I had one of the first cases of the flu in Davis County in Davis County this year. If you get it, you can blame me. It has been a tough couple of weeks. Due to budget cuts my shift was canceled and I will be demoted in January, but I have not been forced to take a pay-cut and I will not be laid off. So I have not been in the best of moods. Needless to say that being the highest paid person on my team is not a comfortable feeling right now. It makes me an easy target for the next round of layoffs. I will be getting my resume out.
Today, the Arena Football League announced that there will be no 2009 season. I suspect that in two to three months, it will be announced that there will no longer be an Arena Football League. Rumor has it that the WNBA will be next. (That is Women's National Basketball Association, for those of you not in the know.) I suspect that some independent baseball leagues and semi-pro leagues and perhaps some rookie leagues if not all of them will go away as well. I am hopeful that the Pioneer League will continue, but doubtful. (The Gulf Coast League seems like the low-hanging fruit, followed by the Arizona Summer League.) I am certain that the NBADL will not last the entire season. I am also concerned that Major League Soccer may not be around for 2009; but I think that there may be a contraction of at least two franchises, but not the whole league. Chivas USA is the most likely candidate for contraction. San Jose and Kansas City have unresolved stadium issues. I am confident that there will be soccer at Rio Tinto Stadium in the spring. But a lot of people are not. If all of this holds out, we will not have a pro team in Utah that is not owned by the Miller Family. (That is just the Jazz and the Bees.) The Blaze are all but gone, the Flash will be next. I am not hopeful for the Owlz or the Raptors this year. I am confident for Real, but not a lot of people are. That is 1 gone, 7 remaining and 5 in trouble.
Now, what has really been on my mind the past four weeks is the fate of our junior senator from Utah. My last couple of blogs pointed out that at least 40% of Salt Lake County voters did not vote a straight-party ticket last fall. They voted with for at least one person on each party in the top four races in the county. The success of Jason Chaffetz' campaign to unseat Chris Cannon from within the party has also sent shock waves throughout the party. That is why Mr. Bennett has began to campaign already. His real problem is at the grass-roots level of the Republican Party based upon his support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and of his yes vote for the Wall Street bail-out back in October. He has managed to anger both social and fiscal conservatives. This is a hard thing for a Republican to do in Utah. It all depends on who ponies up to run against him in 2010 and if the economy rebounds by then.
Why should Bennett retire? 1. There are several good candidates in the Republican Party here in Utah that would represent this state well in Washington DC if Mr. Bennett would only step aside. This men and women will not run against him. 2. His Seniority in the Senate means nothing when the other party holds such a strong majority. 3. He will get a strong in-party challenge from someone. 4. When the Donks are only 2 seats away from an over-ride proof majority, they are bound to find someone who is vulnerable and work for the next two years to defeat that person. Look at what happened to Ted Stevens. 5. He said that he would only run for two terms in 1992. He should have kept his promise and retired in 2004.
The economy needs to rebound, but that has been building for a long time. If you want to blame the Republicans...well you are correct to do so. If you want to blame the democrats...you are also correct. The fault lies with just about all of us. We are all going to have to sacrifice to make it work.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
More analysis of Bob Bennett's Chances.
Does Bennett have a chance at winning again in 2010? The other day, I pointed out that 15% of Salt Lake County voters chose John McCain for President and Peter Caroon for SL County Mayor. But there was also a significant percentage of SL county voters that voted for Barack Obama for President and John Huntsman, Jr for Utah Governor. About 21% to be exact. Huntsman won about 70% of the vote in SL county. He also won in Summit and Grand county...where Barrack Obama won. And he even won in Carbon and Emery county--traditional Democrat counties in Utah.
I would say that Huntsman is at least as popular in Utah as Palin is in Alaska. We will see if his popularity holds out when the economic tsunami finally arrives at the Wasatch Front. I expect that if Utah handles this well, Huntsman will still be popular in 2012.
Under normal circumstances, you could use the governors race to predict the senate race. But Huntsman is an anomaly. The voter turnout in Utah was so high that you may not want to use any race to predict Bennett's chances in 2010. But the races of the three congressional disticts may be the best predictor. Here is what we have...
District 1
Bishop (R) 186,031 Bowen (D) 87,139
District 2
Dew (R) 111,696 Matheson (D) 204,268
District 3
Chaffetz (R) 171,936 Spencer (D) 73,294
Total GOP 469,663 Total Dem 364,701
56.29% 43.71%
If the Dems nominate the right person, they have a chance. If they nominate the type of person they usually nominate for Senate in Utah--such a Bob Springmyer, they couldn't beat Ted Stevens. One of the problems with the Democratic party in Utah is that they don't recognize an opening when they see one.
Also of note. Weber and Davis county have close to the same population. Davis county cast about 45,000 more ballots. This is the most ponderous statistic of the election.
http://www.electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/main.html
I would say that Huntsman is at least as popular in Utah as Palin is in Alaska. We will see if his popularity holds out when the economic tsunami finally arrives at the Wasatch Front. I expect that if Utah handles this well, Huntsman will still be popular in 2012.
Under normal circumstances, you could use the governors race to predict the senate race. But Huntsman is an anomaly. The voter turnout in Utah was so high that you may not want to use any race to predict Bennett's chances in 2010. But the races of the three congressional disticts may be the best predictor. Here is what we have...
District 1
Bishop (R) 186,031 Bowen (D) 87,139
District 2
Dew (R) 111,696 Matheson (D) 204,268
District 3
Chaffetz (R) 171,936 Spencer (D) 73,294
Total GOP 469,663 Total Dem 364,701
56.29% 43.71%
If the Dems nominate the right person, they have a chance. If they nominate the type of person they usually nominate for Senate in Utah--such a Bob Springmyer, they couldn't beat Ted Stevens. One of the problems with the Democratic party in Utah is that they don't recognize an opening when they see one.
Also of note. Weber and Davis county have close to the same population. Davis county cast about 45,000 more ballots. This is the most ponderous statistic of the election.
http://www.electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/main.html
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Election of 2010
A lot of people are focusing on the election of 2012. But there are the mid-term elections coming in just two year. Every member of the house is up for re-election as well as 1/3 of the senate. This includes our junior senator in Utah, Bob Bennett. Mr. Bennett, who has been representing our state for 16 years, wants Utahans to send him to Washington for a fourth term. I am shaking my head at the idea that our JUNIOR senator is seriously thinking of a 4th term.
But the writing is on the wall for Mr. Bennett. Why do I think so?
-15% of Salt Lake County residents voted for John McCain for President and Peter Caroon for Salt Lake County Mayor.
-Salt Lake County is about 45% of the population in Utah.
-With the Democrats close to getting 60 senators, they will likely through a lot of money at 3 or 4 winnable senate races.
-Obama did better in Utah than any Democrat since LBJ. The dems have some momentum.
-Bennett lost a lot of grass roots support in Utah for backing comprehensive immigration reform...and then reporting to the state organization convention that the failure was due to the labor unions. (Come on...guest workers won't unionize? Are you kidding me?)
-Bennett supported the bank bailout that was passed before the election. No exactly the fiscally conservative thing to do.
-Utah had a non-seen-in-decades 68% voter turnout in 2008. We will be lucky to get 25% voter turn-out in a mid-term election.
Reasons why Bennett is not in trouble.
-Utah is a GOP state and even the most popular democrat can not beat him in a statewide race.
-A Democrat could win Salt Lake County, but this is a state-wide race and there is no electoral system. There is no way a Democrat could win Utah, Davis or Cache county. McCain still won over 60% of the vote in Utah.
-Utah had a non-seen-in-decades 68% voter turnout in 2008. We will be lucky to get 25% voter turn-out in a mid-term election.
My analysis.
Bennett is in trouble because his support has eroded at the grass-roots level in the GOP party. His support of comprehensive immigration reform cost him a lot of that support. He was heckled at the state GOP organizing convention in 2007 because of this. His support of the bail-out plan will not help.
Bennett is likely to have the same kind of fight in the convention and primary that sank Chris Cannon this year. Right now, however, I do not know of anyone that is bold enough to make the move. Certainly, some GOP insider has seen this opening. There may be another Jason Chaffetz out there ready to make the move. If you know of someone, let me know. Micheal Ridgeway need not apply. He is no Jason Chaffetz.
It may depend on who emerges as an Democratic opponent. Peter Caroon, currently the Salt Lake County mayor is one who's star is rising. Jim Matheson may decide that he wants to move to the upper house. But it will need to be someone who has that kind of name recognition. But I must admit that Caroon scares me the most. He could be the more fiscal conservative on the ballot against Bennett. Matheson could also look more fiscally conservative than Bennett. Caroon was the one that almost killed the Real Salt Lake Stadium deal. Matheson joined Bishop in voting against the banking bailout.
If Bennet were to decide not to run in 2010, there are a number of GOP contenders that could take his place. Perhaps Governor Huntsman would like to run for the Senate in 2010. (Although some would like him to run for the big seat at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.) Others that come to mind would be Lt. Gov Herbert. State senate president John Valentine ran unopposed. Enid Greene could complete her comback by getting to the Senate. But none of these people would ever run against Bennett if he decides to run for a 4th term. The GOP would certainly get a weaker candidate if Bennett has to face a challenge from within the party in 2010. Bennett should do the honorable thing and retire.
But the writing is on the wall for Mr. Bennett. Why do I think so?
-15% of Salt Lake County residents voted for John McCain for President and Peter Caroon for Salt Lake County Mayor.
-Salt Lake County is about 45% of the population in Utah.
-With the Democrats close to getting 60 senators, they will likely through a lot of money at 3 or 4 winnable senate races.
-Obama did better in Utah than any Democrat since LBJ. The dems have some momentum.
-Bennett lost a lot of grass roots support in Utah for backing comprehensive immigration reform...and then reporting to the state organization convention that the failure was due to the labor unions. (Come on...guest workers won't unionize? Are you kidding me?)
-Bennett supported the bank bailout that was passed before the election. No exactly the fiscally conservative thing to do.
-Utah had a non-seen-in-decades 68% voter turnout in 2008. We will be lucky to get 25% voter turn-out in a mid-term election.
Reasons why Bennett is not in trouble.
-Utah is a GOP state and even the most popular democrat can not beat him in a statewide race.
-A Democrat could win Salt Lake County, but this is a state-wide race and there is no electoral system. There is no way a Democrat could win Utah, Davis or Cache county. McCain still won over 60% of the vote in Utah.
-Utah had a non-seen-in-decades 68% voter turnout in 2008. We will be lucky to get 25% voter turn-out in a mid-term election.
My analysis.
Bennett is in trouble because his support has eroded at the grass-roots level in the GOP party. His support of comprehensive immigration reform cost him a lot of that support. He was heckled at the state GOP organizing convention in 2007 because of this. His support of the bail-out plan will not help.
Bennett is likely to have the same kind of fight in the convention and primary that sank Chris Cannon this year. Right now, however, I do not know of anyone that is bold enough to make the move. Certainly, some GOP insider has seen this opening. There may be another Jason Chaffetz out there ready to make the move. If you know of someone, let me know. Micheal Ridgeway need not apply. He is no Jason Chaffetz.
It may depend on who emerges as an Democratic opponent. Peter Caroon, currently the Salt Lake County mayor is one who's star is rising. Jim Matheson may decide that he wants to move to the upper house. But it will need to be someone who has that kind of name recognition. But I must admit that Caroon scares me the most. He could be the more fiscal conservative on the ballot against Bennett. Matheson could also look more fiscally conservative than Bennett. Caroon was the one that almost killed the Real Salt Lake Stadium deal. Matheson joined Bishop in voting against the banking bailout.
If Bennet were to decide not to run in 2010, there are a number of GOP contenders that could take his place. Perhaps Governor Huntsman would like to run for the Senate in 2010. (Although some would like him to run for the big seat at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave.) Others that come to mind would be Lt. Gov Herbert. State senate president John Valentine ran unopposed. Enid Greene could complete her comback by getting to the Senate. But none of these people would ever run against Bennett if he decides to run for a 4th term. The GOP would certainly get a weaker candidate if Bennett has to face a challenge from within the party in 2010. Bennett should do the honorable thing and retire.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
National Election at a Local Level
You may have heard that Barack Obama won Salt Lake County. He did not. Obama did carry two of Utah's counties...Summit and Grand. The counties that people from other states have settled...or the counties in Utah that have been "californicated."
Salt Lake County, even in the height of Reagn popularity was a stronghold for the Democratic Party. That county is not a Democratic as it used to be. Carbon and Emery counties are also not as democratic as they used to be. The GSENM controversy cost the donkies in that part of the state.
Here in Utah, we had a record voter turn-out, and unless your name is Matheson or Curtis or you are on the SL county council, it was good to be a Republican. But there are storm clouds on the horizon, and some long-held GOP seats are in danger.
More on that later.
Salt Lake County, even in the height of Reagn popularity was a stronghold for the Democratic Party. That county is not a Democratic as it used to be. Carbon and Emery counties are also not as democratic as they used to be. The GSENM controversy cost the donkies in that part of the state.
Here in Utah, we had a record voter turn-out, and unless your name is Matheson or Curtis or you are on the SL county council, it was good to be a Republican. But there are storm clouds on the horizon, and some long-held GOP seats are in danger.
More on that later.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The rumors of my death have been greatly....
Of course I am not dead. I have been working on my Masters Degree and moving. I have not had a lot of time for blogging until right up to the election.
The rumor of death that I would like to address is the rumor of the death of the Reagan Conservative Movement...as it is called by some.
Obama won. McCain ran probably the worst Presidential campaign since McGovern. (That was the Watergate Election, for those of you too young to remember.) In spite of how pessimistic the McCain campaign was, McCain still ended winning 162 electoral votes and he carried 21 states. Think about all that has happened in the last 3 months. This was much better than expected. Republicans and Conservatives should be overjoyed.
Congress. The Democrats still do not have a filler buster proof majority.
Governorships. The Dems only gained one new governorship.
Ballot initiatives. The only state-wide ballot initiative that the conservative movement lost was the physician assisted suicide bill in the state of Washington. This is more a debate of medical ethics, in my mind, than it is a debate about conservatism.
One lesson that the Religious Right had better learn from this election is an appreciation of who their allies are. Many were opposed to Mitt Romney simply because of his religion. This was not the reason that Obama won. As I said, McCain ran a lousy and embarrassing campaign. But look at this news story and remember that this protest took place in Salt Lake City and it was about an ballot issue in California. But the election would have been closer had Mitt Romney been on the final ballot.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4728411
Learn this lesson well, and the pendulum will swing back our way when the economy does.
The rumor of death that I would like to address is the rumor of the death of the Reagan Conservative Movement...as it is called by some.
Obama won. McCain ran probably the worst Presidential campaign since McGovern. (That was the Watergate Election, for those of you too young to remember.) In spite of how pessimistic the McCain campaign was, McCain still ended winning 162 electoral votes and he carried 21 states. Think about all that has happened in the last 3 months. This was much better than expected. Republicans and Conservatives should be overjoyed.
Congress. The Democrats still do not have a filler buster proof majority.
Governorships. The Dems only gained one new governorship.
Ballot initiatives. The only state-wide ballot initiative that the conservative movement lost was the physician assisted suicide bill in the state of Washington. This is more a debate of medical ethics, in my mind, than it is a debate about conservatism.
One lesson that the Religious Right had better learn from this election is an appreciation of who their allies are. Many were opposed to Mitt Romney simply because of his religion. This was not the reason that Obama won. As I said, McCain ran a lousy and embarrassing campaign. But look at this news story and remember that this protest took place in Salt Lake City and it was about an ballot issue in California. But the election would have been closer had Mitt Romney been on the final ballot.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4728411
Learn this lesson well, and the pendulum will swing back our way when the economy does.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The election of 2008...the day after.
There is a lot of analysis out there as to why Obama won. Tonight I list one that I agree with and one that I disagree with.
The one I agree with.
Mr. Optimism. I do not remember a lot about the election of 1976, but I have a good recollection of every election since. It seems that in every election that I can remember the candidate for President that displays the greater amount of optimism wins. The only election that comes close to being an exception to this is 1988. Bush (GHWB) went negative on Dukakis and he did not know how to respond.
When I read this theory in Newsweek on line today, I found myself taken back to the scene in "Back to the Future Part II." Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) enters "Cafe 80's" and is greeted by a Ronald Reagan hologram which says, "Welcome to Cafe 80's where it is always m-m-m-morning in America." Ronald Reagan usually had that smile on his face when he spoke and was the picture of American Optimism. Bill Clinton was Mr. Optimism in 1992 when GHWB did not know how to react to the minor recession of the early 90s. W was more optimistic than Mr. Inconvinient Truth and Mr. Swift Boat.
The one I disagree with:
Sarah Palin. She is the "Not Ready for Prime Time" VP candidate. But the reason I disagree is this--I dare you to name someone better. Most Utahans will say, Mitt. How would Mitt have been better for McCain. Palin energized the GOP base...the "babies, guns and Jesus" crowd. Mitt would have had trouble, once again his religion would have been the issue. Most of the other potential VP candidates would have brought some baggage to the McCain campaign.
Condie--Too close to Bush.
Mitt--Religion
Crist--Family (Divorced since 1980...in a "very long engagement" nudge, nugde...)
Pawlenty--Experience
Jindal--Experience
Perry--Bush
Huntsman--Religion and Region
Lamb--Region
Rasicot--Bush and Region
Liberman--Party and been there done that.
Hutcheson--Senator and age and Texas (Bush).
I just do not think that McCain could have picked someone else. He picked the best choice available to him. The biggest liability to McCains campaign was George W Bush.
Huntsman for President.
John M Huntsman, Jr could be a good challenger for Obama in 2012. Why? Many of us here in Utah are saying, "recession, what recession?" We are feeling it here in the Beehive State. The banking industry has a foothold in the state, but most of the banking is inustrial. My company is growing here in Utah even though they are struggling world-wide. Utah is bucking many trends. Huntsman is every bit as popular in his own state and Palin is in her own state. But Huntsman has done it without taxing business and giving gifts to citizens. And Utah is one of the few states where the Republicans had sweeping victories.
Huntsman has some of the same liabilities that Mitt had. He is the grandson of the late LDS leader David B. Haight. Hopefully, one of the lessons that the religious right learned in this election is that Mormons can help their cause. Look at what the LDS church did for Prop 8.
Another problem for Huntsman is that he is a bit on the green side for a Republican. This may not play to well for some Republicans, especially when compared to Palin. It does not play well for some here in Utah. (This former Boy Scout has little problem with how he is doing it.) But again, I challenge you to find someone better.
Huntsman is also a very optomistic person. I think that many have set the bar too high for Obama and some of that optomism may wear off in four years. If this is the case, I think that Utah's governor could be the next President of the United States.
Oh yeah, there is one more problem. Mary Kay has to say give her OK. She does not like campaigning. I think it will be harder for us to convince her, than it will be to convince him.
The one I agree with.
Mr. Optimism. I do not remember a lot about the election of 1976, but I have a good recollection of every election since. It seems that in every election that I can remember the candidate for President that displays the greater amount of optimism wins. The only election that comes close to being an exception to this is 1988. Bush (GHWB) went negative on Dukakis and he did not know how to respond.
When I read this theory in Newsweek on line today, I found myself taken back to the scene in "Back to the Future Part II." Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) enters "Cafe 80's" and is greeted by a Ronald Reagan hologram which says, "Welcome to Cafe 80's where it is always m-m-m-morning in America." Ronald Reagan usually had that smile on his face when he spoke and was the picture of American Optimism. Bill Clinton was Mr. Optimism in 1992 when GHWB did not know how to react to the minor recession of the early 90s. W was more optimistic than Mr. Inconvinient Truth and Mr. Swift Boat.
The one I disagree with:
Sarah Palin. She is the "Not Ready for Prime Time" VP candidate. But the reason I disagree is this--I dare you to name someone better. Most Utahans will say, Mitt. How would Mitt have been better for McCain. Palin energized the GOP base...the "babies, guns and Jesus" crowd. Mitt would have had trouble, once again his religion would have been the issue. Most of the other potential VP candidates would have brought some baggage to the McCain campaign.
Condie--Too close to Bush.
Mitt--Religion
Crist--Family (Divorced since 1980...in a "very long engagement" nudge, nugde...)
Pawlenty--Experience
Jindal--Experience
Perry--Bush
Huntsman--Religion and Region
Lamb--Region
Rasicot--Bush and Region
Liberman--Party and been there done that.
Hutcheson--Senator and age and Texas (Bush).
I just do not think that McCain could have picked someone else. He picked the best choice available to him. The biggest liability to McCains campaign was George W Bush.
Huntsman for President.
John M Huntsman, Jr could be a good challenger for Obama in 2012. Why? Many of us here in Utah are saying, "recession, what recession?" We are feeling it here in the Beehive State. The banking industry has a foothold in the state, but most of the banking is inustrial. My company is growing here in Utah even though they are struggling world-wide. Utah is bucking many trends. Huntsman is every bit as popular in his own state and Palin is in her own state. But Huntsman has done it without taxing business and giving gifts to citizens. And Utah is one of the few states where the Republicans had sweeping victories.
Huntsman has some of the same liabilities that Mitt had. He is the grandson of the late LDS leader David B. Haight. Hopefully, one of the lessons that the religious right learned in this election is that Mormons can help their cause. Look at what the LDS church did for Prop 8.
Another problem for Huntsman is that he is a bit on the green side for a Republican. This may not play to well for some Republicans, especially when compared to Palin. It does not play well for some here in Utah. (This former Boy Scout has little problem with how he is doing it.) But again, I challenge you to find someone better.
Huntsman is also a very optomistic person. I think that many have set the bar too high for Obama and some of that optomism may wear off in four years. If this is the case, I think that Utah's governor could be the next President of the United States.
Oh yeah, there is one more problem. Mary Kay has to say give her OK. She does not like campaigning. I think it will be harder for us to convince her, than it will be to convince him.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The 7 Deadly Sins of the GOP.
It's over. Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama. It's alright to cry.
This election was not lost in the past 3 months. I was lost about 3 years ago, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was then that Republicans in Congress and George W. Bush fell away from their principles. It was then that the GOP congress abandoned the President and it was then that the President abandoned Congress. It was then that I sat here at my computer and sent an email to Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett asking them to support the embattled President. Senator Hatch did not reply. Senator Bennett told me it was the President who abandoned the GOP and caved to media pressure.
I have learned the hard way that when you give into pride, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, deceit and envy that there is only so much that any government, church, company or individual can do for you. Republicans need to learn these lessons from this election. Democrats never will.
Regular readers of this blog know that it is our two distinguished Utah senators that I have dedicated this blog to...in the hopes that if they go the way of Ted Stevens that they will be replaced by Republicans. Here are the 7 deadly sins that Republicans and Americans have fallen prey to and why we need avoid the temptation to step aside.
1. Pride. I am not speaking about being proud of your kids for making the honor roll. (BTW--I am proud of my kid for making the honor roll. Good job, Emma!) But being to proud to make needed changes. Limbaugh, Hanity, Ingram and others have progclaimed themselves Reagan Republicans and espoused ideas that would embarrass Mr. Reagan...such as the most unforgiving type of immigration reform. Ronald Reagan would have never been elected if he was as conservative as Rush claims he was. We need to be true to priciples, but we also need to adapt to the changing times.
2. Envy. We are envious of the popularity that some democrats get by throwing around tax money that we begin to do it as well. We do not need that type of popularity. We will be elected again by being true fiscal conservatives. By maintianing the belief that government money is not the solution to evry problem in the known universe, we will gain power agian.
3. Glottony. To have true health care reform, the providers and the provider system will need to make changes, the government will need to make changes, the insurance industry will need to make changes and the people will need to make changes. Free health care is a myth. They do not have free health care in Canada, England, France, Sweeden or anywhere else. Someone pays. Sooner or later we will have to face the fact that if America keeps getting fatter, America will loose and America will pay.
4. Sloth. America became a super power because Americans worked. I bounced from job to job for my first five years out of college. I was able to hold down a steady job for the last six years because I had an epiphany. I realized that I had to work. I do not like my company, but I don't have to. If I fall in love with my company, it will never love me back. I like the fact that I have a job and a paycheck. I love the type of work. I like what money provides for my family. Someone once said if your love your job, you will never work a day in your life. IT'S A BIG LIE. You have to work and it is not fun. We do not call it fun, or vacation or play, we call it work for a reason. Let's not reward people who do not work.
5. Greed. Why did the markets crash a few weeks ago? Fuel was too expesnive, housing was too expensive, food was too expensive. Wages have not increased very much over the past decade. Companies were making insane profits and not passing the loot on to the people who make it all happen. It had to come crashing down. Republicans got the blame for this one because of who is in the White House right now. If Gore or Kerry were in office, the dems would have been blamed.
6. Lust. When you claim to be the morally superior party, you have to be morally superior. Dems can get away with sex scandals, but GOPs can not.
7. Deceit. There are still some provisions of the Contract with America that have not passed. Specifically term limits and the BBA. If you say you are going to leave Congress after 12 years, Mr Hatch and Mr Bennett, keep that promise.
Huntsman 2012!
This election was not lost in the past 3 months. I was lost about 3 years ago, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was then that Republicans in Congress and George W. Bush fell away from their principles. It was then that the GOP congress abandoned the President and it was then that the President abandoned Congress. It was then that I sat here at my computer and sent an email to Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett asking them to support the embattled President. Senator Hatch did not reply. Senator Bennett told me it was the President who abandoned the GOP and caved to media pressure.
I have learned the hard way that when you give into pride, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, deceit and envy that there is only so much that any government, church, company or individual can do for you. Republicans need to learn these lessons from this election. Democrats never will.
Regular readers of this blog know that it is our two distinguished Utah senators that I have dedicated this blog to...in the hopes that if they go the way of Ted Stevens that they will be replaced by Republicans. Here are the 7 deadly sins that Republicans and Americans have fallen prey to and why we need avoid the temptation to step aside.
1. Pride. I am not speaking about being proud of your kids for making the honor roll. (BTW--I am proud of my kid for making the honor roll. Good job, Emma!) But being to proud to make needed changes. Limbaugh, Hanity, Ingram and others have progclaimed themselves Reagan Republicans and espoused ideas that would embarrass Mr. Reagan...such as the most unforgiving type of immigration reform. Ronald Reagan would have never been elected if he was as conservative as Rush claims he was. We need to be true to priciples, but we also need to adapt to the changing times.
2. Envy. We are envious of the popularity that some democrats get by throwing around tax money that we begin to do it as well. We do not need that type of popularity. We will be elected again by being true fiscal conservatives. By maintianing the belief that government money is not the solution to evry problem in the known universe, we will gain power agian.
3. Glottony. To have true health care reform, the providers and the provider system will need to make changes, the government will need to make changes, the insurance industry will need to make changes and the people will need to make changes. Free health care is a myth. They do not have free health care in Canada, England, France, Sweeden or anywhere else. Someone pays. Sooner or later we will have to face the fact that if America keeps getting fatter, America will loose and America will pay.
4. Sloth. America became a super power because Americans worked. I bounced from job to job for my first five years out of college. I was able to hold down a steady job for the last six years because I had an epiphany. I realized that I had to work. I do not like my company, but I don't have to. If I fall in love with my company, it will never love me back. I like the fact that I have a job and a paycheck. I love the type of work. I like what money provides for my family. Someone once said if your love your job, you will never work a day in your life. IT'S A BIG LIE. You have to work and it is not fun. We do not call it fun, or vacation or play, we call it work for a reason. Let's not reward people who do not work.
5. Greed. Why did the markets crash a few weeks ago? Fuel was too expesnive, housing was too expensive, food was too expensive. Wages have not increased very much over the past decade. Companies were making insane profits and not passing the loot on to the people who make it all happen. It had to come crashing down. Republicans got the blame for this one because of who is in the White House right now. If Gore or Kerry were in office, the dems would have been blamed.
6. Lust. When you claim to be the morally superior party, you have to be morally superior. Dems can get away with sex scandals, but GOPs can not.
7. Deceit. There are still some provisions of the Contract with America that have not passed. Specifically term limits and the BBA. If you say you are going to leave Congress after 12 years, Mr Hatch and Mr Bennett, keep that promise.
Huntsman 2012!
Monday, November 3, 2008
Election Day Thoughts
It is about an hour before midnight on election eve. In about 8 hours, I will cast my vote for the year. I have come to terms with the reality that the person I will vote for to be the next president will likely loose this election. It is a sobering thought.
I have two planned blogs...one if McCain wins and one if Obama does.
I will give Obama a chance if he wins. I will not gloat if he does not succeed.
I give either man only a chance at one term for the following reasons.
-This economy will take 3 to 5 years to recover. It will not be enough time for the next president to look successful. There will even be many pundits who will say that the new president has made it worse. I have one thing to say to these people...it's congress and not our president who controls fiscal policy.
-Expectations are too high for Obama.
-McCain DOES look old and feeble. In retrospect, McCain should be the outgoing president not running for office right now.
Please vote, even if your guy will not win.
The next four years for me, regardless of who wins this presidential election will be about getting new republican senators from the State of Utah.
I have two planned blogs...one if McCain wins and one if Obama does.
I will give Obama a chance if he wins. I will not gloat if he does not succeed.
I give either man only a chance at one term for the following reasons.
-This economy will take 3 to 5 years to recover. It will not be enough time for the next president to look successful. There will even be many pundits who will say that the new president has made it worse. I have one thing to say to these people...it's congress and not our president who controls fiscal policy.
-Expectations are too high for Obama.
-McCain DOES look old and feeble. In retrospect, McCain should be the outgoing president not running for office right now.
Please vote, even if your guy will not win.
The next four years for me, regardless of who wins this presidential election will be about getting new republican senators from the State of Utah.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Negative Campaigning
Powell criticized McCain for his negative campaigning. I too have criticized McCain for his negative campaigning. But McCain, Palin and Joe the Plumber have had to endure taunts from the other side as well, such as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFI_194GXU&eurl=http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyes-have-it.html
If you have more, let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFI_194GXU&eurl=http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyes-have-it.html
If you have more, let me know.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tonight's debate and Prop 8
I must say that I have been very disappointed with the campaign that McCain and Palin have run. It has been extremely negative. It is not working. Please, please, please, please, please do not tell me why I should not vote for Obama. Tell me why I should vote for McCain.
The task in tonight's debate is to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He needs to give the voters a reason to vote for McCain. Give the voters a real indication that there will be a change in direction.
I have found out that while Obama is the #1 recipient of Fannie Mae money, Bob Bennett is #3. Are you sure that you still want to run for re-election one more time, Mr Bennett?
I have avoided talking about Prop 8 in California until now. Why is it an issue in Utah? Because the California Gay Marriage Law does not have a residency requirement. A gay couple in Utah can go to California and get married, move home and sue the State of Utah to recognize the marriage. If the California law is not overturned, Gay Marriage will be leagal in all 50 states in four years.
Proponents of Gay Marriage have argued that marriage laws are discriminatory. The fact that heteros can get married and homos can not creates a 2nd class citizen. I agree, but it is not the laws of the country that create this imbalance. It is the laws of nature.
Adam and Eve get married. And if Eve is younger than 35, there is a 90% chance that Eve will conceive a child that will be nearly half Adam and half Eve without the help of a medical professional. Adam and Steve get married and there is a 0% chance that Adam and Steve can make a baby that is part Adam and part Steve. In fact, Adam and Steve have to hire a surrogate mama to carry a baby for them. Even with the help of medical science, it can not be done. Eve and Sarah get married and there is also a 0% chance that they can make a baby that is part Sarah and part Eve. Even with the help of medical science it can not be done.
If marriage is man's invention, what was the intent from the beginning. It certainly was not love. It was to control bloodlines. If marriage was man's invention, the purpose was to make certain we know the identity of the baby's daddy. If marriage was man's invention, it was never about who you love. Since adultery is not prosecuted as a crime in this country, the laws of the land do not restrict who you love. You certainly have the freedom to love who you want to love regardless of who you are married to.
If a man and a woman are married and do not "love" anyone outside of this partnership, and then if they concieve naturally, we know who the genetic parents of the children are. We know that the King is the father of the prince. There is not doubt about this. The idea that marriage is for love is a relatively new idea.
But in our society today, there are perks to being married. You can file taxes differently. You can bank and borrow money jointly. You can get health insurance together. The list goes on and on. So if you love someone of the same gender, how can you get these perks without marriage?
But remember, we can call such a relationship marriage if you go to court and force us to do so. But there are perks of marriage that no court in the world can give you. Adam and Steve can not sue the court of nature to give them a baby that is genetically part Adam and part Steve. Even our best and most brilliant medical experts can not do this. We do not have the ability to "correct" this inequality. I do not know if we ever will.
The task in tonight's debate is to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He needs to give the voters a reason to vote for McCain. Give the voters a real indication that there will be a change in direction.
I have found out that while Obama is the #1 recipient of Fannie Mae money, Bob Bennett is #3. Are you sure that you still want to run for re-election one more time, Mr Bennett?
I have avoided talking about Prop 8 in California until now. Why is it an issue in Utah? Because the California Gay Marriage Law does not have a residency requirement. A gay couple in Utah can go to California and get married, move home and sue the State of Utah to recognize the marriage. If the California law is not overturned, Gay Marriage will be leagal in all 50 states in four years.
Proponents of Gay Marriage have argued that marriage laws are discriminatory. The fact that heteros can get married and homos can not creates a 2nd class citizen. I agree, but it is not the laws of the country that create this imbalance. It is the laws of nature.
Adam and Eve get married. And if Eve is younger than 35, there is a 90% chance that Eve will conceive a child that will be nearly half Adam and half Eve without the help of a medical professional. Adam and Steve get married and there is a 0% chance that Adam and Steve can make a baby that is part Adam and part Steve. In fact, Adam and Steve have to hire a surrogate mama to carry a baby for them. Even with the help of medical science, it can not be done. Eve and Sarah get married and there is also a 0% chance that they can make a baby that is part Sarah and part Eve. Even with the help of medical science it can not be done.
If marriage is man's invention, what was the intent from the beginning. It certainly was not love. It was to control bloodlines. If marriage was man's invention, the purpose was to make certain we know the identity of the baby's daddy. If marriage was man's invention, it was never about who you love. Since adultery is not prosecuted as a crime in this country, the laws of the land do not restrict who you love. You certainly have the freedom to love who you want to love regardless of who you are married to.
If a man and a woman are married and do not "love" anyone outside of this partnership, and then if they concieve naturally, we know who the genetic parents of the children are. We know that the King is the father of the prince. There is not doubt about this. The idea that marriage is for love is a relatively new idea.
But in our society today, there are perks to being married. You can file taxes differently. You can bank and borrow money jointly. You can get health insurance together. The list goes on and on. So if you love someone of the same gender, how can you get these perks without marriage?
But remember, we can call such a relationship marriage if you go to court and force us to do so. But there are perks of marriage that no court in the world can give you. Adam and Steve can not sue the court of nature to give them a baby that is genetically part Adam and part Steve. Even our best and most brilliant medical experts can not do this. We do not have the ability to "correct" this inequality. I do not know if we ever will.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Be Carefull Who You Blame.
In my lifetime, four presidents have been elected because of the anger of the electorate. In each case, the president of the opposite part of the incumbent won office. Most people, no matter their political persuasion will probably state that one was great, one was adequate and two were marginal. The question is, who? Here are the four:
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
As I said, who you think was great, who was adequate and who was marginal are probably due to your political world view. So, if we take our anger to the polls and elect Barack Obama, there is a 50% chance he will be marginal, a 25% chance he will be adequate and a 25% chance he will be great based upon the four who were elected in my lifetime. In my opinion, Reagan was great, Clinton was adequate, Carter and Nixon were marginal. BTW...here are the other presidents elected under such circumstances...
Jefferson
Jackson
William Henry Harrison
Buchanan
Lincoln
Grant
Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Cleveland (2nd Term)
Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
How many on that list were great? In my option, 5--Reagan, FD Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln and Jefferson. Adequate? 2--Clinton and Jackson. Marginal 6--Carter, Nixon, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison Grant and Buchanan. Inconclusive 2--Garfield and William Henry Harrison. Both died early in office.
I also must say that I do not know about Eisenhower. Truman was unpopular and Eisenhower was of the opposite party. I rate Eisenhower as adequate. History, however, has vindicated Truman.
So in conclusion, do you expect real change from Obama? History is not on your side.
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
As I said, who you think was great, who was adequate and who was marginal are probably due to your political world view. So, if we take our anger to the polls and elect Barack Obama, there is a 50% chance he will be marginal, a 25% chance he will be adequate and a 25% chance he will be great based upon the four who were elected in my lifetime. In my opinion, Reagan was great, Clinton was adequate, Carter and Nixon were marginal. BTW...here are the other presidents elected under such circumstances...
Jefferson
Jackson
William Henry Harrison
Buchanan
Lincoln
Grant
Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Cleveland (2nd Term)
Wilson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Clinton
How many on that list were great? In my option, 5--Reagan, FD Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln and Jefferson. Adequate? 2--Clinton and Jackson. Marginal 6--Carter, Nixon, Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison Grant and Buchanan. Inconclusive 2--Garfield and William Henry Harrison. Both died early in office.
I also must say that I do not know about Eisenhower. Truman was unpopular and Eisenhower was of the opposite party. I rate Eisenhower as adequate. History, however, has vindicated Truman.
So in conclusion, do you expect real change from Obama? History is not on your side.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
VP debate over
The major networds are declaring Biden the winner in tonight's debate. Fox News Channel declared a draw. If you were looking for a Palin car crash, you did not get one tonight.
One point to think about. Biden spoke of the middle class. Palin is the middle class.
One point to think about. Biden spoke of the middle class. Palin is the middle class.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Root cause of the current crisis
Here is a five-why analysis of the root cause of the current economic crisis.
1. Why does congress need to bail-out the American banking system?
-Because there are so many failed mortgages and foreclosed upon homes.
2. Why are there so many foreclosed upon homes?
-Because too many lenders were giving mortgages to people who would not qualify for traditional mortgages.
3. Why do people not qualify for traditional mortgages?
a--Because they have poor credit.
b--Because they can not verify that they have enough income.
c--Because they really can't afford those homes.
4a--Why do people have poor credit?
Because they have mis-managed their credit
5a--Why have people mis-managed their credit?
Because other types of credit are too easy to get.
4b--Why can not people verify that they have enough income?
Because they are self-employed
4c--why are we helping people get into houses that they really can't afford?
Because there are no homes in the area that they can afford?
5c--Why do we allow the housing market to become so expensive that people can not afford homes?
Because real estate agents and mortgage originators make their money and move on.
How do we fix this problem?
1. Make it harder for people to get credit cards, store accounts and other types of credit we easily get into trouble with when we are young and trying to establish ourselves. This includes Student Loans and car loans. We have to make college more affordable and we have to put an end to easy credit. We need to end the 72-month car loan. If you can not pay off a car by the time the odometer will reach 75000 miles, then you can not afford it. We need to be realistic about our credit demands.
2. We have to find a better way to support small business owners and people who are self-employed so that they are better prepared for the realities of small business.
3. We have to find a way to control the market so that housing prices are realistic for the majority of home buyers.
We have to shift our paradigms about credit and money and expectations. If it takes another depression, then we failed to learn our lesson from the last one.
One final thought. People are angry at the Bush administration and McCain is going to pay the price for it. He is too close to Bush simply because he is a Republican and he works in Washington. The Republican ticket should have been Romney/Palin, but too many evangelicals can not vote for a Mormon. Too bad your religious bigotry has ruined two bright political careers and set your cause back 30 years. Too bad Obama isn't the answer either.
1. Why does congress need to bail-out the American banking system?
-Because there are so many failed mortgages and foreclosed upon homes.
2. Why are there so many foreclosed upon homes?
-Because too many lenders were giving mortgages to people who would not qualify for traditional mortgages.
3. Why do people not qualify for traditional mortgages?
a--Because they have poor credit.
b--Because they can not verify that they have enough income.
c--Because they really can't afford those homes.
4a--Why do people have poor credit?
Because they have mis-managed their credit
5a--Why have people mis-managed their credit?
Because other types of credit are too easy to get.
4b--Why can not people verify that they have enough income?
Because they are self-employed
4c--why are we helping people get into houses that they really can't afford?
Because there are no homes in the area that they can afford?
5c--Why do we allow the housing market to become so expensive that people can not afford homes?
Because real estate agents and mortgage originators make their money and move on.
How do we fix this problem?
1. Make it harder for people to get credit cards, store accounts and other types of credit we easily get into trouble with when we are young and trying to establish ourselves. This includes Student Loans and car loans. We have to make college more affordable and we have to put an end to easy credit. We need to end the 72-month car loan. If you can not pay off a car by the time the odometer will reach 75000 miles, then you can not afford it. We need to be realistic about our credit demands.
2. We have to find a better way to support small business owners and people who are self-employed so that they are better prepared for the realities of small business.
3. We have to find a way to control the market so that housing prices are realistic for the majority of home buyers.
We have to shift our paradigms about credit and money and expectations. If it takes another depression, then we failed to learn our lesson from the last one.
One final thought. People are angry at the Bush administration and McCain is going to pay the price for it. He is too close to Bush simply because he is a Republican and he works in Washington. The Republican ticket should have been Romney/Palin, but too many evangelicals can not vote for a Mormon. Too bad your religious bigotry has ruined two bright political careers and set your cause back 30 years. Too bad Obama isn't the answer either.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The House Votes no
An attempt to bail out the mortgage industry has failed again. It was unpopular. To many Americans, it looked like an attempt to bail out millionaires. But it was an attempt to avert potentially the worst economic crisis since the great depression. That crisis now looks inevitable.
Here is what we are now in for. It is now likely that so many of us will soon be out of work as employment is always the last indicator. Companies usually dismiss workers as a last resort. Those of us that still have jobs in six month will be the lucky ones. I foresee double-digit unemployment in the near future. This means that one person out of every 10 or more will loose their job because of this failed bail-out package. Probably in January or February, at the worst possible time, when it is cold and there people can not pay their heating bills will people really get angry. By then, it will take a trillion to fix things.
It is too bad that people do not see how Wall Street impacts Main Street. It is better to take care of problems when they are small then to let them get too big. But it is too late now.
Here is what we are now in for. It is now likely that so many of us will soon be out of work as employment is always the last indicator. Companies usually dismiss workers as a last resort. Those of us that still have jobs in six month will be the lucky ones. I foresee double-digit unemployment in the near future. This means that one person out of every 10 or more will loose their job because of this failed bail-out package. Probably in January or February, at the worst possible time, when it is cold and there people can not pay their heating bills will people really get angry. By then, it will take a trillion to fix things.
It is too bad that people do not see how Wall Street impacts Main Street. It is better to take care of problems when they are small then to let them get too big. But it is too late now.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Discrimination is Still Alive and Well in this Election
Mad TV and Saturday Night Live.
I have enjoyed many of the skits on these two programs over the years. Even the political ones. But this year, Mad TV is over the top this year with their portrayal of John McCain. McCain is portrayed by Bobby Lee, a very talented comic. Last week, there was a portrayal of McCain vs Obama on a spoof of dancing with the stars. Obama was portrayed as hip--he was break dancing. McCain was portrayed as a music-box robot.
This is proof that one group that it is still OK to discriminate against is older citizens. There are reasons to vote for Barak Obama. One of them is not because he is younger. It amazes me that this portrayal comes from Mad TV on fox. Rupert Murdock is one of the most powerful Octogenerians in the world. Perhaps this is proof that you can sometimes bite the hand that feeds you and get away with it.
Turning 40 this year has made me come to the realization that eventually we will all get older. The best thing about being older is that you have had the time to make mistakes and learn from them.
Saturday Night Live's portrayal of Sarah Palin is not over the top. But it will get old. Palin is smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. I think that Palin's candidacy for VP is proving that there is the right kind of feminist and the wrong kind of feminist. Palin is not the right kind of feminist.
I have enjoyed many of the skits on these two programs over the years. Even the political ones. But this year, Mad TV is over the top this year with their portrayal of John McCain. McCain is portrayed by Bobby Lee, a very talented comic. Last week, there was a portrayal of McCain vs Obama on a spoof of dancing with the stars. Obama was portrayed as hip--he was break dancing. McCain was portrayed as a music-box robot.
This is proof that one group that it is still OK to discriminate against is older citizens. There are reasons to vote for Barak Obama. One of them is not because he is younger. It amazes me that this portrayal comes from Mad TV on fox. Rupert Murdock is one of the most powerful Octogenerians in the world. Perhaps this is proof that you can sometimes bite the hand that feeds you and get away with it.
Turning 40 this year has made me come to the realization that eventually we will all get older. The best thing about being older is that you have had the time to make mistakes and learn from them.
Saturday Night Live's portrayal of Sarah Palin is not over the top. But it will get old. Palin is smarter than a lot of people give her credit for. I think that Palin's candidacy for VP is proving that there is the right kind of feminist and the wrong kind of feminist. Palin is not the right kind of feminist.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The deal falls apart
The bail-out deal has fallen apart. And it was the Republicans that did it. The republicans have nothing more to loose with the economy right now.
When a democrat was last in the White House--the economy was doing well and there was a budget surplus. And it has all gone to pot with Republicans in charge.
People who can put two and two together will probably vote for Obama.
But there is plenty of blame to go around. There is an economic term called the velocity of money. It is not like velocity in physics. It is based on the savings rate. I spend $1. The person who I give my dollar to is going to save a certain amount and spend the rest. The velocity of money is 1 minus the savings rate. If there are no taxes, and the savings rate is one percent then the dollar that I spend will last until it moves between about 450 people before the last penny is put in the bank.
But what if the savings rate is negative. Right now the savings rate in the United States is negative 3 percent. That means when I spend 1 dollar, the store keeper will borrow 3 cents and spend 1.03. If you do this, it appears that that 1 dollar will never wear out. But that 3 cents has a cost, and it is interest. So that store keeper is not adding three cents to the economy for every dollar that I spend, but it is three cents minus interest. Over the years, the interest will catch up. That is where the economy will crash. That is where we are now. That is the danger of a negative savings rate.
When a democrat was last in the White House--the economy was doing well and there was a budget surplus. And it has all gone to pot with Republicans in charge.
People who can put two and two together will probably vote for Obama.
But there is plenty of blame to go around. There is an economic term called the velocity of money. It is not like velocity in physics. It is based on the savings rate. I spend $1. The person who I give my dollar to is going to save a certain amount and spend the rest. The velocity of money is 1 minus the savings rate. If there are no taxes, and the savings rate is one percent then the dollar that I spend will last until it moves between about 450 people before the last penny is put in the bank.
But what if the savings rate is negative. Right now the savings rate in the United States is negative 3 percent. That means when I spend 1 dollar, the store keeper will borrow 3 cents and spend 1.03. If you do this, it appears that that 1 dollar will never wear out. But that 3 cents has a cost, and it is interest. So that store keeper is not adding three cents to the economy for every dollar that I spend, but it is three cents minus interest. Over the years, the interest will catch up. That is where the economy will crash. That is where we are now. That is the danger of a negative savings rate.
Would You Like Teeth with that?
I have heard the rumor, and I hope that it is a rumor, that some banks will not sign up for the bail-out program if they are forced to get rid of golden parachutes.
THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!
This bail-out law had better have some teeth to it. Meaning...we are not giving you a choice. We will buy your bad debt, you will turn over your bad loans to the government and you will get rid of your golden parachutes. We will give you no choice. We will cancel your passport and prosecute you if you refuse.
Why do certain people think that they need to be rewarded for letting their company go down the toilet. The employees of these firms who get laid off are going to struggle until they can get another job. The CEOs of these companies need to suffer the same fate that their employees will. Unemployment ruins your psyche and your credit. It takes years to recover.
If you leave your company a better place than you find it. If your employees are better off because you were there. If your employees feel that they were treated fairly by you. If your customers are happier. If you investors have profited. If your company has secured its niche for the long-term. If all this happens, then we will make you rich. If all of this happens no one will care about the millions you have sent to your bank account in Bern. Otherwise, no and hell no! We deserve better.
THIS MAKES ME ANGRY!
This bail-out law had better have some teeth to it. Meaning...we are not giving you a choice. We will buy your bad debt, you will turn over your bad loans to the government and you will get rid of your golden parachutes. We will give you no choice. We will cancel your passport and prosecute you if you refuse.
Why do certain people think that they need to be rewarded for letting their company go down the toilet. The employees of these firms who get laid off are going to struggle until they can get another job. The CEOs of these companies need to suffer the same fate that their employees will. Unemployment ruins your psyche and your credit. It takes years to recover.
If you leave your company a better place than you find it. If your employees are better off because you were there. If your employees feel that they were treated fairly by you. If your customers are happier. If you investors have profited. If your company has secured its niche for the long-term. If all this happens, then we will make you rich. If all of this happens no one will care about the millions you have sent to your bank account in Bern. Otherwise, no and hell no! We deserve better.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Golden Parachute Tax.
The current economic crisis is not a partisan issue, and this is not the time for partisan bickering. What we need to understand is that 700 Billion dollars is a lot of money. Personally, I want to hang the people responsible, but I have a better idea. I am normally not for new taxes, but someone needs to pay this bill. The median household earns 44,380 annually. The median household size that earns the median household income is 2.57. This translates to roughly 277 hours worked for every American. This is nearly 7 weeks--that is how long all of us are going to have to work to make this much money.
I only support the bail out if it is going to save jobs and livelihoods. I personally have my doubts about that. I really think that this will exacerbate the problem. In other words, credit will be more difficult to get and housing prices will plummet even further and at a faster rate. The resulting recession may be shorter, but it will be much worse. I would be like getting a flu shot that gives you all the severity of a two week virus in 24 hours. Do we really want this? I don't.
I have been laid off three times in my career. The first time, I got one months severance, the second and third time, I got two months severance. I had a coal parachute that was full of holes. This is what grunts at the bottom of the food chain get when they are involuntarily separated from a company. Only senior executive get the big bucks.
My idea to fix this is bail those guys out, but introduce a new tax. A tax on severance. The "Golden Parachute" tax. Severance packages are tax free up to 1 year salary, or $ 250,000, whichever is lower. Anything beyond that is taxed at 99%. No shelters, no loopholes. This does not cover retirement if you take a pension or an annuity. It does cover a lump sum retirement package. It does cover "voluntary" separation. The government will have the right to investigate any unusual retirements--like someone retiring under the age of 60, or retires and then becomes the CEO of another company, etc. In other words, if you run a company into the ground, you will pay. The government will collect it from you.
I only support the bail out if it is going to save jobs and livelihoods. I personally have my doubts about that. I really think that this will exacerbate the problem. In other words, credit will be more difficult to get and housing prices will plummet even further and at a faster rate. The resulting recession may be shorter, but it will be much worse. I would be like getting a flu shot that gives you all the severity of a two week virus in 24 hours. Do we really want this? I don't.
I have been laid off three times in my career. The first time, I got one months severance, the second and third time, I got two months severance. I had a coal parachute that was full of holes. This is what grunts at the bottom of the food chain get when they are involuntarily separated from a company. Only senior executive get the big bucks.
My idea to fix this is bail those guys out, but introduce a new tax. A tax on severance. The "Golden Parachute" tax. Severance packages are tax free up to 1 year salary, or $ 250,000, whichever is lower. Anything beyond that is taxed at 99%. No shelters, no loopholes. This does not cover retirement if you take a pension or an annuity. It does cover a lump sum retirement package. It does cover "voluntary" separation. The government will have the right to investigate any unusual retirements--like someone retiring under the age of 60, or retires and then becomes the CEO of another company, etc. In other words, if you run a company into the ground, you will pay. The government will collect it from you.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
What Corporate America and Wahsington Have Forgotten
In answer to yesterday's questions. There are three groups of stakeholders in a business. The employees, the investors and the customers. A corporation is responsible to make sure that each is taken care of. In today's corporate America, we have forgotten about two of them and focused on one.
A company is obligated to its employees. They are the ones who make it happen. The are the eyes, ears and mouth of the company. In my current research project I am finding out that employees are more likely to be unethical at work if the company forgets about taking care of them and puts profits first. According to one source, employees are 91% likely to behave ethically if they have a good work/home life balance. When we force the employees to spend more and more time at the office. When we put pressures on them to put profits ahead of people. When corporate leaders set a poor example for them, unethical behavior spreads throughout the organization. You have to take care of your people and they will take care of you. And they will behave themselves as well.
A company is obligated to their investors to make sure that these people received a fair return on their investment. Give them reasons to invest for the long term by making slow and steady growth the priority. If you are concerned about short-term profits, investors will bail at the first sign of trouble. When you loose money, you will loose it at a faster rate.
A company is also obligated to its customers. Look at the housing industry. How many newly weds are purchasing the house that they will be living in when they retire? Probably a very small percentage. Is it not better to take care of these people so that they will come to you when it is time to trade up? If a real-estate agent treats a customer fairly, will he not have a repeat customer? Even when you earn a lot of money on one sale, is it not better to get repeat business? The best customers are the ones that keep coming back. They will tell their friends about you. Your business will steam roll. The saying goes that it takes 20 positive experiences to make up for one negative one. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is statistically true. If you throw one zero, it takes 19 10s to bring the average close to 10.
If you ask me, the mortgage and real estate industry in this country has messed themselves up. Like I said yesterday, the average income in Silicon Valley is 85,000 per year. The average home price is 830,000. If both spouses are earning the average, then a family can afford 254,000 on a home. The question is, how did it get this way?
It is because the real estate industry uses practices that create artificial demand and the mortgage industry has supported the practice. When the dot com bubble burst, investors went into real estate to make money. With more and more and more people trying to flip houses for profit, the demand escalated. This pushed prices extremely high. Higher than the average home buyer could afford. Banks have to get creative to help people qualify for these king of mortgages. And when the bill came due, people could not pay. This equation was exacerbated by higher fuel costs.
Real Estate agents get their commissions right away. They rarely see the effects of a foreclosure. The mortgage industry profits from a foreclosure if there are not very many of them because they usually sell the house at a price that would make up for the loss...until now. It was a win/win until recently.
I do not think that this crisis will be over until the average price of a house is realistic for the average home buyer. We still have a lot of ground to make up in many of our largest cities in this area. Especially in some cities like the south bay area.
What can congress do? I don't know for sure. Perhaps end the tax credit for the interest on a second home? No...that would bring prices down at an even faster pace. Extend the existing credit for first time home buyers. That will help hold demand in the housing market. More guaranteed loans for first time home buyers and more programs to help first time home buyers make good down payments. Similar helps for dislocated and displaced workers. Perhaps now would be a good time to bring back Pell Grants for displaced workers...and even Pell Grants for such workers that already have a Bachelors degree. Programs that make it easier for experienced workers to get teaching certificates. I also think that there could be a law that pays real estate agents their commissions over time instead of all at once. There are a lot of things that will help...but our congress needs to act now before they go on recess.
A company is obligated to its employees. They are the ones who make it happen. The are the eyes, ears and mouth of the company. In my current research project I am finding out that employees are more likely to be unethical at work if the company forgets about taking care of them and puts profits first. According to one source, employees are 91% likely to behave ethically if they have a good work/home life balance. When we force the employees to spend more and more time at the office. When we put pressures on them to put profits ahead of people. When corporate leaders set a poor example for them, unethical behavior spreads throughout the organization. You have to take care of your people and they will take care of you. And they will behave themselves as well.
A company is obligated to their investors to make sure that these people received a fair return on their investment. Give them reasons to invest for the long term by making slow and steady growth the priority. If you are concerned about short-term profits, investors will bail at the first sign of trouble. When you loose money, you will loose it at a faster rate.
A company is also obligated to its customers. Look at the housing industry. How many newly weds are purchasing the house that they will be living in when they retire? Probably a very small percentage. Is it not better to take care of these people so that they will come to you when it is time to trade up? If a real-estate agent treats a customer fairly, will he not have a repeat customer? Even when you earn a lot of money on one sale, is it not better to get repeat business? The best customers are the ones that keep coming back. They will tell their friends about you. Your business will steam roll. The saying goes that it takes 20 positive experiences to make up for one negative one. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is statistically true. If you throw one zero, it takes 19 10s to bring the average close to 10.
If you ask me, the mortgage and real estate industry in this country has messed themselves up. Like I said yesterday, the average income in Silicon Valley is 85,000 per year. The average home price is 830,000. If both spouses are earning the average, then a family can afford 254,000 on a home. The question is, how did it get this way?
It is because the real estate industry uses practices that create artificial demand and the mortgage industry has supported the practice. When the dot com bubble burst, investors went into real estate to make money. With more and more and more people trying to flip houses for profit, the demand escalated. This pushed prices extremely high. Higher than the average home buyer could afford. Banks have to get creative to help people qualify for these king of mortgages. And when the bill came due, people could not pay. This equation was exacerbated by higher fuel costs.
Real Estate agents get their commissions right away. They rarely see the effects of a foreclosure. The mortgage industry profits from a foreclosure if there are not very many of them because they usually sell the house at a price that would make up for the loss...until now. It was a win/win until recently.
I do not think that this crisis will be over until the average price of a house is realistic for the average home buyer. We still have a lot of ground to make up in many of our largest cities in this area. Especially in some cities like the south bay area.
What can congress do? I don't know for sure. Perhaps end the tax credit for the interest on a second home? No...that would bring prices down at an even faster pace. Extend the existing credit for first time home buyers. That will help hold demand in the housing market. More guaranteed loans for first time home buyers and more programs to help first time home buyers make good down payments. Similar helps for dislocated and displaced workers. Perhaps now would be a good time to bring back Pell Grants for displaced workers...and even Pell Grants for such workers that already have a Bachelors degree. Programs that make it easier for experienced workers to get teaching certificates. I also think that there could be a law that pays real estate agents their commissions over time instead of all at once. There are a lot of things that will help...but our congress needs to act now before they go on recess.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Mortgage Crisis and Corporate Greed...Who is to Blame.
Who is to blame for the Mortgage Crisis and the economic problems now. I remember one of Bill Clinton's last State of the Union addresses. He was bragging about how a higher percentage of Americans than ever before were becoming home owners in his administration. I am NOT blaming him for this. There is plenty of blame to go around. From the Oval Office, to the Fed, to almost every state legislature, to Congress, to Corporate America and to many Media Outlets nationwide.
With three weeks complete of my Masters Program, I have come to understand that almost all of us in power have forgotten two basic principles of business.
1. Who are you in business for?
2. Who makes it happen in your company?
If you don't know the answer to these two questions, you deserve to be sleeping under the North Temple viaduct with all the other people who make live there. Let me give you a hint. The answer is not "myself." But if you think it is, or you act like it is then you are part of the problem. The only hints that I will give you is that the first word in each answer is "your." And the second word is not "stockholders." The first letter of the second word for the first question begins with the letter "c" and the first letter of the second word for the second question begins with the letter "e".
And here is another hint. The answer to both questions are the people who businesses across America are taking for granted.
BTW--the average salary in Silicon Valley is 85,000. The average price of a home is still around 830,000. Even the people who sleep under the North Temple viaduct every night can probably figure out that the average wage earner in Silicon Valley can not afford the average home. It should be no wonder then that we have a mortgage crisis. I do not need a Masters Degree to figure that one out.
I will post the answer to these two questions on Saturday.
With three weeks complete of my Masters Program, I have come to understand that almost all of us in power have forgotten two basic principles of business.
1. Who are you in business for?
2. Who makes it happen in your company?
If you don't know the answer to these two questions, you deserve to be sleeping under the North Temple viaduct with all the other people who make live there. Let me give you a hint. The answer is not "myself." But if you think it is, or you act like it is then you are part of the problem. The only hints that I will give you is that the first word in each answer is "your." And the second word is not "stockholders." The first letter of the second word for the first question begins with the letter "c" and the first letter of the second word for the second question begins with the letter "e".
And here is another hint. The answer to both questions are the people who businesses across America are taking for granted.
BTW--the average salary in Silicon Valley is 85,000. The average price of a home is still around 830,000. Even the people who sleep under the North Temple viaduct every night can probably figure out that the average wage earner in Silicon Valley can not afford the average home. It should be no wonder then that we have a mortgage crisis. I do not need a Masters Degree to figure that one out.
I will post the answer to these two questions on Saturday.
Monday, September 15, 2008
We need Mitt
I was pondering on the happenings in the financial world today. I am also pondering on the fact that Congress has recessed for the remainder of the year without acting on legislation that is so important to Utah. Here is a short list of what is not yet done.
1. No agreement for the development of Oil Shale on Federal Land including the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation.
2. No law banning the import of nuclear waste from foreign lands.
3. Nothing new on immigration reform.
4. No new drilling leases, anywhere.
5. No financial marker reform.
As the press focuses on the horse race of the upcoming election, here is a run down of the important issues to me and where I stand.
1. We need a long-term energy solution. More sources of fossil fuels now, better technology so that we are not dependent on foreign sources of energy or fossil fuels in the future. In other words--do something because anything is better than nothing. Everything that both sides of the energy debate that people have proposed will work somewhat. Arguing about it until nothing is done is killing us.
2. Stabilization of our financial markets. Have tax policies that force companies to work on long term stability and research and development. My solution...new tax bracket for anyone earning over 15 million per year unless it is paid in stock options that can not be optioned or sold for at least ten years. The only loopholes for this tax bracket would be if those funds are immediately donated to non-profits charities or to schools. (This would include big-ticket athletes and media moguls like Oprah.) This means that big-money CEOs will be financially obligated to consider the long-term stability of their firms, the greater community around them and the training of the next generation rather than the next quarter's financial statements. You will get that golden parachute...in 10 years if your company is still strong and stable.
3. We need a better education system than we have now. We need a plan to get 50% or more of our working population with a Bachelors degree or higher. (Same solution as above.) A Bachelors degree today provides the same potential that 40 acres and a reliable source of water did 150 years ago. This will help keep good-paying high-tech jobs in the US.
4. A comprehensive foreign policy that addresses the war on terror and addresses immigration reform. We want people to come here and contribute to our society and make it a better place. We want to get along with our neighbors and reduce the likelihood that our sons and daughters will die on the battlefield. If people just want to come here and work and then go home and be good citizens of their homeland, lets work to accommodate that. Let's not force those people into hiding. They can be good neighbors, lets help that happen.
My hope for Mitt, and my request. Move back to Utah. Challenge Mr. Bennett for his senate seat. Mr. Earmark has been a disappointment. He represents everything that is wrong with the Republican party right now. He is fiscally spend-thrifty. We do not need Bennett in Washington spending the tax money that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay. We need Bennett retired. Mitt has the clout in this state to make it happen. If we can retire Bennett, it will send the right message to Hatch. Then I will be able to change the name of this blog.
1. No agreement for the development of Oil Shale on Federal Land including the Uintah-Ouray Indian Reservation.
2. No law banning the import of nuclear waste from foreign lands.
3. Nothing new on immigration reform.
4. No new drilling leases, anywhere.
5. No financial marker reform.
As the press focuses on the horse race of the upcoming election, here is a run down of the important issues to me and where I stand.
1. We need a long-term energy solution. More sources of fossil fuels now, better technology so that we are not dependent on foreign sources of energy or fossil fuels in the future. In other words--do something because anything is better than nothing. Everything that both sides of the energy debate that people have proposed will work somewhat. Arguing about it until nothing is done is killing us.
2. Stabilization of our financial markets. Have tax policies that force companies to work on long term stability and research and development. My solution...new tax bracket for anyone earning over 15 million per year unless it is paid in stock options that can not be optioned or sold for at least ten years. The only loopholes for this tax bracket would be if those funds are immediately donated to non-profits charities or to schools. (This would include big-ticket athletes and media moguls like Oprah.) This means that big-money CEOs will be financially obligated to consider the long-term stability of their firms, the greater community around them and the training of the next generation rather than the next quarter's financial statements. You will get that golden parachute...in 10 years if your company is still strong and stable.
3. We need a better education system than we have now. We need a plan to get 50% or more of our working population with a Bachelors degree or higher. (Same solution as above.) A Bachelors degree today provides the same potential that 40 acres and a reliable source of water did 150 years ago. This will help keep good-paying high-tech jobs in the US.
4. A comprehensive foreign policy that addresses the war on terror and addresses immigration reform. We want people to come here and contribute to our society and make it a better place. We want to get along with our neighbors and reduce the likelihood that our sons and daughters will die on the battlefield. If people just want to come here and work and then go home and be good citizens of their homeland, lets work to accommodate that. Let's not force those people into hiding. They can be good neighbors, lets help that happen.
My hope for Mitt, and my request. Move back to Utah. Challenge Mr. Bennett for his senate seat. Mr. Earmark has been a disappointment. He represents everything that is wrong with the Republican party right now. He is fiscally spend-thrifty. We do not need Bennett in Washington spending the tax money that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay. We need Bennett retired. Mitt has the clout in this state to make it happen. If we can retire Bennett, it will send the right message to Hatch. Then I will be able to change the name of this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
