Social Security is not in trouble. Stop saying it is.

Now, the right blogosphere is having fun with this little political civil war however they should also remember their own threats against most of the candidates for the Rep nomination because they dared not toe the company line on things like abortion, campaign finance reform, immigration, etc. We all have our third rails and Democrats have among them Social Security.

I don't much care about this little battle. I frankly believe that Obama is better off taking them on. He has nothing to lose at this point anyway and the nutroots turn off as many people as they turn on. I am glad he said what he said and frankly showed political courage that I wish more politicians would show.

That said, I am much more interested in the problems facing Social Security and their solutions. I pay about seven percent of each check to social security and I don't believe that I will get anything when I retire.

A Ponzi scheme works as such. I came to you and promise that if you give me $100 today I will give you say $200 in the future. The way I get your $200 is from other suckers that are made the same promise. This works until I find no more suckers.

Now, the way Social Security works is that today's workers pay for today's retirees under the promise that once they retire, that day's workers will pay for them. That is no different than any other Ponzi Scheme only two things: 1) the government doesn't even hide that it is a Ponzi Scheme and 2) since the government is doing it instead of being illegal it is Social Security.

Frankly, the politicians can raise the age limit or the limit on income or any other limit, and it won't change the fundamentals behind it. If one group is used to fund the investment of another group, that PYRAMID scheme will fail once you have an imbalance in the investors. Say for instance, one month my ponzi scheme had a huge number of new investors and the next month I slowed down. I wouldn't be able to fund the new investors from the first month. That is what is happening now. It wasn't a month but years of baby boomers being born, and now there aren't enough workers to fund their retirement.

Anyone that knows anything about Ponzi Schemes knows that at some point there will be suckers holding the bag. It maybe the baby boomers if we don't figure it out, or it might be my generation or maybe even the generation after us. It matters not. The system is flawed. Social Security is among the worst ideas our government has created. It is a state sponsored legal Ponzi Scheme. That is what we should focus on. Everything else is trivial.

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

The two leading Presidential candidates said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics.

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.

Hillary to Save Social Security?

found this via newsmax. Hillary seems to have reached a new level of unrealistic campaign promises with this one...

"

The New York senator told the AARP's legislative conference that she wouldbring
a "renewed national commitment to Social Security" to the White House."

Not only did she promise to save social security, but she also promised that she wouldn't do several things...
"

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton promised retirees that if elected president she will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize the taxpayer-funded system..."She also said she does not support cutting benefits or increasing the retirement age. Seniors can begin collecting partialbenefits at age 62, with full benefits available at age 67 for those born in1960 or later."

Now, I personally have considered social security a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme works by getting a person to invest with the promise of future returns. The way that person is paid is by getting more people to invest with their own promise of future returns. Social security works much the same way. Each generation is paid by the taxes of the generation just younger than them. All working Americans are currently paying for the current retirees.

As with any ponzi scheme it works as long as you can find new suckers. The social security ponzi scheme had an endless supply of new suckers or at least that is how it would have worked in theory. The only problem was if one generation had a boom in births...

Now, the baby boomers are the suckers holding the final bag in the ponzi scheme known as Social Security. There aren't enough new suckers to fund their promised investment. Of course, all of this is lost on Hillary Clinton who says this about Social Security,
"

This is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States"

If it is the most successful domestic program in the history of the United States, then why does it need saving? By Hillary's standards the airlines are the most successful businesses in the United States.

Of course, Hillary won't do any of the politically dangerous things to save Social Security: she won't cut benefits, she won't raise the retirement age, or privatize. In fact, she said this about privatization...

When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything

One has to wonder really hard if she is talking strictly about Social Security or in general. Remember, Hillary also believes in socialized medicine, having a village raise a child, and she was even once quoted as saying, "it is time to end the on your own society and bring in the era of the we're in it together society". Hillary is closer and closer everyday to admitting what I already know that she is in fact a Socialist.

Finally, Hillary has mastered the art of Chutzpah. With all of these other options off the table, how exactly does she plan to save social security...

" Clinton said instead she will protect the program through fiscal responsibility and criticized President Bush's leadership on the issue."

Clinton maybe a lot of things but a champion of efficient government, fiscally responsible government, she is not. Just a few weeks ago she promised to set aside one billion dollars to bail out struggling homeowners. That maybe noble and compassionate (and of course downright counterproductive), but it is NOT efficient. She also wants to socialize medicine, about one eighth of our economy. That plan maybe a lot of things but efficient it is not. She is the one that wants a village to raise a child. That plan maybe a lot of things but efficient it is not. How exactly does efficient government square with Hillary's plans to nationalize everything she possibly can? I don't know and I doubt she does either.
Of course, we all know what "fiscal responsibility" really means and the National Review points it out...

Well, let's see, when raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and private accounts are taken off the table, what's left? You're pretty much left with theoption of bringing more money in, a move more commonly known as tax increases."

they finish by describing everything that Hillary wants, not just for Social Security, but for all policy...

"Privatization is "not the answer to anything." Well, we know where we stand with her - government ever bigger, ever more controlling, ever more powerful,ever more expensive"