Life of Riley

smart man

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. " Thomas Jefferson

I came across this quote this afternoon while making my way into the city. To me, this quote probably has never before held so much weight. In the past 8+ years we have been engaged militarily within Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars have been tough on America as a country and as an economy. These wars, however, have not brought this country or its economy to its knees in a way that the near-failures of many of the nations financial institutions have. There have been many a discussion on the skirting of laws (and impact on personal civil liberties) within the framework of these wars...it will be interesting how our freedoms will be touched as the government continues to "save" those institutions that put us into this mess to begin with...

The Transparent Presidency

The Media Kitchen recently issued the inaugural issue of The Fridge, out agency's bi-monthly newsletter. To follow is my article about Obama's use of social media in the election.

Here's a link to the full newsletter...Download TMKTheFridgeIssue1

put it on the tab

Read this article. If it doesn't piss you off...read it again.

It wasn't even a month ago that the government proclaimed to the citizens of the US of A that we were in such dire straights that they needed to pass a $700 billion bailout plan. The government is going to take part ownership in private banks in order to ensure their continued stability. Me, you, the guy sitting next to you...we are all footing this bill so that Wall Street survives. Yet, somewhere deep down in the vaults that good ole' Uncle Sam keeps, he was able to scrounge up $350K to sponsor a NASCAR team. A freaking NASCAR team. Here is the best part, though...they are sponsoring the car to further remind everyone that the country is switching to digital broadcasting in February.

So our economy is in the shitter, we all need to worry about economic collapse, our retirements are all at risk...yet the government sees it fit to sponsor a car to remind us all to watch TV. Maybe that is just Uncle Sam's way of trying to get us to forget about the mess we are in...or the biggest scam they just pulled on us taxpayers.

just another gimmick

I just read an article in the Times Union that reported on local politicians’ plans to donate their salaries to charity. At first blush I have always thought this a noble thing to do. I mean, if someone is in it to truly help people and they do not need the money then why take a salary? But when I stopped and thought about it for a brief moment I realized that this is just another political gimmick that benefits no one but the politician attempting to get elected…and of course the couple charities that get the money.

Now I find nothing wrong with charitable donations, but not when they come from the pockets of each and every taxpayer in a district. If an elected official pledges to donate their paychecks, they still need to be paid. This salary is included in the budgets that are supported by tax dollars…tax dollars that come from you and I. So these donations do nothing to help in lowering our tax burdens because we still need to pay these people to show up and donate their money.

The next problem that I have is that the politician reaps the benefit of such a donation. If these people are wealthy enough that they do not need to collect a salary then they probably have a pretty significant tax burden. I am no accountant, but I would imagine that donating tens of thousands of dollars to charity will help out the overall tax burden.

Think about that…these salaries are included in budgets, the budget is supported by tax dollars (paid by you and I), the politician then donates all sorts of cash and then they are the ones that get a tax deduction. How fair is that?? They are using my tax dollars and your tax dollars to save their tax dollars…ones that obviously don’t matter as much if they do not need to be paid for their work. I think that each and every citizen that helps to support these salary donations should be given a pro-rated tax deduction…even it is only cents, I don’t care.

This is just another political gimmick to help these people to get elected into positions of power to reap the non-monetary benefits of running city/state/national government.

The one politician mentioned in the article that I do have respect for is NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He accepts a salary of $1 per year. So in NYC the mayor’s salary does not need to be included in the budget or paid for by tax payers. This is the way it should be done. If a politician doesn’t need or want to collect a salary, then they shouldn’t be given one…instead the money should be removed from the budget in order to help out the people they are hoping to support.

Politics makes me sick. Every politician that claims to go to work for Americans and fix Washington only becomes one of them. We need fundamental changes in this Country before it unravels at the seams and falls apart...

this should not be happening

This is, as of a few minutes ago, the feature article on CNN. When did we become a socialist state? I didn't think Obama took office yet...

If things keep going this way I may as well just move to France...at least they have crepes there!!

mccain's announcement

**The following in no way is an endorsement of either candidate for President**

Back in March I entered into a whole bunch of bracket contests for the NCAA tournament...one of which was sponsored by John McCain through his website. Since then I receive all sorts of emails from his campaign. Well, today was a big day as it was announced that he would be running with Alaska's governor, who is a female and a pretty new comer to the political scene...pretty big news.

Well, I will say that the announcement was poorly done. As of the time I am writing this it has been a good few hours since CNN, MSN, Fox News & many others broke the news. I just received a campaign email notifying all of his supporters of the selection. This should have been done first!

Obama had the right idea with the text message that he sent out last week to all of his supporters. The message went out and then the news broke through traditional channels. Apparently this was the single largest broadcast text message ever sent...or something like that. It made news because of the message, but it stayed in the news because of the delivery.

If McCain wants to look savvy and in touch with today he needs to start acting that way. He needs to get his technology on par, at the least, with Obama's campaign if he wants to stand a chance come November.

'greening' transportation

I am not a big believer in this whole need to go green movement that seems to be encompassing the country. I think that global warming is a big farce...thought up by Al Gore to make a movie and some money and promoted by the "left" to help win elections. It is the liberal's version of a scare tactic...similar to the way the 'right' has used national security in recent years. Though, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the need for national security is not there because it is in a big way. I follow the green movement because I believe that it holds many lucrative business opportunities...

Anyway, back on track, I came across the following today on MSN:

Toyota may put solar panels on new Prius to power air conditioning

A Japanese newspaper is reporting that Toyota plans to install solar panels on its next model of the popular Prius hybrid. If the company follows through, it would be the first major automaker to incorporate solar power into its vehicles. Even with the panels, though, the pimped-out Prius wouldn't actually run on solar power (it's still a gasoline-electric hybrid, yo); instead, the solar panels would reportedly power the vehicle's air conditioning.

Sources: Reuters, BBC News

I found this to be amusing and interesting at the same time. Like I said, I believe that there are many opportunities out there while the whole green movement is happening...and this may be one. I think that solar power can be used in many different applications and corporate America will begin to explore the true expanse of these applications...not just in cars. I find it to be amusing because I was actually thinking the other day about powering an entire car off of solar power. There are many hurdles to overcome before this can be done...but I think it would be interesting.

Another thought that I had related to alternative energy relating to cars had to do with windmills. What else out there generates more 'wind' than a car going 70 mph down the highway? It gets cloudy sometimes, which will hinder solar power, but you cannot drive anywhere without generating wind. I think it is a no-brainer...will someone else too??

I also have begun to explore mini-windmills that could be placed upon residential roofs in the same manner as solar panels are. The idea is the same and there are definite hurdles...like no wind days...but there are also no-sun days for solar panel users.

happy 4th to all

I am posting this today as I will be away camping on Cape Cod this weekend...should be fun!

I was listening to a talk radio show yesterday morning on my up to Lake Placid and the host, I don't remember who, but he was on Sirius' Patriot station in the morning around 9:30 or so, and he began to tell an interesting bit of history that I was not aware of...

Congress actually voted to declare independence from Great Britain on July 2, 1776. We celebrate this independence, and birth of our Nation, on July 4th, which was the date in 1776 when Congress actually approved the wording on the Declaration of Independence. The actual document wasn't actually signed by Congressional delegates until the beginning of August in 1776.

I found this to be interesting. Whatever the date, this time of the year is a great time to sit back and reflect on the freedoms that we are all lucky enough to enjoy. Wherever you stand, however you lean, whatever you believe, be thankful that you are lucky enough to live in a country where it is possible to not only hold a set of beliefs but are able to express them as well.

As we all sit with our friends and family this weekend, take a moment to think of all the brave men and women, past and present, who have selflessly defended the rights and freedoms of all citizens. This is a great country...

suits

One of my favorite blogs to read is that of Mark Cuban. He is a brilliant mind and is unafraid to speak his mind on any subject he so chooses. I find his commentary on sports to be insightful, his ramblings amusing, and his posts on business and life to be motivating.

Well, I was browsing through some of his old postings the other day and came across this one about why he doesn’t wear a suit anymore. I really enjoyed the post and I feel pretty much the same as he does about suits and ties at work…they are an outdated nuisance in most instances. There is no need for suits and ties in most workplaces where a majority of the work being done is either entirely online or via phone and not face-to-face. The person on the other end of your email or telephone call wouldn’t know the difference if you had on a suit or were sitting in your underwear…so why not let employees be comfortable?

However, I think there are some instances where a suit is needed. Based mainly on tradition and custom, there are many people that expect certain people doing certain jobs to wear a suit to work. I think that there is a certain level of respectability and comfort that comes with people in suits and ties. They look important. They look like they know what they are doing. Whether or not they are important or really know what they are doing, it is important in some instances for a person to convey this image.

The three sectors that immediately come to mind where appearing important and knowledgeable is necessary are politics, law and finance. Would you trust a lawyer in a pair of sweats to get you out of that speeding ticket? Would you trust him to explain that mortgage to you? Would you trust your financial future to a man in shorts and a tee-shirt? Not that politicians are trustworthy, but one without a suit is certainly suspect.

It is important that the people you are serving trust you to do a job. The near instant image of a lawyer contains a suit and a briefcase. (Now that I write that I wonder how much of the word ‘briefcase’ comes from lawyer court briefs…) The image of a successful stock broker contains an expensive suit, a clean cut, and a nice car. As outdated as these images may be, they persist and it is necessary to fit within the stereotype in order to compete in these sectors. People want to hire what they imagine and expect…and in some sectors that includes a certain dress.

Aside from the conveyance of an image, there is also the impact on the employee. Again, with the same three sectors I can think of a myriad of examples. I don’t know if suits really make people work harder, but I think that the argument can be made that dressing down can lead to a more relaxed view of the tasks at hand. You don’t want your lawyer lounging in his office when your statute of limitations is about to run. You don’t want your broker sitting idly by while that stock you wanted to sell plummets. You don't want your politician to miss that vote that would have brought some 'pork' to your city. So, the argument is there that suits may be a necessary evil…in some circumstances.

That being said, it is the job of management to ensure things get done as needed. Suits shouldn’t motivate employees…management should motivate employees. You shouldn’t have to tie a knot on someone’s neck to get them to work harder…there are so many other ways to do so.

As sad as it is, suits are a necessary evil in many circumstances and I don’t see them going anywhere. I do think, though, that as we continue to progress to a more digital, less ‘personal’ society dress standards will continue to relax. Personally…I cannot wait for that day to come!

**AFTERTHOUGHT** This morning, as I got ready for work, I went to put on my socks and realized a missed a huge pet peeve of mine when I wrote this. Dress socks suck. I cannot stand the way they feel on my legs and it drives me nuts that all dress socks are made to be pulled at least up to mid calf. I always roll my socks down so that they are just above my ankle...enough so there is all sock when sitting but still low enough that they don't bug me. Someone needs to start making low rise dress socks...I know that I am not the only one with this issue. Just another problem with being required to dress up for work.

Tax Cuts

It's been awhile since I've taken a moment to place some thoughts into cyberspace for all to cherish. Plenty has been going on in life and there is plenty keeping me busy lately. I've recently started to ponder the topic of corporate taxation and have come to an impasse in my thoughts...

The argument that has been waging in my mind is whether or not cutting the corporate tax rate would be beneficial to the American public.

On the one side I think that lowering the tax would absolutely provide a positive impact on the nation and our economy. First, lowering the taxes levied to corporations would free up quite a bit of capital that could be used for many different things. The most glaring possibility (for me at least) is an increase in hiring.

An increase in hiring would have a multi-fold impact on the economy. First, it puts more people into the workforce...the taxpaying workforce. By creating jobs, companies are indirectly creating more revenue for the government in terms of tax dollars. Secondly, more workers = more paychecks...more paychecks (theoretically) = more discretionary spending...more discretionary spending = more corporate revenue...more corporate revenue = more tax money for the government. Thirdly, taking people off the unemployment line and putting them into jobs takes a huge burden off of the government. So, no longer does Uncle Sam need to send out weekly checks to these unlucky folks; instead, Uncle Sam can sit back...wait until April 15 and collect money from them.

Aside from an increase in hiring, lowering corporate taxes, and thus freeing up capital, lends itself to  a few more possibilities. There will be more cash for R&D...innovation, growth, improvement. With the global marketplace as it is today we certainly need to stay competitive. Speaking of global marketplace...lowering corporate tax rates will help to attract companies to the US of A. So...not only does lowering the tax rates help the companies here in the US already to create jobs, it will help to attract jobs that would otherwise go elsewhere and help US companies attract talent and compete in the global markets.

So what's the downside? As I see it a meaningful reduction in corporate tax probably wouldn't be made up by the increase in taxes paid by jobs created. So...without looking at the full picture, it looks as if the government would be losing money. But...and it is a big but...there would be the huge reduction in unemployment costs and healthcare costs and other costs associated with unemployment. So we reduce spending alongside the tax cut...I know what a concept.

Then there is the inevitable corporate greed argument against this idea. With all of this extra cash laying around, what's to keep CEO's and Boards from scooping up the cash and paying it out to themselves or to stockholders in lieu of job creation? It certainly is a concern.

I've also heard the 'tax the have's' argument...sort of the Robin Hood argument, if you will. Take from the rich and pay the poor...or something like that. Well, that argument is all fine and good when you examine the corporate world in a tube...look at just those companies we most closely relate to 'corporate America.' But think about the restaurants you eat at around town, the local beverage centers, the gym, your favorite bar...all of these places are also (more than likely) corporations. They would feel the impact of such a cut just as readily as GE or Google or Microsoft.

The impact that smaller companies would have on the overall economy isn't as great, but their tax contributions right now also aren't that great. So, we lower the rates and we encourage growth of these smaller companies. We encourage job growth and job creation in regular town USA.

In the end I am not sure which way I want to lean. Both sides of the argument rely pretty heavily on government to do something more...spend less, allocate spending more efficiently, etc. I am just not sure which side I feel would be better...do we keep trying to take from the have's or do we allow the have's to start creating for the have not's??

I find this to be an interesting conundrum...and one that I will certainly continue to ponder...and one that will hopefully find its way into the halls of Congress to be debated and acted upon...