A Winnipeg-based matchmaking service has added a division to their company that specializes in matching people with genital herpes [...] They added the herpes aspect to the list of questions after several people came forward asking for help. Now, Tregobov says clients are often open to being matched with someone with herpes, even if they don’t have the condition.

“We don’t necessarily match two people with herpes together, we match based on compatibility and based on acceptance,” she said. “Every single person is asked are you open to it? Yes or no.”

The moral argument for lower taxes is quite simple: people are entitled to retain their private property. Taxes should be used to fund the defined roles of government and nothing else. Social engineering and wealth redistribution to favored constituencies are not what taxes are supposed to be used for.

The economic argument has been proven throughout the course of history. To a point, lower tax rates result in larger revenues for the federal government. Thomas Sowell recently wrote a great article on this topic:

…High tax rates do not necessarily result in high tax revenues to the government. “It is time to face the facts,” he said. Merely having high tax rates on large incomes will not bring in more tax revenues to the treasury, because of “the flight of capital away from taxable investments.”

This was all said in 1924, in Mellon’s book, “Taxation: The People’s Business.” Yet here we are, more than 80 years later, still not facing those facts.

It is not just a question of what Andrew Mellon said. It is a question of hard facts, easily checked in official documents available to all– and ignored all these years.

Internal Revenue Service data show that there were 206 people who reported annual incomes of one million dollars or more in 1916. But, as the tax rate on high incomes skyrocketed under the Woodrow Wilson administration, that number plummeted to just 21 people reporting a million dollars a year in income five years later…

Right after Congress enacted the cuts in tax rates that Mellon had been urging, there were suddenly 207 people reporting taxable incomes of a million dollars or more in 1925. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You could look it up.” It is on page 21 of an Internal Revenue publication titled “Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income for 1925.”

Where had all the income of those millionaires been hiding? In tax-exempt securities like state and local bonds, among other places. Mellon had urged Congress to end tax exemptions for such securities, even before he got them to cut tax rates. But he succeeded only with the latter, and only after a political struggle with those who made the same kinds of arguments that are still being made today by those who cry out against “tax cuts for the rich.”

…The government, which collected less than $50 million in taxes on capital gains in 1924, suddenly collected well over $100 million in capital gains taxes in 1925. At lower tax rates, it no longer made sense to keep so much invested in tax-exempt securities, when more money could be made by investing in the economy.

As for “the rich”– who really were rich in those days, when $100,000 was worth more than a million dollars is worth today– those in the highest income brackets paid 30 percent of all taxes in 1920 and 65 percent of all taxes by 1929, after “tax cuts for the rich.”

How can that be? Because high tax rates on paper, that many people avoid, often does not bring in as much tax revenue as lower tax rates that more people actually pay, after it is safe to come out of tax shelters and earn higher rates of taxable income.

The investors do this because it makes them better off, on net balance, even after they pay more money in taxes on incomes that have gone up. More important, the economy benefits when there is more investment in things that create more jobs and rising output…

As John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things.” In this case, the facts support lower taxes.

Since 2000, Democrats have railed against the ‘Bush tax cuts for the rich.’ Now Democrats claim that the extension of the Bush tax rates, by a Democrat controlled Congress, and a Democrat president, is a great victory for Obama and his party.

Preventing one of the largest tax rate hikes in history is a victory for the American people and conservative ideas. In no way can an acquiescence by the Left of this magnitude truly be seen as a victory for the Left.

However, reality never seems to get in the way of the political class. In all likelihood, by 2012 President Obama will be touting the success of the ‘Obama tax cuts.’ In 1996 Bill Clinton won reelection by running on all the successes of the Contract with America – the very same document Clinton had called the “Contract on America,” likening conservative ideas to a hit man’s contract. Just like Clinton, Obama will try to claim responsibility for the successes of Republican ideas, which he will fight bitterly against.

In a desperate bid to sell his horrendous spending bill that keeps tax rates at current levels, President Obama needed some help from President Clinton:

The visual effect is quite striking. President Obama looks as though he is essentially admitting that he is unable to sell his deal to the American people. Instead, Obama needs an adult (it is a frightening thought that Bill Clinton is now the ‘adult’ in the Democratic Party) to speak to the American people.

What happened to the Obama who said he would rather be a successful one term president than a mediocre two term president? Instead, Obama is just turning into a failed president, at least according to… arch liberal Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of the Nation.

What is ever more apparent is that Barack Obama is just not up to the job. Before running for office his life experience ranged from being a guest lecturer at a University, to organizing voter fraud as a ‘community organizer.’ He has never run a corner store, never mind a multi-trillion dollar economy. As Thomas Sowell said, “Obama is like a sophomore in college who thinks that he can run the world because he has never had to run anything.” The office of the Presidency is too much for Barack Obama to handle.

For the first time in years, House lawmakers will soon have the chance to vote on a standalone measure to increase the federal debt limit next year under the new Republican majority — a vote that’s shaping up as the first early test of the GOP’s commitment to spending restraint.

The House Republican leader, Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, will give lawmakers a chance for a direct vote on raising the debt limit, spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Times.

That would be a break with the recent tactic of burying the debt limit increase in parliamentary maneuvers — a way to shield vulnerable lawmakers from having to take the unpopular vote — and would instantly give leverage to those in Congress hoping to impose immediate spending cuts.

Speaker-elect Boehner is promising that there will be a standalone vote on raising the debt ceiling, which is currently $14.3 Trillion. If the measure fails, the Treasury Department will not be permitted to issue any more debt (borrow any more money). Not raising the debt limit would force Congress to live within its means. Without additional debt, Congress would be forced to adopt serious spending cuts. Essentially, Washington would be forced to acknowledge that they are out of money.

The last time a war over the debt limit was waged was in the wake of the 1994 Republican Revolution. 15 years ago, Republicans tried to force President Clinton to make serious cuts in entitlement spending, by far the most costly, and politically radioactive, segment of the federal budget.

If President Obama, like President Clinton, refuses to pass a GOP budget, we could be looking at another government shutdown. Only, this time the GOP will be in a much better position to defend their position. The 2010 election was abut stopping Obama, and stopping out of control spending. A fight over raising the debt ceiling is a perfect opportunity for the GOP to contrast themselves with reckless Democrats.

A vote to raise the debt limit with no strings attached, as has been the practice in Washington, is a vote to continue spending the nation off a cliff. By making this vote a standalone vote, as opposed to slipping it in with another bill, Speaker Boehner will force members of Congress to go on the record with this issue. The transparency and apparent willingness to fight are both extremely promising sign from the new Congressional majority.

A few weeks ago the Times went after the top ranking House Republican, John Boehner, in a coordinated attack with the White House (detailed on Strictly Right 54). In an article entitled ‘A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists,’ the paper attempted to paint Boehner as a corporate stooge and an elitist. Turns out painting a man who has 11 siblings and worked weekends throughout his childhood to help his family get by was not such an effective line of attack. So, here comes round 2. You have to give the Times credit for their sticktoitiveness. They definitely adheres to the axiom ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.’ The New York Post is reporting that the Times is planning on publishing a story claiming that… John Boehner is having an affair:

The heat is on Republican leader John Boehner.

Liberal media outlets are trying to smear the highest-ranking Republican in the House just weeks before the midterm elections with a deal-breaking scandal before he has a chance to take the speaker’s chair from Nancy Pelosi.

A blogger from liberal Web site The Daily Kos pierced through Boehner’s security detail at yesterday’s unveiling of his leadership policy “Pledge to America” to ask if he was sleeping with a lobbyist from the Printing Industries of America.

The congressman ignored the pesky blogger with a flip camera and kept moving to his fleet of black Suburbans.

The lobbyist who was named in the confrontation and then was contacted by he Daily Kos blogger Lisbeth Lyons denied the accusations. “As you can imagine, I was stunned by such a question,” Lyons said. “I found it to be highly insulting, particularly as a female political professional, as well as unfounded. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the matter.”

Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair. Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.

“Catching Boehner with a mistress is the only way to destroy him politically before the election,” a source said.

A rep for Boehner’s office said, “This is bull[bleep]. The American people oppose Washington Democrats’ job killing, so their desperate liberal allies are resorting to outright lies. It’s low, and it’s dirty.”

As the Post story mentions, in February of 2008, when Obama was promising to lower sea levels (now he can’t even promise to lower the unemployment rate), the Times ran a hit piece on John McCain. The Times piece used unnamed sources to insinuate that Senator McCain was romantically involved with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. The accusations proved to be fallacious, generally the case when you rely exclusively on unnamed sources. This was of course written at the same time that the Times blacklisted any stories about John Edwards, who has since admitted to repeatedly cheating on his cancer-stricken wife – and recording the evidence of his adultery on video for posterity. And what did the very same New York Times have to say about infidelity when it involved a known pervert having an affair with a girl the age of his daughter?

Unfortunately, we seem to be creating a standard of ”truthful” self-disclosure for all would-be leaders that is neither socially desirable nor psychically possible. We’re trying to make hard and fast rules about intimate truth-telling, and they are absurd — even poisonous. Few people grow up without making some mistakes.

In fact, that same article, entitled ‘when the truth hurts’ claimed that telling the truth is evil: “Making a similar point, a European friend often berates me. ”You Americans are so naive. You think that it’s such a noble thing to tell the truth.” In her mind, the person demanding truth is a soldier at the door.” Got it? Demanding the truth makes you a Nazi in Bill Clinton’s case, according to the ‘newspaper of record.’

When it comes to Democrats the New York Times wont cover, denies and justifies infidelity. When it’s a Republican the ‘paper of record’ goes into full slime mode. The latest attack on John Boehner is a desperate effort by a deeply partisan, and increasingly irrelevant fossil. The Times has staked out its position with the smear merchants of the radical Left. Their openness and flagrant bias is no longer deniable.

You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.

Yes, you heard that correctly. Bill Clinton pointed out that someone else was a sinner.

No, this isn’t a dream.

Any good Christian will admit to being a sinner, as it is basically the foundation of why someone is a Christian. However, I think Bill Clinton’s remarks can be easily summed up here:

“Hi is this the kettle? I’m the pot. And you’re black.”

You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.

From the U.K. Times:

There are many ways to pay off campaign debts — cajoling phone calls, begging letters — but Bill Clinton believes that he has come up with a better method to wipe out the financial obligations outstanding from his wife’s failed presidential bid.

He is raffling himself. In an e-mail sent to millions of people who supported Hillary Clinton’s White House campaign, the former President asks: “How would you like the chance to come up to New York and spend the day with me?” For those who would like the One-Day-With-Bill prize, an online donation of as little as $5 (£3) will buy them the chance.

All I can say is that I’m glad he’s at least recognized his worth…