Sunday, January 30, 2005

January 31, 2005 - A Gun Ban in San Francisco? How Gay is That?!

Today's Commentary: January 31st, 2005

Hello Thinkers!

How is that "global warming" treating you all today? It was so damn hot this January morning in the People's Republic of Massachusetts that my back door was frozen shut.

If you have a blog on like I do ( - an archive of these editorials), you may have seen a link on the admin screen asking if you want to advertise on your site. Being the shameless capitalist that I am, I submitted my blog figuring I had nothing to lose. Below is their response to me shortly after my submittal.

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your
application, our program specialists have found that it does not comply
with our policies. Therefore, we're unable to accept you into Google
AdSense at this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If
you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this
email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.


- Sensitive content


Further detail:

Sensitive content: Google believes strongly in freedom of expression
and offers broad access to content across the web without censoring
search results. At the same time, we reserve the right to exercise
discretion when reviewing sites for AdSense. We've found that your
website contains content that we don't allow at this time. AdSense
policy doesn't currently accept sites that advocate against any
individual, group, or organization.

What a bunch of homos!

Speaking of homos, it seems the residents of the left coast are simply never content playing second fiddle to anyone. Especially the Land of Oz known as San Francisco - they have the 9th Circuit Court making some of the most insane rulings in the nation, they are the epicenter of pacifism in the face of Islamofacists, and they were so pissed by being beaten to the gay marriage punch by Massachusetts, they cranked up the fairy-mating full speed, in violation of California law, just to prove - mirror, mirror, that THEY were the gayest of them all.

But now it seems San Francisco has set their sites, so to speak, on ripping the title of "Murder Capitol of the US" from Washington, DC. How are they doing this? By filing legislation to completely ban all handguns from their city limits. Not just carrying in public, mind you - but a total ban on handguns from any and all homes and businesses. Existing gun owners would have to turn them in.

The stated goal of this legislation? It is "a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year [as of the Dec 15th date of the SF Gate article] compared to 70 in all of 2003."

So who was the bay area rocket scientist that decided "Hey! Let's do what Washington, DC did!"

For 14 of the past 15 years, Washington DC has held two infamous national titles. They are the aforementioned murder capital of the US and home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. These are apparently not only unrelated in the minds of Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Michael Moore, but mutually exclusive. This is of course, despite the fact that each of them have a gun - or armed guards to protect them.

Yes, Michael Moore needs a gun to protect his fat ass, but he believes you don't:,2933,144921,00.html

And yes, Ted Kennedy needs a gun to protect his fat ass, but he believes you don't:

And yes, Senator Diane Feinstein needs a gun to protect her fat ass, but she believes you don't:

While I will concede that the DC gun ban is not the exclusive cause of high murder rates in DC, it is not a difficult leap of faith to conclude that armed criminals will be most active in areas where the public cannot fight back.

So how do politicians get their constituencies to follow their flawed logic? Misinformation. During the early 1990's, the Clinton administration claimed that according to the CDC, eleven children a day are killed by guns. These messages were accompanied by visuals featuring blonde haired, blue eyed toddlers reaching for a revolver in a closet or nightstand. The reality? In order to get the 11-a-day figure, you had to include "children" in their 20's - the vast, vast majority of whom were gang members involved in drug transactions or turf wars. I guess that's not a visual the soccer moms would probably relate to, huh?

Then there's the dangers of "aquaintance murders". You may have heard that a house with a gun in it is 10 times (or whatever) more likely to have a friend or relative killed in it. Sounds nasty, eh? That is until you find out that the term "friend" includes members of rival street gangs.

According to John Lott's book, "The Bias Against Guns", more children under five die by drowning in 5 gallon plastic water buckets than do children under ten by any type of accidental gunshot.

I could go on debunking stories of "cop-killer" bullets, plastic handguns that evade metal detectors, or guns that just "go off" a la Jayson Williams, but then I would have to tell you that the tooth fairy does in fact, not exist.

By the way, who here can define "assault weapon?"

So why the misinformation from various organizations? Government funding and revenue from antigun private foundations. There is money to be made by trying to disarm law abiding citizens. This is not a small task, considering a recent Gallup poll found that 40% of American adults own a gun and 1/3rd of American adult women own a gun. Think about those numbers.

John Lott also wrote a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime." I don't know if I would suggest you read it. The book is not an easy read. Lott is an economist and he did a dizzyingly impressive statistic analysis on gun control laws and their effects on crime. His findings? There is no more effective deterrent to violent crime (rape, murder, robbery) than to allow trained, law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. Even non-gun owners benefit. However, certain types of property crime that avoids direct victim contact (ie. car theft) does rise. But hell, I'll take that over a knifepoint mugging any day.

And if you don't believe Lott, think about this scenario. You need to score some Oxycontin in a big way. You stake out a dark mall parking lot late one night and see two people walk out to their cars. One is a lady in her late 70's carrying a purse over her shoulder. The other is a man in his 30's with a conspicuous bulge high on his right hip under his jacket. Question: Which one are you going to mug? Answer: Neither! You are going to wait until another woman in her 70's walks out of the mall alone.

And by the way, before I get tagged for being homophobic for my earlier remarks, I will state emphatically that I am not anti gay. I could not care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. In fact here's a bunch of homosexuals that I support. Why? Because they get it:

I have no idea how Matthew Shepard felt about 2nd Amendment rights, but he might be alive today had he exercised them.

Saturday, January 22, 2005

January 18, 2005 - The Kennedy Manifesto

Today's Commentary: January 22nd, 2005

Hello Thinkers,

Last weekend I spent most of my waking hours preparing the homestead for my week-long business travel to the west coast. This was my first trip away from home after the birth of Tuff Jr. and I wanted to ensure an easy (as possible) week for Mrs. Tuff during my absence. Among the prep work was the task of checking the mousetraps. Living on what was once farmland has many wonderful advantages, but the siege of small, furry, tennants at will is not one of them.

So on saturday evening, I headed down to the garage to recon the traps. The cold and clouds outside were setting in. With a crisp click, I turned on the overhead lights and followed the foundation wall to my right. Success! Through the fog of my warm exhale, I could see the days catch curled over the edge of the wooden Victor trap. However, something was odd. Almost every other small varmin that squeezes its way into my castle, only to fall victim to the Iron Maiden of the miniature mammal world, is discovered in a virtually identical state of rigor. Their nose is just barely touching the peanut butter bait. Their neck, snapped by the wire, has a visible crevass that segments their once uniform body, making them look more like a large fuzzy ant than a mouse. Their black, Marty Feldman eyes are permanently staring directly up into the unforgiving space over their heads. They are trapped forever in time, like the victims of Vesuvius, saying "What the F---?" in mouse-speak.

But this specimen was different and I noticed it right away. Luckily, CSI was on the case. Close inspection showed the body was in tact - no segmentation. The peanut butter was gone. The eyes were shut. As I rotated the plyers which held the trap, I saw new evidence and deduced the cause of death. The tensioned wire had closed not on this mouses neck, but on it's foot. The wood underneath the foot had bite marks, indicating the mouse had not only survived the snap, but tried to escape. Probable cause of death? Either starvation or hypothermia.

It was at this point that I could not escape the obvious analogy. The baiting of this mouse with a tasty treat (Skippy crunchy) is like the "DEMOCRATIC BLUEPRINT FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE" given by Senator Chivas on January 12th, 2005. The cold, slow death this mouse suffered is what would happen to our nation if these blueprints became anything more than the liberal pipedream that they are. Kennedy's ideas sound undeniably wonderful - almost unarguable. Yet they are the song of the siren which draws us to the rocks, and snaps down on our foot with a rusty metal wire, holding us until we wither away - drained and unable to resist the burden of government control. Since you all are time-constrained, working Thinkers, paying for our nations clean needles, I will provide for you some excerpts from Ted "A Blonde in Every Pond" Kennedy's speech. And of course, my commentary.

Early on, Ted talks about how close he thinks the 2004 election was and emphatically states, "I categorically reject the deceptive and dangerous claim that the outcome last November was somehow a sweeping, or a modest, or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security, redistributing the tax burden in the wrong direction, or packing the federal courts with reactionary judges."

...Of course. The news is bad, so simply ignore it. Being oblivious to the reality of 4 million votes is the key to accepting Kennedy's blueprint. His inebriessness continues, "We have an Administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis. They did it on Iraq, and they are doing it now on Social Security."

...Crisis? You mean like the global warming "crisis?" The healthcare "crisis?" The education "crisis?" Kennedy's ilk are the incestuous breeding ground of any "crisis de jour". Without a "crisis" to justify separating you from your cash, liberal democrats would have nothing to talk about.

But the siren song is just beginning: "We must open new doors and new avenues for all Americans to make the most of their God-given talents and rekindle the fires of innovation in our society. By doing so, we can turn this era of globalization into a new era of opportunity for America. Universities and school boards cannot master the challenge alone."

...So despite the insane rise in college tuition (during the past five years, average tuition at a public four-year college has risen about 40%), universities and school boards cannot do it alone. Get your checkbook out. Ted is compelling you to save the day. He continues, "I propose that every child in America, upon reaching eighth grade, be offered a contract. Let students sign it, along with their parents and Uncle Sam. The contract will state that if you work hard, if you finish high school and are admitted to college, we will guarantee you the cost of earning a degree. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it - cost must never again be a bar to college education."

...Why does the United States government need to get involved in "a contract" regarding my child's education? And why must I be taxed to subsidize the latest "entitlement", a college education, for someone else? Why can they not get a loan? What if they decide to drop a few classes along the way and it takes them 6 or more years to complete college (as is often the case)? Will my "tuition bill" be amended? What if they change majors? How much skin will they put into the game? Why is everybody else's kid suddenly my problem?

I know this may seem hard to believe, but Ted wants to spend your (and my) cash like the drunken sailor he is. The singing continues, "We should encourage many more students to pursue advanced degrees in math and science. We should make tuition in graduate school free for needy students in those disciplines. And we should make undergraduate tuition free for any young person willing to serve as a math or science teacher in a public school for at least four years."

...Sounds good, huh? And a lean, effective government agency will oversee all of this, right?

Ted continues his diatribe on all the wonderful things you should pay for, like new schools, and high speed internet access for every classroom, home and business in America. And you thought your cable bill was high now, eh comrades? Kennedy also makes a few statements stunning in their irony. He states, "We should invest in mass transit, to reduce the pollution in our air and the congestion on our roads." mean like that leaking "Big Dig" that you bilked the nation over $14 billion for? How much of an upgrade to Boston's mass transit could that have financed? But then we wouldn't have that nice "Rose Kennedy" park where the old highway used to be, now would we?

The lunacy drones on: "We should stop the non-scientific, pseudo-scientific, and anti-scientific nonsense emanating from the right-wing, and start demanding immediate action to reduce global warming, and prevent the catastrophic climate change that may be on our horizon now."

...There's that "global warming crisis" again. As I write this, it is 4 degrees above zero (F) in Boston. How he says that with a straight face is beyond me.

Like most conservatives, I agree with a good portion of the overall flowery goals Sen Chivas espouses. Greater access to education, caring for the needy, etc, but let's call - and treat - these things as they really are. They are charity, not "entitlements" to be demanded from me because someone else thinks the end, and their bloated means to get there, are a good idea.

I could go on, but you get the gist. If only Ted and the rest of the Michael Moore wing of the far left was in control of our nation - and your wallet, it would be a wonderful place. You can read Ted's speech in its entirety at:

But I will leave you with this tidbit from Larry Kudlow, a former economist for the Reagan administration. He writes in an article posted the day after Teddy's speech:

"The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months. With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace."

The moral of the story? If you want to feed the poor, lower my taxes.

...and stay away from that peanut butter. It gets mighty sticky. Just ask the mice.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

January 14, 2005 - "Here LIES CBS News..."

Today's Commentary: January 14th, 2005

Hello Thinkers,

"Here Lies CBS News..."

Is that going to be the inscription on the tombstone of CBS News or will it be Dan bin Rather's salutation at the top of his evening news broadcast? Probably both.

Based on what I am seeing from the internal report released by CBS on what is now known as "Memogate", I am going to make the following (obvious) prediction for the 2006 midterm elections and even more so for the 2008 presidential election:

All the talk about Democrats embracing traditional "values" is crap. Things are going to get worse - WAY worse.

I make this prediction not based on personal clairvoyance, but because I see the following trends:

1. Democrats are continuing to elevate internal fringe groups, and maintain the "bunker mentality."
2. The mainstream media (MSM) still doesn't get it.
3. Any single political party "in charge" will lead to our national demise.

The two major political parties are roughly composed of the following constituencies:

Republicans - Those who believe in limited government, strong military, being tough on crime and a "dead" Constitution. While many of these people are upset with the shift away from some of these values by the current (and past) administrations, they are not crazy enough to embrace a "better fit" in political parties or candidates at the cost of (an apparently inevitable) slide towards socialism. They remember Ross Perot and Ralph (The Man) Nader.

Democrats - Those who believe in greater government control over their lives, greater taxes on the ubiquitous "rich" (ie. you), a weaker military, less culpability for criminal behavior and preferences based on race or gender. In addition, a greater portion of active Democrats seem to be fringe groups whose primary drive consists of saving the mudskipper, voting rights for felons, homosexual 'rights', etc.

Many ex-Democrats can honestly say that the Democratic Party has left them - including those who maintain a "D" suffix on their voter registration. The voice of the party fragments, whose transitory alignment crystallizes only during campaign season, has drowned out their old-school counterparts in the din of the Democrat echo chamber. Ask a PETA member what they think of Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. Watch this year as the Democrats take every chance possible to shred Bush, his nominees, and his policies (a.k.a. the "bunker mentality").,2933,144082,00.html

While there are plenty of nuts affiliated with either party, I believe the media's focus on the "Religious Right" of the Republicans is seriously misplaced. Many conservatives believe in a strict textual interpretation of The Constitution followed closely by the standards of our society that have been in place for over 200 years - a la Justices Scalia and Thomas. For example, saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it does not recognize an official religion such as The Church of W. The oft noted "wall of separation between Church and State" is not in the Constitution, but part of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The idea that this should define our nation as being completely void of any religious reference is ludicrous and has no basis in our history nor the Constitution. If you agree with this then you are apparently part of the media-defined "Religious Right".

Still the MSM doesn't get it. Look at how they are handling Memogate. CBS has fired the producers, but left the overseers of the machine that spawned their Bush hatchet-job, Heyward and Bin Rather, in place. Their own story on the report focuses on the described "myopic zeal" in getting the scoop on a "big story".

The looney Mary Mapes, producer of the story, is still singing with the Titanic orchestra.

In her statement she says, "Much has been made about the fact that these documents are photocopies and therefore cannot be trusted, but decades of investigative reporting have relied on just such copies of memos, documents and notes."

...Actually, you idiot, much has been made that these documents are obviously forged and were refuted within hours of the 60 Minutes story.

She continues with this doozey, "It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false."

...Yes - and OJ WAS found to be innocent.

Mapes concludes, "I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none."

...Then why did you rush a negative story on Bush weeks before a presidential election without a thorough vetting process and without presenting any opposing data like the interview with the family of the deceased alleged author of said report? Was the Cracker-Jack internal investigative team looking for a CBS memo titled "Let's use our liberal bias to alter the election." ?? Would they say the same thing if the players were Kerry instead of Bush and Fox News instead of CBS?

Even Bin Rather, after the wheels began coming off the cart, chimed in with a statement amazing in its irony:

"My colleagues and I at '60 Minutes' made great efforts to authenticate these documents and to corroborate the story as best we could. . . . I think the public is smart enough to see from whom some of this criticism is coming and draw judgments about what the motivations are."

...Indeed we can, which is why your ratings SUCK, Dan!

Even if proven with concrete evidence, this story would probably have not changed the 2004 election outcome. But the fact that CBS tried to manipulate the process, is huge. The main story here should be the ongoing liberal bias of CBS News and Bin Rather - not how he was "stretched thin", or the "broken trust with his producer", as the likes of Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert claim on Imus. Watch the reports on this story and where the "concern" is reported to be.

As I see it, the MSM is continuing its course to the left - steady as she goes. And I view the alphabet soup news networks, NY Times, Boston Globe, et al as the best barometer for what the Democrat party is thinking and where it is also going - in this case, destination: electorate obscurity.

And this is bad for all of us. Without some sane alternative to keep one party, even Republicans, in check, we are in some serious trouble. They are after all, politicians.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

January 6, 2005 - 2004 - The Year in Haikus

Today's Commentary: January 6th, 2005

Hello Thinkers,

Maybe I am being subliminally programmed. It could be that while I read, nap or otherwise am engaged in useful endeavors, the background clatter of TV shows like "Will and Grace", "Queer Eye", "Trading Spaces", "Trading Spaces - Family Edition", "Trading Spaces - Holiday Special", "Trading Spaces - Families with Pet Penguins" or "Trading Spaces - The Best Of" are having an effect. But for whatever reason I am feeling "artsy" enough to revisit a once dreaded grammar school English class assignment, the Haiku. Why we were taught about Haikus in English class, I'll never know. By the time my son takes an English class, they will probably be making PiƱatas, if they are not doing this already.

Regardless, being filled with a lust for culture, I revisited the rules and syntax for creating Haikus. For those of you needing a refresher, they are:

1. Haiku-poems consist of respectively 5, 7 and 5 syllables in three units. In Japanese, this convention is a must, but in English, which has variation in the length of syllables, this can sometimes be difficult.

2. Avoiding similes and metaphors.

3. Retaining Japanese values.

I could put links to Haiku sites that explain this in more detail, but neither you nor I care. Also, in my exercise, I decided to ignore rules 2 and 3 and replaced them with the following tuffbeingright-Haiku rule:

1A. Have fun at the expense of others.

Of course the challenge with Haikus is to convey the essence of the subject in this terse format. Emboldened for the task, I submit them for your perusal. I only ask that if a future commentary opines the virtues of male figure skating, one of the nearby Thinkers will have mercy and kill me.

So here they are. The people and topics of the past year. 2004 - The Year in Haikus.

Global Warming
Earth cooks so they claim
Movie says it must be true
Damn, its cold outside

Ted Kennedy
Fat drunken royalty
The splash, the drowning, the flee
He stays, we are fools

Teresa Heinz-Kerry
Once probably hot
Known never verbal restraint
Now the skank - poor John

2004 Presidential Election
Copley Square parties early
Polls query women, minorities
Midnight rain, their hangover

Dan Bin Rather
Bald face liberal whore
Boomerang of bias strikes his ass
The foot fits - eat it

Once germane, now feckless
Like an aging barroom tart
The arrogance, the smell

Diane Feinstein
Anti gun crusader fights
Disarms citizens, felons care not
She needs gun, you don't

Post 2004 Presidential Election
Lib fury, blame the gays
Media elite cannot understand
Baldwin still won't leave

Micheal Moore
Facts pesty, left is right
Cutting room floor the witness
Pass the doughnuts please

Yasser Arafat
People poor, wife gaudy
French idol this terrorist pig
Did he bite pillows?

The UN
Tin horns blast loud, clear
Zion, America suck! Saddam nice!
Send us more cash please

Amber Frey
Nice guy but too good?
Fate twists, spotlight, peddle book
Keep your clothes on please

Indiana Pacers
I am sports hero, god
Hey! Hey! Who threw that beer?
Kick your ass, Mo Fo

Ron Reagan's Funeral
Pageantry national grief
Loved by most, achievements vast
Clinton is pissed

Swift Boat Veterans
Not so fast Johnny
Cambodian Christmas? Not!
Kerry will ignore. Oops

Monday, January 03, 2005

January 4, 2005 - Social Insecurity

Hello Thinkers!

This year I made a New Years resolution to be less of a political junkie. But since my alternative hobby, changing diapers, isn't as much fun as I was led to believe - well, lets just say it was a short fall off the wagon. In fact it was as short as making it to page B1 in my Sunday local paper. On the Sunday Forum of the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, Massachusetts congressman Marty Meehan makes his pitch as to why privatization is not the answer to fixing social security.

For the benefit of those not in the People's Republic of MA, Marty Meehan claimed some level of national infamy by standing firm and not allowing the terror attacks of September 11th - and the deaths of approximately 3,000 innocent victims - to impede his partisan cheap shots at President Bush.

So when W promotes privatizing social security, expect Marty to be leading the charge of the Red Brigade against it. In fact if Bush was going to provide free hydrogen cell cars to poor gays and lesbians funded exclusively by taxing Halliburton, I'm sure Marty would find SOME reason to rally opposition.

Back to Marty's editorial, the full text of which is at:

First, Marty educates us on some history. Pull up a chair kiddies. The master storyteller begins, "because Social Security started paying benefits at the same time it started collecting taxes, the program operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. In other words, the taxes paid by today's workers go directly to pay benefits for today's retirees." This statement, while not completely false, is at best, misleading (which effectively proves that Marty penned this piece himself). A more accurate version would read, "the taxes paid by today's workers have been shamelessly mugged by legislators from both sides of the aisle to fund pork projects, special interests and if there is any coin left over, an ever-diminishing pittance is paid the intended recipients."

But even Comrade Meehan cannot deny the bloodied state of what he calls "the most successful government program ever created." The future of this palmy institution? As Marty describes it, "the Baby Boom generation will soon begin to retire, increasing financial strains on the program. By mid-century, taxes will be enough to pay for only three-quarters of benefits."

Hmmm. Social Security will insolvent in less than 50 years? I'll be damned. I guess that DOES make it the most successful government program ever created.

So how would this Massachusetts liberal resolve the issues surrounding the most auspicious government failure ever devised? In a stunningly uncharacteristic way - tax increases.

Meehan breathlessly drools on, "Simply by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for millionaires (one of many available options to extend the fiscal health of Social Security) we will be able to keep paying benefits until 2079 and still have money left over."

I'll bet you didn't see that one coming Thinkers. Or should I call you all "millionaires" as Marty undoubtedly wants to. As you probably know, social security taxes go into the general "pig-trough", not to a dedicated "lock-box". Thus social security recipients receive their checks only after we finish paying for things like Serrano's "Piss Christ."

This should explain why Ted Kennedy, Bella Pelosi, and every other leeching liberal politician hates the idea of a privatized social security account for American workers. It has nothing to do with your best interest. It has everything to do with politicians giving up revenues that are suddenly removed from the black box of government control and influence and placed into an account - your account. Who knows, people may start getting the nutty idea that they, not Congress, control their destiny.

While all details of Bush's plan are not public, some aspects have been openly discussed. They include:

- allowing a portion of your social security tax to go to a private account
- investment options are regulated for safety and soundness, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan currently available to federal workers
- if you don't like the idea, you don't have to do it

Sounds good to me. But the liberal left, personified by Meehan, is pulling out all the stops to scare America into allowing government hands to remain deep in your pockets. Marty warns, "Over the last century, there have been three separate 20-year periods when the market stayed flat. Over the last 40 years, the stock market has suffered ten plunges averaging 28 percent. While wealthy investors can wait out bear markets, most workers nearing retirement do not have that long-term luxury."

So Marty is equating "the market" with a managed, diversified portfolio of equities. He talks about stock markets "plunges" when it is common knowledge that over the long haul, equity investments have outperformed just about every other investment vehicle available to the general public. And he ignores the provision to opt out.

Face it. Marty knows he is smarter with your money than you are and come hell or high water, he wants to prove it.

I am no economist. But I don't need to be one to know that I can get a better, safer return controlling my investments than paying for bloated government overhead consisting of federal employees that even Donald Trump cannot fire.

Meehan should be ashamed that he is playing the politics of fear to keep Americans from having the option to improve their long term circumstances. Yet in the stolid vipers nest of Massachusetts politics, Meehan is admired.

If you want to see what your social security 'nest egg' will look like once Marty Meehan gets his hand on it - well, I've got some used diapers to show you.