Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

“Behind every great man is a great woman”

We hear that statement (or some variant: “Behind every successful man is a woman”) so often, particularly in politics. It’s so popular that with the rise of successful women in business and politics we hear the gender role reversal: Behind every great woman is a great man. Regardless of the gender roles, the statement has an underlying tone that the spouse of a great/successful person is hidden “behind” the successful person.

Maybe we see the significant other on the stage… Maybe the great wo/man is mentioned in an acceptance speech… Maybe in the memoirs…

The reality is that *Beside* every great wo/man is a great wo/man. It’s just a preposition, but this preposition swap accurately reflects the true spirit of this popular idiom. The spouse of a successful person stands besides them, not behind them. When they walked down the isle, they walked beside each other. No one individual was behind or in front of the other, and it’s the same in success and greatness.

When I achieve success in business or life, my wife is always beside me; not behind me. And I know that the same holds true for her. We’re on this adventure together. One of us certainly takes the lead depending on what obstacle is in front of us, but when we cross that finish line… When we achieve success, it’s beside one another.

Had I stayed away from the news websites, I wouldn’t have even noticed the federal government shutdown. Funny part about that is that I have a family member who works for the federal government, but she didn’t get furloughed since she works in a government agency that actually turns a profit with its services. Naturally, when an organization makes a profit it doesn’t have to furlough people when the rest of the federal government does.

I’m not going to debate whether one side is right or wrong or worse than the other in this blog. I’m just going to post a solution to the one problem that I saw most in the news and on social media: shutting down our national parks. I’m not going to debate if a 1000 square mile range of the ocean in Florida needs our federal government to stay open to fishermen or whether Mt. Rushmore needs federal employees to be open. This solution solves the debate. Here it is…

Have the National Park service issue multiple denomination certificates for the full amount of its annual budget that are a tax credit for those who purchase them and never have to be paid back. In essence, it’s a donation to our National Parks, but rather than just being a tax deduction like a charity, this is a tax credit because our federal government is using tax dollars to pay for the National Parks. It’s a $ for $ in tax money.

Obviously, the National Park service would incur some minor overhead for building and maintaining this system, so it can just add it to its budget. I’m betting that if you put it into an open bidding process you could easily find thousands of companies capable of building this platform.

This would help ensure that our National Parks remain open regardless of federal government wrangling. It would also serve as a model for other government entities for how they can become self sufficient and immune to federal government budgetary gridlock. There are numerous other benefits to this model such as helping to keep spending inline with revenue for the government as a whole and providing citizens with a greater say in how our tax dollars are spent. This idea isn’t just about avoiding shutdown furloughs that are back paid anyway. It’s a solution to an ongoing budget (or lack thereof) with our federal government.

Here are added incentives for our National Parks:

  1. Want that budget increase you could never get? Increase your budget and see if taxpayers are willing to pay for it
  2. If Congress acts now, there will be a flood of taxpayers willing to cover your entire fiscal calendar budget since there are just 2.5 months left in the tax year

Edit: Why not make a petition out of it? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/taxpayer-direct-funding-national-parks/csP0c6Bh

I can’t believe that only 23% of the people polled in a CNN poll thought Vice President Dick(head) Cheney is the worst VP in the history of America. Either these people have a strong recollection of Aaron Burr and Spiro Agnew, or they haven’t paid much attention to distortion of our constitution by the worst Vice President in history. Certainly, Agnew was a swindler, but he has nothing on Cheney. Dick easily ranks up there with Burr.

I would be interested in knowing who these people really think is the worst VP ever.

My favorite quote from Dick:

“I’m very comfortable with where we are and what we achieved substantively. And frankly, I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his time reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn’t serve in these jobs.”

Of course he feels very comfortable. After having pulled off the largest raping of the American public, I’m sure he feels as comfortable as OJ Simpson with a glove that doesn’t fit on his hand.

Here’s an idea for the government bailout program that the vast majority of Americans don’t support. Give us an opt out clause on our taxes for the next 10 years.

Now, I’m not talking about opting out of our taxes. Those of us who don’t support the bailout will still have to pay our taxes as usual. However, we can opt out of our tax dollars being used to fund this ridiculous scam.

If you limit the government’s availability of funds, they can’t be as spendthrift as they have been. If they want to come up with $700 billion to spend on some useless bailout, they will need to get it from some other source than the American taxpayer.

Years ago, this would not have been possible. However, with technology today, this is entirely possible. In fact, we could give taxpayers the ability to opt out of any irresponsible government spending. It would really make it simple for the government to determine how much they can waste on pointless bailouts like the automobile industry bailout. If 60% of Americans don’t support the automobile bailout then they will only have access to 40% of the taxpayer funds.

This would make budgeting for the government much easier! Taxpayers don’t support something, Congress can’t just go spend the money whenever and wherever they want. I suspect that we could balance the budget within 4-5 years and keep it balanced indefinitely with a bailout opt out clause. In fact, I suspect the government would end up with considerable surpluses as government waste would now have a true checks and balance system in place. The total tax dollars collected would be the same, but the ability for Congress to spend would drop considerably.

Now, some might argue that this would create serious problems with because the funding for the bailout is something that is “necessary” to avoid a greater economic downturn or because it is something the public doesn’t understand the importance of. I have two words December 2007.

It wasn’t long ago that CNN had a grammar error on their homepage. However, the latest grammar goof I found on CNN is not so minor. I highlighted  what I’m sure  was a grammar error and not a factual error. It is well known that  George Washington never lived in the  White House. However, the quote from CNN reads as though George Washington (who we know owned slaves) lived in the White House while owning slaves:

Twelve American presidents owned slaves and eight of them, starting with Washington, owned slaves while they lived in the White House.

Slaves Helped Build the White HouseTwelve American Presidents, starting with Washington, owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while they lived in the White House.

The words are exactly the same, but CNN certainly goofed with their wording that reads as though Washington actually owned slaves while living in the White House. He couldn’t have. The White House was finished after Washington died.

I’ve been a fan of Steve Forbes since the ’96 Republican primary. While I don’t agree with his flat income tax, I can certainly agree with him that Henry Paulson is “the worst Treasury Secretary in modern times“. It seems like nobody has been willing to point some very harsh fingers at administration officials but not Forbes.

There is this ridiculous notion that we have avoided a much worse financial crisis than it could have been. Certainly if we had buried money in the money holes like Onion News joked about, we’d be in a much worse financial situation. However, we haven’t actually been burying money in real money holes, unless you count the $700 billion bailout we dug ourselves last month.

I have a new idea for a business that is going to make a killing, but I need some investors to get things started. First, we need to hire tens of thousands of people. I’m thinking at least 30,000 people. We’re only going to pay them minimum wage, so we’ll be able to keep costs down. We also need to spend millions of dollars on advertising and make sure we are purchasing materials and services from hundreds of vendors in America.

You might be asking yourself, “What are we going to make?”

That’s the great part! We aren’t going to even make anything! We’ll probably just have each employee purchase a lottery ticket in the states where they are employed. The employees will get to play pool, foosball, air hockey, and basketball while on the job. We’ll have a corporate jet to fly us around. Corporate cars. We’ll have all the amenities necessary to run a large corporation.

Now, you might be asking yourself, “How will I recover my investment?”

By employing so many people and working with so many vendors, us going out of business will cause such a massive “ripple effect” that the federal government will just have to bail us out. We’ll fly to Washington in our private jet and ask them for maybe… I don’t know… Maybe $25 billion. That’s a small price for people to pay for preventing a massive economic meldown, right?

I was fascinated this morning when I checked my RSS feed of happenings in the Conejo Vally area. Somehow, the folks at the Ronald Reagan library have managed to allow our communist Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, to lecture at the late president’s library in Simi Valley on Thursday. I would pay to have someone ask Paulson if he thought there was a bit of irony (or maybe tragedy) in the fact that our president who fought communism more than any other president had a communist Treasury Secretary lecturing at his library.

I keep hearing about how the Bush Administration and Congress don’t want the auto industry to fail. They don’t want the banking industry to fail. Yet most entrepreneurs will tell you that they’ve learned more from when they failed than when they succeeded. I’m betting that banks would learn more from failing than from getting bailed out.

There is something humbling about failure. There are so many lessons that come with failure. Perhaps the biggest is that we can recover. We can rebuild. We have it within our capacity to go beyond what we have failed at. That is the biggest life lesson we can ever learn, and I think it would behoove our Congress and President to let some of these businesses learn these valuable lessons.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people complain about our “greedy” capitalist society. Quite often they are referring to Walmart, the oil industry, and companies who “ship jobs” overseas. There are others, but one of these poses a serious question for capitalism:

Walmart (and hundreds of other retailers) purchase the majority of their products from China. China is a communist country. Are selling and purchasing communist goods acts of capitalism?

Certainly, a cornerstone of capitalism is the free market, but what is it when that “free market” that a capitalist nation purchases from is a communist country? Some might argue that it qualifies as a mixed market economy, but that is a moot point for various reasons and is irrelevant to the question.

People who complain about the “greed” of capitalism will argue that profit driven capitalism is what drives corporations to purchase cheap products from communist countries like China. However, I argue that it is (1) our fear of inflation that drives companies to find cheaper markets like China and that (2) searching for these cheaper products in a communist country is not capitalism.

It’s not like we don’t know China is a communist country. It’s not like we don’t know that the Chinese government filters all money that we send to Chinese banks when our corporations buy products from their factories. We also know that we could, if we wanted to, manufacture these same products in America or another non-communist country. And we also know that our government has given China, a communist nation, favored nation status. With government intervention in support of a communist nation, how can anyone consider the actions of Walmart and other retailers who purchase from a communist country capitalist greed?