Anti-Portman Ad Criticizes Him for Proposing Social Security Funds be Taken From the Clutches of Congress

A Democratic  PAC ad opposing the re-election of Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) says he takes money from Wall Street (big deal, so does Hillary and just about everyone else from both parties) and wants to privatize Social Security to the stock market.  It suggests he be elected senator from Wall Street not from Ohio.

While he supported a House bill in 2005 which would have allowed anyone under age 55 to divert some of the withholdings to private investment accounts, he hasn’t supported privatization since.  Incidentally, that option would have been voluntary and did not pass.1

In any event, imagine that!  Trusting something other than the federal government to handle our Social Security funds – which are essentially missing under its mismanagement.

Let’s think about this.  What is riskier, investing funds in the stock market which, if it crashes to zero, then everything crashes anyway and retirement becomes irrelevant OR entrusting it to the same organization (Congress) which has been a kleptomaniac with our money and without punishment for decades?

What  Should  be  Done

Let the Feds continue to take the employers half of the Social Security contributions and hope they do something honorable with it for a change.  Allow the employees to invest their halves wherever they want, as long as it’s legal, with the stipulation that there will be no government safety net if they fritter their half away.

Simple.  That’s why it has only a long-shot of happening.



1 – “Campaign Ad Watch: PAC Criticizes Portman on Social Security,” by Jessica Wehrman of The Columbus Dispatch, 7/8/2016.


Obama Wins 2nd Term, Nation Chooses the Forbidden Fruit Again

In a previous article, I implored voters to follow my late father’s advice to “not be like the ant, but look up!  His hope was that I not be so consumed with the daily grind for survival that I failed to see the grand creation I was a part of and give appreciation and thanks to God.  This attitude would ensure that I rose above the secular tendency to look out for myself and that I become outward-centered rather than self-centered.  Unfortunately, the Democratic campaign was successful in getting sufficient voters to not look up and to support their fallen mission instead.  Too many voters became preoccupied with having enough crumbs thrown to members of their arbitrary voting block that they did not vote with concern for the overall welfare of mankind.  Here’s what Obama & Co. were able to accomplish:

1)  They were able to instill fear in enough people of or near retirement age that a vote for Romney/Ryan would severely reduce the Social Security and Medicare benefits which they and their employers had contributed to for so many years.  The campaign fog was able to cloud their ability to understand that the Republican plan was aimed to ensure the long-term viability of these programs.  They could not see that significant changes to the system would impact those 55 years of age and under, therefore not hurting them.  Voting for Romney would not be unfair to any generation and would not compromise the senior’s values, which Obama does daily.  Of all of the critical mistakes made by the various voting blocs, this one is so frustrating because it came from a group most likely to have the wisdom to see the big picture.

2)  The Obama mantra has always been that a vote for a pro-life candidate would obstruct a woman’s “right” to murder — I mean, “reproductive freedom.”  It boggles the logical mind that abortion is such an attractive issue to so many who profess Christian values.  Before someone has the arrogance to suggest “imposition of moral values,” let’s examine our belief and dedication to the right to life and all laws which reflect a moral position, whether or not we wish to acknowledge it.

3)  The Democrats have curried the favor of the “LGBT” crowd by convincing multitudes even not afflicted in this manner to believe that the Romney/Ryan ticket was “intolerant.” It has reached the extent that many erroneously equate this issue with the women’s suffrage and civil rights movements of the last century.  There is no similarity here.  Being born a woman or being born a “minority” is not a form of disordered behavior.  The compassion we are instructed by our faith to show those who are afflicted in any way does not include condoning or legitimizing any activity which goes against natural law.  Jesus was compassionate, but not an enabler.

4)    A majority of voters has accepted the socialist position that a generous Big Brother will provide every economic safety net we need, even monstrous bail-outs.  They bought the idea that anyone who stated it was beneficial for large companies to go through a bankruptcy restructuring was heartless at best.  They do not understand that this process is designed to make all stakeholders as whole as possible in the end.  Instead, the Obama Giveaway made the taxpayers (who funded his generosity) to be like the stockholders, being saddled with more risk than even the unsecured creditors of the corporation.  In other words, the private investors who participated in the bailout will get their money back first while we taxpayers might receive some, if there’s any left.  Therefore, this will add to the federal deficit which means more indebtedness to China — a country which used to be opposed to our way of life.  Unfortunately, the HHS mandate and its lack of an exemption for conscience ominously reflect our drift to the Chinese philosophy of government which believes the practice of religion to be an impediment to progress.

5)  Obama/Biden was able to convince enough people that they will somehow be able to improve the economy even though theirs is a system which creates great uncertainty among those who are really in the position to create jobs.  Perhaps it is their propensity to make the federal government a venture capitalist for “green” businesses which go under and leave taxpayers with additional losses, also to be funded by a foreign country near you.  It is very difficult to understand the voters’ reluctance to put their economic faith in a proven businessman unless, of course, one believes the litany of false implications of the famous ad which showed a man who lost his wife to cancer.

6)  Finally, the Hispanics (distant cousins of mine through South America and originally from Spain) traded the core beliefs of their spiritual heritage for the offerings of a man whose level of devotion to Christianity is unknown even to his pastor of twenty years.  In an interview with a national Catholic network a couple of months ago, the well-known Rev. Wright was asked how Christian he thinks our President is and he answered, “I don’t know.”

As a nation, we have in effect banished ourselves from the wonderful country the U.S.A. used to stand for.  We have severed the connection we had with our founding fathers whose moral principles made this nation the envy of the civilized world.  If we do not find our way back to the “narrow path,” we will be consigned to the long list of societies too smart for their own good and too unwise to follow good.

We may get another chance someday, recalling the comments made by Fr. Fausto Stampiglia (pastor of St. Martha Catholic Church in Sarasota, FL) today during the noon Mass: “Remember God has a plan.  It may be a punishment.  It may be a wakeup call…… God does not want the death of the sinner, but that he be converted to Him.”  Let us work and pray for our own conversion and for those who lead us.

Issues or Values? Either Way, It’s Romney-Ryan Over Obama-Biden

I have been telling young adults that this is my 10th presidential election and the likely ramifications of its outcome exceed all others in my experience. This is from analysis, not a product of the drama inherent with endless, spinning political ads.

There are always policy differences between two presidential candidates. It is critical to examine the philosophies underlying the policies. If a candidate will not protect the right to life, the most fundamental of all inalienable rights, then his social agenda is merely to win favor among the masses and to keep them in check.

“Civil rights, equal rights, etc.” spring from the right to life.  Societies have been bamboozled throughout history repeatedly. For all of the vaccines developed, we do not have one to immunize us against being deceived.  The right to life must be paramount.

A number of people, including a few friends, have taken issue with me on this position.  Looking at the long-term viability of our country makes loyalty to my children and grandchildren-to-come take priority over other relationships.

It’s not about my having insurance which would cover pre-existing conditions, which
I need, right now and at all costs (moral or financial).  Whether a free market insurance system with modifications will provide what I “deserve” better than Obamacare can is not yet determined.  However, I CANNOT be a participant in any program which provides for the killing of the most innocent of human beings, either by inhumane dismemberment or by medication (“the morning after pill”).

It’s not about my receiving assurance that the money my employers and I have
put into Social Security for almost 40 years will all come back to me (which I need and is rightfully mine).  As FICA payroll tax revenue continues to be spent elsewhere and Congress will not agree to permit workers to be responsible for investing their contributions (as opposed to their employer’s half of taxed amounts), there is only so much a president can change.  Of the two candidates, Romney could work with Congress.  He has the proven track record in government, the President does not.

Nor is it about a job commensurate with my abilities.  The paper mill in which I was employed for 23 years was closed in 2001, partly due to an increase in lower priced foreign imports.  I’m sure that the companies Romney has worked for may have been a party to foreign out-sourcing of jobs in some industries— just as the President’s 401(k)’s have enjoyed growth from similar investments.  The difference is that Romney understands the harm of past business practices and is also willing to hold China accountable for being a currency manipulator.  Obama is hesitant to do anything which will anger the largest socialist country, the kind of government-reliant society he envisions for our future.  His position is evident in his lack of concern for the $1.15 trillion of our national debt which China owns.  (And, like China does, he also puts the state over the Church with his useless religious exemption to the HHS mandate, but that is a topic for a separate article.)

It IS about ensuring that our descendants’ future is one where they understand
that life is a gift, to which we are stewards, not owners. My fervent hope is that they will be “other-centered” instead of self-centered because they have been fooled into thinking that there is no hope except a reliance on Big Brother. Being respectful of our inevitable Judgement Day and being “other-centered” places us in the best position to solve problems.

The Romney-Ryan ticket “gets it.”  I sincerely hope they get your vote!