Thursday, August 27, 2015

The Fed and Free Markets



Once again The Federal Reserve is stuck in the unenviable position of taking candy from the spoiled brat it created.  They've been jawboning about raising interest rates for so long I've lost track, yet they never fail to find excuses for postponing.  Meanwhile the spoiled brat keeps getting fatter, closer to type II diabetes, and more ill tempered with every passing quarter.

This reminds me of the similarly irresponsible Fed actions of 2005 - 2006.  In that case the Fed didn't just take candy from the brat, they went on to stomp on it's windpipe!  Forgotten in the blur of deceptive history is how the housing bubble, which the Fed helped create, came to collapse so violently and led to the financial crisis of 2008.

From 2005 - 2006 the Fed raised interest rates from 1% to 5.25%.  That was an increase of 425%! Housing prices, being inversely related to mortgage costs, promptly crashed.   It need not have happened that way.  The fed acted irresponsibly.

Now they are being overly cautious and inflating bubbles in equities, housing, mergers, debt, etc. Much of the risk is once again concentrated in the federal government.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every mortgage written since 2008.  The Federal Reserve now owns over four trillion dollars of interest rate sensitive securities.  Plus, the rising dollar is squeezing exporters which would only get worse if the Fed normalizes.

We've seen what happens when the Fed helps distort and then crushes a big sector of the economy. Now we are seeing what happens when the Fed just keeps distorting.

Remind me again how we've got a free market economy in the U.S.?  







Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Big Surprise - Stern likes Trump!

Howard Stern has endorsed Donald Trump.   This will not come as a surprise to readers of undiepundit.com.  Here's what I wrote over a month ago:  

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.   
But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  Very entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern!  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second.  
Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.       
That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain. 
President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan.  
Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss?  
Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.   
Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America.  
So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 

Friday, August 14, 2015

Why Socialism is All The Rage and Everyone Hates Capitalism


Socialism is on the march in the U.S. today.   But just a few short years ago Obama voters would mock and charge racism when anyone likened his ideology to socialism.  Now an openly socialist candidate is leading in some key polls of those same voters.  Socialism is now mainstream in the Democrat party.  Sure, most candidates still avoid the "S" word like the plague and prefer using anodyne terms like progressive, fairness, and social justice, but there's no mistaking the ideology at the core.

Why is this happening in a country which enjoys the highest standard of living of any large diverse country, and one which uniquely earned it's place due to its historic bent towards free markets and constitutionally limited government?  Part of this is a triumph of deliberate indoctrination which has been going on for at least half a century.  Another part, and the most recent part, is a deliberate deception regarding the financial crisis of 2008.

You may not realize it, but you've been indoctrinated by socialists your whole life.  Prior to the 1960's there were prohibitions on government workers joining organized labor because of the obvious conflict of interest: organized labor and socialism have been synonymous throughout U.S. history. But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor.   Most likely every teacher who taught you in a U.S. public school was a member of organized labor.  Of course, not all members of organized labor are socialists, but the politics of organized labor in the U.S. leans undeniably in that direction. 

Accordingly, if you are asked who the father of modern socialism is, odds are you will be able to name Karl Marx and explain Marxism.  You probably know the Marxist slogan - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  Conversely, if you are asked who the father of capitalism is, odds are you'd either come up empty or be wrong.


In one sense, the answer to the latter is again... Karl Marx.  Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern socialism AND the father of modern capitalism.  Karl Marx was the person who defined capitalism for the masses in his scathing critique of capitalism called "Das Kapital".  He constructed a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism based on his own definitions.  Of course Marx's preferred ideology, socialism, was defined in the most glowing light, while capitalism was defined in the most sinister.

Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas had the most influence in shaping America's free market economy.  Adam Smith’s book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was actually published in 1776.  (That date rings a bell, no?)  But the word capitalism didn't exist in Adam Smith’s day.  He never used it.  We mistakenly call our free market system capitalism only because that's what Marx and the critics called it, and it stuck. 

If everyone knows what Marxism is, why doesn't everyone know what Smithism is?  Because it’s not taught.  "Smithism" never became a word.  Marxism is taught everywhere all the time.  If you want to learn about Adam Smith you most likely have to do some digging.  You can go through K-12 and well beyond in schools in the U.S. and never hear the name Adam Smith, never learn about his ideas, and never understand the influence those ideas had on the founding of our country.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Marxism, you’ll find plenty.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Smithism, you’ll get crickets. 

How about a more modern term like Supply Side Economics?  You are probably familiar with many criticisms of supply side economics, but can you accurately define it?  Can you define its opposite - Demand Side Economics?

·         Supply side economics is the theory that people will SUPPLY (create) more value if they are free to function in a free market and realize the rewards.
   
·         Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is redistributed to them.  

These are opposite approaches for achieving different economic goals:  Supply Side seeks to optimize overall economic vitality (Smithism).  Demand Side at times seeks to stimulate consumption (Keynesianism), or at times to achieve egalitarianism (Marxism).

If you look up supply side economics on Wikipedia, you’ll find a thorough entry along with plenty of criticisms.  If you look up demand side economics you’ll get crickets.  The language in this case does not favor the socialist demand side ideology so it is not even defined!

No event has had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008.  It has been said that history is written by the victors.  That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis.  Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem, Barack Obama won the presidency, Democrats had both houses of congress, and liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything you've been told by them was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism and scapegoat capitalism.   

The fact is the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis.  At times the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was rooted in socialism regardless of who was advocating for it.

It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s which lowered mortgage requirements.  It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages.  It finally reached it’s apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush while Democrats including Senator Barack Obama ran both houses of congress.

All the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies.  Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis.  No government official took more money from these two companies and at a faster rate than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.  His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton.  If this is news to you,  it's because they wrote the history!

What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism.  It was a plausible argument designed to deceive.  Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears.  So why did they suddenly engage in subprime lending for the first time in history in such large numbers? Because they were coerced to do so by their government. Deregulation also had nothing to do with it.  Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts and none of them failed.  Are U.S. bankers so much greedier than their Canadian counterparts that they drove their banks into insolvency while their less regulated neighbors just over the border did not?  No, it was U.S. government regulation in the form of socialist housing policy that caused the financial crisis.  Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad, the damage spread to the private banking and investment sector bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.

The deceptions about this animated the Occupy Wall Street movement, got Barack Obama elected twice, and are responsible for the acceptance of openly socialist candidate Bernie Sanders today.   They are also part of the continuing campaign that has mischaracterized the mortgage market as an example of failed capitalism.

The frightening thing about this is that if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, we are all doomed to repeat it.  And we are.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008 and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing have accelerated under Obama.

National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, starvation, poverty, and authoritarianism.  That's at the national level.  At the local level however, socialism can and does succeed even long term.  That's because local governments cannot create money.  State and local governments must be more disciplined or risk imminent collapse.  By definition local governments tend to be more fiscally responsible as a result.  National governments can hide their insolvency much longer, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.

This is an important point that deserves repeating:  Socialism cannot work long term at the national level.  The national level is where money is created and controlled (Euro countries being a recent exception).  The conflict of interest is just too great for elected officials.  National politicians will eventually destroy the currency for future generations in an attempt to gain power today.  It's happening here now. We have doubled our national debt in just the last seven years.  Interest rates have been artificially held near zero for that entire time.  If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.  The socialists will of course blame capitalism.  
  
Underlying these attempts to promote socialism and demonize capitalism is the historical fact that pendulums swing, things change, nations wax and wane, ideologies shift.  All great nations have eventually succumbed to the forces of leveling.  Maybe it's just our turn to regress to the mean?  

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Trump to GOP: "Baba Booey!"



Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.  But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern.  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second. 

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.      

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain.  

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan. 

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss? 

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.  Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America. 

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 


(I posted this originally on 7/21, and in light of everything since, including the debates,  it holds-up pretty well.  Lately Trump has been taking on Megyn Kelly with his characteristic meanness, and Carly Fiorina is having none of it.  I can't think of two women I'd rather not cross more than those two.  Nevertheless The Donald Trump Show will continue and we will all be diminished by it.  Everyone that is except the Clintons who more and more appear to be the architects and beneficiaries of this risible show.)       

Thursday, July 30, 2015

The Clintons are Awesome!

Once again the Clintons are in the news for marital infidelity, dishonesty, and meanness.   So as the pop media digs up Donald Trump's ex-wife's divorce deposition claiming he forced himself on her, which she now retracts,  Bill and Hillary are never held accountable for Juanita Broaddrick's rape by Bill Clinton, which she has NEVER retracted.  

So as the NFL season is soon to kick-off, I say "No More"...



Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Donald Trump for President!



Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders in comparison.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.  But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern.  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second. 

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.      

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain.  

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan. 

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss? 

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.  Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America. 

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey!       

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Iran Wins!


If you are a law-abiding Christian who supports the second amendment, Barack Obama believes you are a terror threat, a "bitter clinger", and has you living under severe ongoing sanctions.  If you are a Shiite Mullah with long range ballistic missiles, thousands of spinning centrifuges, plans for a nuclear bomb, who chants death to Israel, death to America, and is in the process of gaining regional hegemony, you just had your sanctions lifted.  Take a moment to let that sink in.

Remember when Barack Obama referred to rural gun owners as "bitter clingers", bitter over their economic malaise and clinging to their guns and their religion?  These are the people being sanctioned by Barack Obama in numerous and diabolical ways.  They are being forced to pay for abortions, their groups are discriminated against by the IRS, the DHS targets them as a terror threat, their gun shops are sanctioned by Operation Choke Point, their legal right to purchase ammunition is thwarted by government bulk purchases and bans,  they are being forced to perform services against their beliefs, and they are mocked and ridiculed by Obama and his minions.

Meanwhile Iran, a totalitarian theocracy, the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism, the most egregious rogue nation on the planet, fomenter of regional chaos, persecutor of women, gays, and minorities, a nation which seeks to bring about global Armageddon, which regularly chants death to Israel and death to America, just got a green light to keep all their existing nuclear infrastructure, all their ballistic missiles, and got all their sanctions lifted in exchange for some vague promise to allow limited inspections by some guys in blue helmets sometime in the future.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

(UPDATE:  Remember when Obama declared, "We are no longer a Christian nation..."?  Meanwhile, David Cameron just declared that Great Britain still is.  Below is a video compilation of the two statements by the two leaders.  Incidentally, the US is about 80% Christian, while Great Britain is about 60%.  [VIDEO - 21 seconds])



(Originally posted April, 2015)







Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Bush was Right




Remember the "Global War on Terror"?  (cue laugh track)  For those of you who watch comedy shows for your news, here's a refresher:  In the wake of 9/11, George W Bush (cue laugh track) realized that the attack was not an isolated event limited to some Saudi ex-pats under a single nut-job.  Instead, George W Bush saw the bigger picture and treated it like an ideological and global phenomenon. Part of that was a "Global War on Terror". (Bush was unfortunately too p.c. to call it what it was: "Global War on Jihad" or "Global War on Radical Islam").  He made clear it would be fought under the radar and that the battles and successes would not be made public.  He followed through for two terms. There were no new attacks, and the global Jihad lost ground.

Today we are stuck arguing who lost Iraq and created ISIS.  This is a diversion from reality.  ISIS headquarters is in Syria not Iraq.  They are currently spreading, well, globally.  Today they killed 50 near Gaza in Egypt.  The other day it was Kuwait, Tunisia, and Libya.  Before that, West Africa, East Africa, and Europe.  There have been ISIS inspired attacks and arrests in the US.

Gee, maybe all this focus on who lost the Iraq war should be redirected and we should ask instead, "Who lost the Global War on Terror?".

I can tell you it wasn't Bush.          

Sunday, June 28, 2015

SCOTUS Schmotus

If you are scratching your head trying to figure out why The Supreme Court consistently defies the language of the Constitution, you are in good company.  If you are further scratching your head trying to figure out how the same court can defy the language of statutory law, you are also not alone. But don't despair, help is on the way.

In a case of perfect timing, Charles Murray's new book "By the People" is a great read for the head scratchers.  The book explains why the "Madisonian" structures that got us here are in ruins and how we can use new tools to counterbalance the metastatic government those structures were designed to thwart.  It's important to know that those structures are long gone and that looking to their remnants for salvation is a fools errand.  Railing against a President, a Legislature, or even the Court is a waste of energy.  Nothing within government can reverse the growth of government no matter who's in charge.  But that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done.  Murray offers some hopeful solutions for a possible counter-insurgency strategy.

On the subject of gay marriage, I'm one of a rare breed who actually supports gay marriage while at the same time deplore that it was enacted by the SCOTUS.  On the ObamaCare decision, I oppose both the law and the decision.  Ditto on the disparate impact decision.  It was a rough week made a bit easier thanks to Murray's book.

   
Footnotes:

Here's what I wrote a couple of years ago (2013) about gay marriage:



I'm sorry, I find the marriage equality symbol particularly annoying.  Personally, I don't give a whit who marries who as long as it's consensual and between adults.  But I can't abide hypocrisy.   Gay and straight proponents of this new "right" are almost uniformly opposed to plural marriage.  These sanctimonious hypocrites are the same folks who just spent the last year dragging Mormonism through the mud behind their Priuses ridiculing the faith and its plural marriage history.  These are the tolerant ones who want equality?  I call bullshit.  Why not a right for all marriages?  With that in mind, I offer the plural marriage equality symbol above.  (or more accurately, the any marriage congruence symbol.)
Also this from 2013:
Gay marriage is usually thought of as a cultural issue or a human rights issue and of course it is on some level.  But there is not a single state in the union in which it is not possible for gay couples to legally and openly live together as a couple.  Moreover, turn on a TV today and gay characters are everywhere, attesting to their complete acceptance and ordinariness in pop culture. 
Yet there is still a huge issue separating gay and straight couples and in most cases it boils down to money.   Here is a partial list of the legal and financial entitlements which currently are not available to gay couples:
  • Social Security Survivor Benefits
  • Estate Tax Exemptions
  • Inheritance Exemptions
  • Tax Free Transfers To Spouses
  • Joint Filing (which can lower taxes)
  • Health Insurance Rates
  • Government Employee Spousal Benefits
  • Workman's Compensation
  • Preferential Standing in Wrongful Death
  • Miscellaneous Federal and State Benefits
  • Approx. 1,138 Legal Rights (according to GLAD)
Most of the above list are areas which the Federal Government was not intended by the founders to be involved in in the first place.  But now it is in an ever expanding role, and the financial fate of gay and straight couples alike relies on it's laws and re-distributional largesse.   Despite losing consistently at the polls, big money is flowing the other way because even bigger money is at stake in the gay marriage debate.  It is for this reason that a federal law endorsing gay marriage is inevitable.   Just follow the money.   

And here's what I wrote about a possible counter insurgency strategy also in 2013:

Impeach Obama?  Ain't gonna happen.  I don't care how bad these scandals are, and they are really bad, we are stuck with Obama for the duration.  Practically everyone in media, entertainment, and academia voted for Obama.  If you voted for Obama you most likely: a) don't know about the scandals, b) would never admit you screwed-up,  c) say, "what difference does it make?", d) think it's all Bush's fault, or e) all the above.  This makes impeachment and removal impossible. 
There is another way to act decisively; just avoid paying taxes!  If you are among the informed and intelligent minority who believe Obama should be removed, if you believe he used the IRS like a Gestapo to kill dissent, if you believe he abused his power, if you believe he used the DOJ like a KGB to spy on his detractors, if you believe he lied when he knowingly blamed the Benghazi attack on an innocent videographer who still sits in jail to this day, then you should defund him.  Go Galt, invest in tax free municipal bonds, barter, live off your assets, go off the grid, start a non-profit (you may want to think about that last one), tell your Congressman to defund him.  Do everything you can to legally avoid federal taxes and defund Obama.  That's the only way. 
BTW, break no laws!  We can defund Obama legally if we work together.  You will never eliminate all your taxes, but you can certainly avoid a bunch if you make changes.    Remember, GE pays no taxes and breaks no laws.  Of course, you will never have the advantages of government access and legal advice that Obama's friend GE has, but you can probably cut your tax liability with some effort.  Make the effort.  Defund Obama.  It's all you can do, unless you're content with just fuming.             

Friday, June 26, 2015

Another Day, Another Entitlement

The Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage are interesting and controversial on many levels.  But what many are missing is the fact that these rulings are essentially about the same thing: entitlements.  And once that is understood, it helps predict future court rulings and the direction of our country.

Entitlements are like the universe - always expanding.  There's physics behind this.  The beneficiaries of entitlements have an acute interest in them, while the benefactors (those paying) have a diffuse interest.  The math is simple.  For a beneficiary to get $1, each benefactor (every inhabitant) must provide only $.00000000033.    

The Obamacare case was obviously about entitlements.  The issue was should the federal government provide entitlement subsidies to people who purchased insurance on a federal exchange, despite the law explicitly stating the opposite.  The court ruled in favor of those getting $1.  

The gay marriage case was not as obvious. Gay marriage is usually thought of as a cultural or human rights issue.  But there is not a single state or city in the US in which it is not possible for gay couples to legally and openly live together. Moreover, turn on a TV or watch a movie and gay characters are everywhere attesting to their complete acceptance in our culture.  

Yet there is still a huge issue separating gay and straight couples, and it boils down to entitlements.  Here is a partial list of the financial and legal entitlements which currently are not available to gay couples:

  • Social Security survivor benefits
  • Estate tax exemptions
  • Inheritance exemptions
  • Tax free transfers to spouses
  • Joint filing (which can lower taxes)
  • Health insurance rates for spouses
  • Government employee spousal benefits
  • Workman's compensation
  • Preferential standing in wrongful death
  • Miscellaneous federal and state benefits
  • Approx. 1,138 legal rights (according to GLAD) which mostly boil down to money

We didn't start out as an entitlement state. But we are one now, and the financial fate of gay and straight couples alike relies on government redistribution largess.   Despite losing consistently at the polls, big money was at stake in the gay marriage debate.  It is for this reason that a federal law endorsing gay marriage was inevitable.  It was not about love.  It was about money.  

And so it will go in the future with SCOTUS rulings and presidential elections.  Mitt Romney got into trouble when he said 47% were automatic votes for the Democrat party because they are dependent on entitlements.  I'd say we are now closer to 57%.