We told you so!

From The Washington Post:

Obamacare’s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer
By , Published: February 4, 2014

For years, the White House has trotted out the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to show that Obamacare would cut health-care costs and reduce deficits:

Live by the sword, die by the sword, the Bible tells us. In Washington, it’s slightly different: Live by the CBO, die by the CBO.

The congressional number-crunchers, perhaps the capital’s closest thing to a neutral referee, came out with a new report Tuesday, and it wasn’t pretty for Obamacare. The CBO predicted the law would have a “substantially larger” impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers, well more than the 800,000 originally anticipated. This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.

This is grim news for the White House and for Democrats on the ballot in November. This independent arbiter, long embraced by the White House, has validated a core complaint of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) critics: that it will discourage work and become an ungainly entitlement. Disputing Republicans’ charges is much easier than refuting the federal government’s official scorekeepers.

More at the link.

It will be recalled that a banned former commenter kept telling us just how good the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is for everybody, how it would “bend the cost curve downward,” cover almost everybody and save us money, and how the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that to be so.

As it happens I just saw this brief story from Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

Unemployed Magazine Executives
Posted on | February 5, 2014 | 11 Comments

Time, Inc. — which publishes Time, Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated and In Style magazines — is laying off hundreds of employees, and the hit list includes executives in the company:

Gone in the cutbacks are David Geithner, an executive vice president who was in charge of the style and entertainment group that included No. 1 moneymaker People and top monthly In Style. Geithner is the brother of former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Good news: He’ll qualify for ObamaCare.

RELATED: “Students Are Tired of Hearing There’s Never Been a Better Time to Be a Journalist.”

That’s actually the whole story — one far briefer than one normally sees from the esteemed Mr McCain, but there are plenty of good and amusing comments to read at the original.

Mr McCain is documenting — or perhaps mocking — the job losses amongst those professional journalists in the print medium, something I have characterized as 18th Century Technology many times before. What I see as the obvious question, however, is why all of those professional journalists had decently-paying jobs, and were all so wrong about Obaminablecare, while so many of us unpaid bloggers got it right? We have previously pointed out that we cannot add 30 to 40 million people who cannot afford health insurance, maintain high quality for those covered, and still cut costs.1

The liberals, both in the (now shrinking) professional media and in the unpaid blogosphere, including our banned former commenter, were wrong all along! We knew it, we told them so, but they kept sticking their fingers in their wax-filled little ears and chanting, “CBO, CBO, CBO.”

It didn’t take a professional economist and Nobel Prize laureate like Paul Krugman to see this. This wasn’t graduate school stuff, but Economics 101: you cannot add tens of millions of people to the system,2 mandate greater health insurance benefits, prohibit insurance companies from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions, and not make the system cost a lot more money. All of those things have costs, costs a man with a doctorate in economics like Mr Krugman should have been able to see, and all of those additional costs would have to be paid, somehow, some way. How is it that a working-class, unpaid blogger with a baccalaureate degree, who runs a concrete plant for a living, could see that, while all of the super-geniuses in the Obama Administration couldn’t?

There are really only two choices:

  1. The liberals really are so dumb that they cannot see what is plainly obvious; or
  2. The liberals are so pernicious that they want to pass what they want to pass, even knowing that it will be harmful, and that they are lying about it.

Eric would vote for the latter, and I’m beginning to think that he’s right.
Related Articles:


  1. Those links are just from The First Street Journal, or our predecessor, Common Sense Political Thought. Check the other conservative sites on our blogroll, and you’ll find that they were saying the same things.
  2. And they haven’t even accomplished that part yet.

His Wildest Dreams

From the Moody Blues:

Sometimes I wonder if, before he became fish food, whether Osama bin Laden ever imagined, even in his wildest dreams, that he could have hatched and executed a scheme which:

Siting there in his compound in Abbottabad, with no telephone or internet, with his contact to the al Qaeda organization he founded and led restricted to trusted messengers, Mr bin Laden probably hatched all sorts of plans and schemes, but had little power to really carry out anything, to get anything done. But, unless he was a regular user of the opium produced in the area,2 even Mr bin Laden could never have really expected to do anthing which would yield the results listed above.

But if Osama bin Laden couldn’t accomplish all of that, Barack Hussein Obama could, and did. Those are the results in America under the leadership of President Obama. He is the worst President in my lifetime, and my lifetime includes Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

  1. Our national debt was $17,263,040,455,036.20 on February 3, 2014, an increase of $6,636,163,406,123.12 since January 20, 2009, and greater than the US’s 2013 gross domestic product of $15.685 trillion
  2. The National Enquirer said that he was, but, consider the source.

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government

I was sent this, author unknown, but truthful insight:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.

What more can I say?? But there is a lot to be said of it and it nails the Progressive/Liberal mindset.

Another one bites the dust

From Queen, one of the greatest rock’n'roll bands ever!

Now, what brings that song to mind? From the Dallas Business Journal:

Charles Schwab sending San Francisco jobs to Texas, elsewhere
By Lance Murray, Digital Content Producer-Dallas Business Journal | Feb 4, 2014, 6:36am CST UPDATED: Feb 4, 2014, 11:31am CST

Charles Schwab will move a “significant number of San Francisco-based jobs” to Texas and other locations in the next three to five years, the company has told employees in San Francisco.

The San Francisco Business Times reported that the move isn’t sitting well with its California employees, who were told in December that they might have to pull of stakes and resettle to Texas and points east.

“Additionally, as has been our practice for the last number of years, future firm expansion will be concentrated in these centers,” said Schwab spokesman Greg Gable told the Business Times. Schwab wouldn’t say how many jobs would be leaving San Francisco.

“We expect to maintain a significant presence of employees here at headquarters,” Gable told the Business Times.

Gable did confirm that Texas was one of the prime spots for relocation.

More at the link. Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) tweeted:


I suppose that the title, Another One Bites the Dust, is a bit unfair, in that Charles Schwab isn’t leaving the Pyrite State entirely, but, once again, the handwriting is on the computer screen: the company is downsizing its presence in the high tax, business unfriendly state of California — not to mention the city of San Francisco — and moving some of its operations to places which are more business friendly, as well as having lower taxes.1

Moving isn’t free; to move some of its operations out of California has costs, both financial and human. Some employees will take the transfers offered, and Schwab will wind up paying some of their moving expenses. Others will be unable to make the move, and lose their jobs, and that entails unemployment compensation costs for the company, as well as whatever severance payments are made. Schwab will lose people it would prefer to retain. Decisions like this are not taken lightly, nor are they simple whims; a company like Schwab will have had analysts — and they have plenty of those — looking at the proposed moves and providing cost/benefit analyses. Schwab will probably be politically correct, and not offer those results to the public, but the answers are obvious: the corporate leadership believe that it will be better and more profitable for the company to make these moves than to stay in California.

I wonder: has anybody ever mentioned this kind of problem before?

  1. Editorial disclosure: your Editor does not own stock in Charles Schwab, nor is Schwab his broker.

The vulnerable Democrats

From The Wall Street Journal:

Fractures Emerge Between Obama, Congressional Democrats
Coming Midterms Complicate White House’s Agenda on Trade, Energy, Health Care
By Janet Hook and Peter Nicholas | Updated Feb. 3, 2014 8:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Democrats in Congress are parting ways with President Barack Obama on issues including trade, energy and health care as the gap widens between the political demands of keeping control of the Senate and advancing parts of the White House agenda.

A phalanx of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have announced opposition to the president’s top trade initiative. Many Democrats are clamoring for Mr. Obama to act soon to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline—a decision the White House is expected to make before midterm elections. Vulnerable Democrats are bluntly criticizing the rollout of the 2010 health-care law. Even an under-the-radar issue such as a flood-insurance bill has been a point of tension.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Reid met with the president in the Oval Office for about an hour Monday along with Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), who is chief strategist in his party’s drive to keep control of the Senate after November. The meeting was to review the political landscape of the crucial midterm-election year.

More at the link.

If the Democrats who are up for re-election this year are stressing their differences with President Obama on a few key issues, that raises three questions:

  1. Doesn’t this mean that the Democratic candidates realize that the President’s policies are unpopular on some things?
  2. If the Democratic candidates are separating themselves from the President on some issues, doesn’t this mean, nevertheless, that the President and his agenda will have more power rather than less if people vote for the Democrats taking those distinctions, due to Senate chamber control?
  3. While some Democratic candidates are separating themselves from some of President Obama’s policies before the election, can they really be trusted to oppose those policies once they are re-elected?

The answer to the first question is obvious: the President’s agenda is deeply unpopular, in some places, which is why people like Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) are running scared.

The answer to the second question is also obvious: if the Democrats retain control of the Senate — something that the go-to political scientist on these issues, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, puts at a 50/50 chance — the President and all of his agenda is in a stronger position. If the Republicans gain the six seats needed to retake the majority, the President will get very little of his agenda passed.

But, to me, the real question is the third one: will the voters be able to trust that Democratic candidates who are running away from some of the unpopular parts of the President’s policies won’t knuckle under and vote for them anyway, once they no longer have to worry about the election? And the answer to that is not just no, but Hell no!

Quantum of Solace – Worst Bond movie EVER!

This may be my last movie review. I saw this in the theatre a few years ago when it came out, and the funny thing was, I couldn’t remember a thing about it. So, when it was on cable TV a couple nights ago, I decided to watch it again to see if it was any good.

It wasn’t. Indeed, I found out why I couldn’t remember anything about it the first time, because there was nothing worth remembering about it the second time, either.

It’s a given that most James Bond movies have plots that range from over-the-top to the downright preposterous, but nonetheless the plots are at least understandable. But Quantum of Solace has no plot at all, at least none that I could discern. It’s just a bunch of action and fight scenes and car chases strung together with no central story to make you care about any of them. But beyond that, what was lacking in this movie was any sense of fun or style, two things that could usually redeem even the worst of previous Bond efforts. Bond is grim throughout, and one gets the sense that neither he nor “M” (Judi Dench) particularly like or trust each other.

The whole point of the Bond series was that it was pure, escapist fantasy. It presented a world in which you got to drive fast cars, travel to exotic locales, and have sex with gorgeous women. The whole thing was about glamour and style, and reality be damned! But apparently the curent trend is to have Bond movies strive more for gritty realism. Well, I guess they got the “Grit” part right, but in the process tossed out all the fun and charm. In short, this movie fails as even good entertainment. Indeed, you would be much better served watching the silly Vin Diesel effort xXx, with Diesel playing the wise-cracking, tattooed anti-Bond and Samuel L Jackson having ten times as much fun as Judi Dench in the role of his “Boot to ass” boss.

Rule 5 Blogging: Российских женщин-полицейских

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Jennifer Lawrence in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

The Olympic Winter Games begin in Sochi, Russia, later this week, and the police are on high alert for terrorist attacks. So, this week’s Rule 5 features Russian policewomen. I would guess that it would not be a good idea to mess with them.

The patch on this policewoman's shoulder is Россия Министерство внутренних дел, or Russia, at the top, and the initials for Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The patch on this policewoman’s shoulder is Россия Министерство внутренних дел, or Russia, at the top, and the initials for Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Российских женщин-полицейских’ »

From Around the Blogroll

Donald Douglas asks if Israel (is) losing the propaganda war.

Several sites on our blogroll have been writing about the Republicans in Congress and their position on how we deal with the illegal immigration problem, including Jennifer Davis, My “Clash” with the GOP-Amnesty may be the last straw and Dejah Thoris, Spineless Crap Weasels, AKA House Leaders, Support Amnesty on the Victory Girls, The Pirate’s Cove, Anonymous Republican Sees Racism In Immigration Opposition, and Patterico, GOP Declaration of “Principles” Regarding Immigration. I’m as Republican as anyone, but we’re about to do with Hispanics just what was done with blacks: give the Democrats a lock on 90% of their votes. The Hispanics are here, and they are not going away, period, and anyone who thinks they are is obviously using the recreational pharmaceutical legalized in Colorado.

Even if we manage to find a way to keep the illegal immigrants themselves from ever voting, their children are here, they are being born here, as American citizens, and they will be able to vote. If the GOP ever wants anything more than 10% of their votes, the GOP has to get on board, now, on getting these people legal. Arguments that “illegal means illegal,” and that “we can’t reward criminals” sound great, but they are completely impractical here: we can argue and argue those points, right up until the Hispanic immigrants’ votes are locked up by the Democrats, at which point it won’t matter whether we are right or not; we’ll be so far out of power that our positions will be meaningless.

We’ve had many episodes of trying to exclude immigrants in our past, from “no Irish need apply” to restrictions on Chinese “coolies,” and none of them have ever worked; why should we think that trying to exclude Hispanic immigrants would work any better?

From The Pirate’s Cove:

Strange: Study Finds That Liberals Drink Lots More Alcohol
By William Teach February 1, 2014 – 10:51 am

This probably has something to do with all the studies that find, again and again and again, that liberals are less happy than Conservatives.

More at the link. I’d add that while it’s true that conservatives are happier than liberals — knowing that we are responsible for our own lives, and not always blaming someone else for our problems means that we believe we can fix our own problems, and aren’t being held down by others — liberal “thinking” shows clear signs of alcohol incapacitation.1

Donald Douglas pointed to an article which utterly devastates MSNBC’s (since retracted) tweet about evil right-wingers hating a commercial, because it included a bi-racial family.

MSNBC hates this: More conservatives than liberals belong to biracial families

Maybe MSNBC will hate this, but everyone else will go aww. More conservatives belong to biracial families than do progressive liberals according to left wing biased Washington Post. Even more painful for the race hustling left is that it was revealed by the replacement of far left nutjob Ezra Klein who leftists adored so much while at the Post.

Indeed, among families with step-children or adopted children, 11 percent of conservatives were living in mixed race households compared to 10 percent of liberals living in mixed-race households.

Similarly, 9.4 percent of Republicans living in step- or adopted families were in mixed-race households, compared to only 8.8 percent of Democrats in such families. (Again, this small advantage for Republicans is not large enough to be statistically significant).

An even bigger gut punch to MSNBC and race hustling progressive liberals is that most biracial families are in red, conservative states. Leftist, Northeastern states are more likely to be have lower rates of interracial marriages. I guess that’s just progressive liberal Democrats keeping alive those old KKK days. Not all Democrats were KKK, but all KKK were/are Democrats you know.

More at the link. But, just in our too-small readership at The First Street Journal, your Editor’s father was Portuguese while his mother was as lily-white English as you can get (that would qualify as an Hispanic/white marriage, which would make me bi-racial if I really cared about such things, Yorkshire has an Asian (adopted) granddaughter, and Hoagie’s wife is Korean, and none of us care in the slightest!2

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, noted a poll which has NBC News and the MSNBC cable network as the least trusted source of information. Given MSNBC’s recent gaffes, that result is hardly surprising.

From Sister Toldjah:

#PPACT condom billboard at school crosswalk riles Memphis residents
Posted by: ST on February 1, 2014 at 11:34 am

The dodo birds at Planned Parenthood are at it again, taking their “message” too far by placing a condom billboard at an elementary school crosswalk in Memphis (hat tip):

(Memphis) A Planned Parenthood billboard has only been up a week in one South Memphis neighborhood, but some people there already want it to come down.

They say the billboard, which includes the message “Getting It On Is Free” and a picture of a condom, is too graphic.

“I was shocked. I was appalled that anyone would put up a picture of condom,” said Karen Wallace.

Karen Wallace works at a church nearby and has to drive by the billboard every day.

She said what is worse it’s right next to an elementary school cross walk.

“The graphic was not necessary the message was enough,” said Wallace.

A dad who saw the sign for the first time Thursday agreed and said it’s not something he wants his children to see.

“No! It ain’t nothing to send out to my kids,” said Rickey Munn.

You’d think Planned Parenthood would take into consideration community concerns, right? Wrong:

“A condom is not an explicit image it’s just a piece of latex and children see explicit images all the time on the internet, in commercials and in the movies. We are trying to promote healthy relationships and save lives,” said Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood Memphis.


It plans to put some more billboards in the spring.

A few of things here: First, if you think there’s no way in the world Planned Parenthood (and other “progressive types) would target kids in their approach to so-called “safe sex” information, read here , here, and here for your wake-up call. Second, for “enlightened” types who think this is much ado about nothing, y’all do know this is a bit different than just demanding that someone who is offended change the channel, right? Thirdly, consider the “Getting It On” Planned Parenthood campaign, the “Brosurance” campaign put on by left wing activists that basically portrayed women as sex addicts who should sign up for Obamacare, and then review Mike Huckabee’s “controversial” comments from a couple of weeks ago about how Democrats view women:

More at the link. At first this might seem like nothing, but Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has been all over the stories concerning how the left are tying to beak down barriers and sexualize children.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Darleen Click noted the story that the lovely Sandra Fluke is considering running for the congressional seat that the little troll, Henry Waxman, is vacating, and she came up with the best line of the day:

Oh goody, the headlines for elections to watch are to be dominated by two women, Fluke and Davis, who have nothing to run on but their vaginas.

The photo is from Patterico, and while some insist that the picture has been photoshopped, I think it just means he has thick fingers. :)

The final report on the environmental impact of the proposed Keystone Pipeline project has been released, and it states that any environmental damage is expected to be very minimal. One would think that President Obama would finally approve it, and the thousands of jobs it would create. L D Jackson noted that the President, who tells us that job creation is his most important objective, is in no hurry.

The left don’t want the pipeline built, because they are just overwrought that the Canadian tar sands oil will lead to more carbon emissions, but the State Department report noted that the tar sands project will go forward, and the oil produced would be used, by someone, somewhere, so those concerns are meaningless. Right now, the real concern is just who makes money off of it, and where will the jobs created be. A smart American3 would prefer that those jobs be created in the United States, and filled by American workers.4

You know, it would be absolutely great if we had a completely independent, totally pollution-free, source of power we could use. Trouble is, we do not have such, in quantities which are able to generate more than a small fraction of the electricity we need. Our greatest resources are coal, petroleum and natural gas, and we have enough here, in the United States, to supply all of our needs, for decades, if we are allowed to develop them. Perhaps, decades from now, our ingenuity and engineering expertise will have allowed us to develop some great, future power source which will enable us to stop using combustibles for power, but we still need to get from where we are now, to that future.

From Hube:

I was rereading the comment section of this post yesterday whilst adding it to this one regarding comics writer Mark Millar being a socialist. Keep in mind the first link is from 2006, a little over seven years ago, to be more specific. One of things I complained about in the post was how Millar had Captain America kill his opponent, Colonel Abdul al-Rahman, who’s basically an Iranian counterpart to Cap. (In my original post, I referred to al-Rahman as the “MCA,” or “Muslim Country Analogue.”) And who commented about this? None other than Delaware Liberal’s Jason “Trust Fund” Scott:

A lot more at the link; this is a longer article than usual from Hube. Hube doesn’t seem to have much respect for Jason330, as he styles himself on his site. Mr 330′s standard response to disagreement is to call others names, which is fine — he can write an way he wishes — but he does seem to have a shortage of logic based arguments when challenged.

At any rate, that’s it for this week!

  1. Or outright stupidity.
  2. My first cousin, as white as white can be, is married to a Vietnamese woman; guess what that makes their children. He’s also as conservative Republican as they come.
  3. A term which would exclude most liberals.
  4. Some might even think it rather racist of the left to prefer that those polluting processes take place in countries populated by darker-skinned people, but we know, of course, that the left are incapable of racism. dripping with sarcasm

Economics 101: The myRA accounts

George Bush wanted to partially privatize Social Security, by allowing people younger than 55 to divert 2 percentage points of the 6.2% taken in FICA taxes, and put it in private accounts, and he was absolutely excoriated by the Democrats. This plan wouldn’t touch that 6.2%, but “allow” you to pay even more into the federal government, to get that private account.

From CNNMoney:

What you need to know about Obama’s ‘myRA’ retirement accounts
By Melanie Hicken | January 30, 2014: 4:11 PM ET

In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced plans to create a new ‘myRA’ retirement account aimed at helping millions of Americans to start building a nest egg.

On Wednesday, Obama signed a presidential memo directing the Department of Treasury to create the government-backed retirement accounts.

Here’s a look at how myRAs will work, according to the White House:

Who can open a myRA? The accounts are targeted at the millions of low- and middle-income Americans who don’t have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans. That includes roughly half of all workers and 75% of part-time workers.

The White House says it will “aggressively” encourage employers to offer the program, noting that they won’t have to administer or contribute to the accounts. myRAs will initially be offered through a pilot program to workers whose employers sign on by the end of the year.

Once the program reaches full implementation, anyone who has direct deposit for their paycheck will be eligible to sign up, Treasury said.

More at the link. The main points:

  • All workers may invest in the accounts, as long as they are paid via direct deposit, including those who already have an employer-provided 401(k) plan, as long as their household income falls below $191,000 a year.
  • The account will function as a Roth IRA rather than a traditional IRA. This means that participants will not be able to deduct the savings from their income at tax time, but will may no taxes on the principle or investment earnings upon qualified withdrawal. Anyone who withdraws the interest earned in the account before age 59½ will get hit with taxes and a possible penalty, just like a Roth IRA.
  • The myRA accounts will solely invest in government savings bonds. They will also be backed by the U.S. government, meaning that savers can never lose their principal investment.
  • Unlike IRAs at private investment firms or banks, the myRA accounts will have no administrative fees.
  • Once the account reaches $15,000, it must be transferred to a private Roth IRA; it can be transferred at any time before it reaches the threshold.

Again, more at the link.

This is not a terrible proposal, in that it could encourage savings, but it isn’t a great one, either. Workers can open such accounts with a very minimal investment, just $25, and contribute as little as $5 a week. For workers who can only save at the very lowest levels, the lack of administrative fees could outweigh the low rates of return.

However, your Editor, who has exactly zero trust for President Obama’s motives, notes that the money the workers would save goes directly to the United States Treasury, for investment in government securities, and that means the money would be doing exactly one thing: helping to finance the deficit! More, if the myRA were to result in significant worker investment, it could reduce the amount of money that the government has to borrow on the open market to a level which might depress interest rates a bit . . . which would have the effect of lowering the rate of return workers would see in their myRAs! The more successful the program is in attracting workers to sign up, the less successful the workers will be in realizing returns on investment. That said, your Editor doubts that it will be successful enough to make any appreciable dent in interest rates.

Since the program will be restricted to those workers who have direct deposit for their paychecks,1 everyone who could participate in the program already has his paycheck going to a bank, and that means everyone who could participate could also simply start an IRA, Roth or traditional, at the bank he used, and have a far wider choice of investment options. Since the myRA could be transferred to a private IRA at any time, it could make sense for someone who just can’t come up with a decent amount of money for an initial opening of the account, but when I checked with the bank I use, the website stated that there was no minimum amount required to open a Roth IRA; other banks could be different.

Despite my lack of trust for anything that comes from the Obama Administration, I don’t see anything bad enough in this proposal to oppose it, but I also don’t see enough good in it to make it worthwhile. The myRA might help a few people, and I’m perfectly willing to let other people decide how they wish to invest their money, but it really seems like an almost nothing program to me.

  1. This seems like a strange restriction to me; the federal government does not have to have direct deposit on paychecks to collect Social Security taxes.