Thank you John Boehner. You figured out their evil plan and are sticking to your original ideals. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Evil plan:

But here’s what we’re told is Mr. Boehner’s political kicker: The proposed deal would also include some kind of “trigger” device, so far undefined, that would compel House and Senate negotiators to complete tax reform discussions over the next several months. We’re told the White House has said it is open in principle to a top rate of 35% on individuals and something like 26% or 27% on corporations—in return for closing various loopholes.

More troubling than these details is the staggered timing. Republicans would be putting their fingerprints on a tax increase in return for spending cuts as a first order of business, which would raise the dividend and top income tax rates to 39.6% (from 35%), or 41% if you include the phase-out of deductions. (Plus the 3.8% payroll tax hike baked into ObamaCare.) Only then would Mr. Obama and the Democrats negotiate the details of tax reform and lower overall rates.

But why at that point would Democrats want tax reform?

Original Ideals:

“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” Boehner said in a statement released less than 24 hours before the White House meeting was scheduled to begin. “I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

This is definitely NOT a fail. Do we need reform? You bet. Is two weeks before a deadline the time to overhaul Medicare and Social Security? No.

For any debt limit increase, just make the cuts that are great than any debt increase. Then move on to step two.

Thank you for not being sucked into that vortex of Democrat plans.

This story in the NYTimes talks about the changes that are occurring with same sex marriage being legal there in NY now. eg Companies no longer offering benefits to partners when said partners could be a spouse.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director at Lambda Legal, explains a few of the complications. One of which has to do with adoption.

When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples.

If a country bans adoptions to same sex couples and you ARE a same sex couple, just not “married”, then are you being honest by adopting anyway but not announcing that your live in is actually your other half?

I don’t think that’s how honesty works.