Say it ain't so, Lee?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090529/bs_nm/us_chrysler_iacocca

Oh no! Don’t take Lee Iacocca’s car! I hope it was one of those boxy mini-vans his group was credited with inventing and bringing Chrysler out of bankruptcy. If that were the case, I’m sure Lee’s all to ready to go out and buy a real car. "if you can find a better car, but it" - Lee Iacocca

Well Lee, I think they took your advice. It is an ironic turn of events when Lee Iacocca, the man credited with saving Chrysler from Bankruptcy in the 80’s is now the victim of the company’s lack of innovation. I read his book (autobiography) and briefly scanned "Where have all the Leaders Gone?" While waiting on my wife at Barnes and Noble (or some other mass bookseller), I can tell you that this man was innovative. He was also very charismatic in his time. Who could forget the C’s? Curiousity, Creative, Communicate, Character, Courage, Conviction, Charisma, Competent, Common Sense and the biggest one of all, Crisis. Apparently Chrysler did.

It’s a sad day, when, dare I say it. Politics, and the UAW take down the very source of their wealth. I’m not going to union bash, there are plenty of people that can and do that already. However, I will point out that in the ‘real world’ many of us have taken pay cuts just to keep our jobs. I was recently with an organization that filed Chapter 11; we had 147 retail stores along the east coast an nearly 11,000 employees. When we went into chapter 11 for the 1st time, we shuttered stores and markets, and those poor workers, that stuck it out on the promise of a payday were left holding the bag when the company decided to rescind the offer due to lack of funds. If they wanted their final paycheck, they needed to file a claim in bankruptcy court. Our CEO (very un-Iacocca like) was quoted with his famous last words; “It is what it is”. It certainly is, isn’t it Joe ;-) Our company emerged from Chapter 11 as a new company. Our assets were purchased at auction by a Hedge Fund manager who had no experience in our industry. Save the CEO and the founder, the majority of our Executives remained in tact. You know what happened? We didn’t change our business model to be more competitive. We kept marketing the same ways, selling the same ways, buying the same, etc…the only difference was a shrunken budget to try to do it all. Annnd then...We went into chapter 11 again less than 1 year later. I was fortunate to jump ship in May of 2008, the company no longer existed in any form after September 2008. No one got any form of payment, early retirement, or benefits package. This, my friends, is the real world.

Why the background on my former employer, simple, where was our bailout? We would never have asked for one, and our 11,000 workers were not union, therefore not organized to influence politics with their voting power, and not due a pay-off for future votes. (Did I say that out loud?) That, and all this happened under the Bush Administration, where you don’t bailout failing companies. AND you certainly do not invest in them. Companies fail for a reason; they are too big to afford themselves, no longer innovative, they refuse to change their business to accommodate the changing consumer, etc…

Now I’m hearing my tax dollars just earned us, as a taxpayers, 72.5% of GM shares…whoopty-doo. What a poor investment. What will be different when they emerge from Chapter 11? Will they make better cars, cheaper, and more efficiently? Nope…Anyone seen a do-do bird lately?

Rights, right?

If I say that the Prop 8 argument is about "rights" we would then be entering into a philosophical conversation, right? (It’s my blog, so I say yes) Right: So I begin with some questions: What are we entitled to, that can not be denied, and ultimately makes us all equal? Certain inalienable rights apply, and are truly constitutional. Like it or not, the US constitution was founded upon and drafted fully in the presence of men who firmly lived Judeo-Christian values. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…right? Is marriage an equality issue? Not at all, marriage is a choice rooted in religion, some would argue marriage was designed and is ordained by God. It certainly isn’t an inalienable right.

You may believe you can “choose” to be religious or not, and that choice has a specific set of guidelines you are to follow while calling your self religious. You can also "choose" to get married just as you can "choose" to be gay (save me the murky arguments about this undiscovered Gay gene, then why do people become un-gay? does the gene go away?). By making these choices, you are accepting some generally agreed upon operating guidelines, which are pretty well known. Choices are by no means rights, or constitutionally protected. If I chose to be married I let go of my ‘singleness’, I chose to be with my wife from this day forward forsaking all others, etc. If I chose to be gay, I accept that I may lose the opportunity to be married in a Church, I also chose to align myself with a minority group that can face adversity.

Here’s the deal: If we go around and label a choice as a right, then what happens when the choice sparks a new group whose choices translate into a new set of rights? Then what we are saying is, one’s rights are determined by the mere existence of any group that can rationalize choice, no matter how that group’s existence is viewed by the majority of society.

The homosexual community looks to challenge the definition of marriage by changing it from 1-man and 1-woman into 2-people; ironically by doing that, they in fact still leave a definition that would be an exclusion to any 3-people who want to get married. However, ask a homosexual group about it’s stance on that subject and you will hear that it is not valid. Where’s the tolerance for polygamist groups ;-) Laughably, the thought of 2 or more nagging wives is amusing…but that’s another rant for another time. I personally could not afford more than one wife, think about the unimaginable increase in toilet paper usage…but I digress.

How is it that a one group can change the definition for their subset, but not for others that want a more liberal definition taken into consideration? This is precisely why religion and politics are kept out of public schools; a subset of individuals can not monopolize rights that are certain, with rights that a particular group chooses to adopt. Poor kids are confused enough with high school stuff, like proms (ever try pinning a boutonniere on yourself?) Again, I digress.

It begs me to ask; where does it end? If everything is ok, then what is no longer ok? Society is not obligated to offer every single amenity offered to any individual to all individuals.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when we become all too “politically correct”. When we lose our moral compass, stop listening to tried and true principles of our faiths, our founding forefathers, and begin to follow our hearts rather than our minds. Let’s be honest with ourselves, “All progress begins by telling the truth” –Lou Cassara.

At the very least, look at your history book and begin to analyze the fall of Rome. People relied on the government for all of their services, and grew increasingly dependant. Government was so big it could not afford itself, nor afford to protect itself, and then…you get the picture.

I have grown weary of everything having to be politicized. Hence my lack of blogging lately. This moral and ethical argument is a non-point anymore; laws are created to favor the majority viewpoint. Politics are played to sway groups to form a majority opinion. The tool is the media and he with the bigger wallet (translated to media buying power) usually wins. This is how you force a minority “issue”, regardless of its moral and ethical standing, into a popular opinion contest.

Welcome to Blue...

Top 5 Most Taxed States, just so happen to be Blue States.

1. VermontPopulation: 620,000
Average tax burden per person: $3,861

2. HawaiiPopulation: 1.29 millionAverage tax burden per person: $3,856

3. ConnecticutPopulation: 3.5 millionAverage tax burden per person: $3,596

4. MinnesotaPopulation: 5.2 millionAverage tax burden per person: $3,203

5. New JerseyPopulation: 8.7 millionAverage tax burden per person: $3,024

Coincidence? I think we need more data like the above to show juts how your state legislation affects you individually. The nice thing about the above study is it shows the avg. individual tax burden. Not surprising is the Top Ten:

6. New York
Population: 19.4 million
Average tax burden per person: $3,019

7. Massachusetts
Population: 6.4 million
Average tax burden per person: $2,953

8. Washington
Population: 6.6 million
Average tax burden per person: $2,553

9. Wyoming
Population: 530,000
Average tax burden per person: $2,357

10. Pennsylvania
Population: 12.4 million
Average tax burden per person: $2,223

Only one red state can be found, and it is a state with no individual income tax which would lead to higher property taxes, as evidenced in other states that do not have individual income taxes (Hawaii, New Hampshire…).

Next time, think before you vote…taxes do affect you. If you think the government can spend your money efficiently, take another look, or move to one of the above states ;-)

The Welfare Politician…

Say it ‘aint’ so…I can’t, it’s where we are. Gone are the days of Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. They were larger than life men who were passionate about their country, demonstrated by their actions, not just their eloquent speeches and public persona. These men made smart, tough, decisions that actually shaped our country and, dare I say it, were guided by a firm moral compass. As I write this I am reminded of the phrase “Stand for something, or fall for anything”.

Today’s politician has no desire to be any greater than their peers. We no longer see the guiding principals that shaped our history books. Today’s politician is simply trying to keep their job by pandering to YOU, the voter.

Politicians aren’t stupid by any means. They understand it’s all about votes. Their sole purpose, rather than shaping our country or defending our constitution, is to capture votes. How? Simple…(I’m about to turn the tables here)

Take Sen. John Randolph (1773-1833) warned early Americans against a notion "that all things must be done for them by the government," as such an arrangement would corrupt moral character by relieving men of their duties and responsibilities. This, in part, led Randolph to say, "Give me 50 speeches, I care not how dull or stupid, rather than one law on the statute book."

Did anyone ever pay attention to World History in High School? Do you know how Rome, widely considered the most powerful empire in the world, could fall? Granted, there was several things happening on several fronts but none were greater than this. Rome collapsed under its governments own weight. They simply could not afford all of the services it’s people required of the government. The high cost of services emptied the coffers, they could no longer pay for: maintenance, public works (Trash removal, Water, Heat, etc…), fund their military, feed their people, pay for your slave, etc… There were more services required than taxes collected. We are seeing a similar attitude in our country today.

Today, it has turned exactly into that. Voters look at voting record with a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. Welfare is now mainstream; how is this person going to help me once in office. This attitude creates a certain intimacy when coupled with the media. We learn more about a politician’s fanhood than viewpoint on constitutional law. With unprecedented media coverage it starts becoming more about who you are inviting into your living room rather than how they will function in their elected position. You are looking at “your guy” who really speaks “to you”. And thus, we have the birth of the welfare politician. His speeches, web site, pod casts, and voting record are going to be custom made for you, and you’re going to feel good. If you are poor, you are promised free money. If you are rich, you are promised lower taxes so you can keep your money. If you are green, you get environmentally conscious messages, and so on. Of course, if any savvy voter does the research, they will see that the same position has created a custom persona for the opposite viewpoint as well. The irony is that it was never about YOU, it was about getting your VOTE.

I long for the strong, guided, moral, stand for something, leader we so deserve. Someone who actually believes that the ‘buck stops here’; someone who makes decisions for the majority good of the country and does not give in to minority special interests. Tell me, are you out there? You might get MY vote…

Is Hillary Clinton a racist?

It's probably untrue....probably, but one could conceivably start that rumor based on her recent heralding of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s national conference in Houston.

Hilary was recently honored by Planned Parenthood with the Margaret Sanger award, afterwards she said: “I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.”

Her vision? Let’s remind you all of who we are talking about here:

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was openly sympathetic to Nazi Germany’s eugenic practices and was strongly committed to preventing black people and the poor from reproducing.

Sanger once said: "Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

I may just be “poking the baby” here (poor reference I know); but you chose people to admire, you chose to make positive references about them in the public arena, you are then choosing to tell me that you ‘like them’ and want to ‘be like them’.

Shame on you Hillary...really...

In the spirit of Jeff Foxworthy; "If you herald Margarat Sanger, for her vision of eradicating the poor, the unwanted, and minorities, you miiiiiight be a racist...."

Taxes do matter…

When I was in Boston, it was not odd to accidentally stumble upon an impromptu ‘set’ for a Movie or popular TV Show. Boston as a city and Massachusetts as a state, land of a thousand taxes (and fees, when taxes can’t apply) has some of the most favorable tax breaks for movies and TV shows to set up production there. A lot of States and Metro areas are doing the same thing. New York (city and state) and Michigan are also so high in tax benefits that it is possible to have a negative tax on your entire production in these areas.

Ever watch '30 Rock'? Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin’s sit com on NBC? Well Alec Baldwin recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for trying to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by stating he may cancel the 35% tax credit for filming in New York City.

"I'm telling you right now," said Baldwin, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California."

'30 Rock' is filmed in Manhattan.

Isn’t that irony? What is you ask? This; The Motion Picture Production and Distribution industry gave $14 million in political contributions last year: 89% went to pro-tax Democrats.

I was also told that the filming of “Annapolis” (a film about the Naval Academy) was originally planned to film in Maryland (You know, where the Naval Academy actually is…) but as production as scheduled to begin the received a last minute offer from Pennsylvania. What happened? They packed up and headed to the Keystone State to save an additional $10 million in tax incentives. Similar happenings occurred in Mississippi where filming was set to begin for “Runaway Jury”; When Louisiana came knocking, they packed up and headed to Cajun Country.
Anyway, just to bring home a point here, taxes do matter. Enough that folks are willing to ‘leave town’.

I'll tell you where you can park that boat...

I just read an article that states the 'golden child' is tarnishing.

“Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.”

Here are some additional Gallup poll highlights:


83% say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse.
82% say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit.
78% are worried about inflation growing.
69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

Knock, knock…GOP, are you there? 2010 is right around the corner. Linking BHO to the floundering economy as a neophyte who won a popularity contest and those that support him blindly do so to further imperil the US economy. It's not just your job, it's your duty to keep bringing up the absolutly irresponsible acts of this administration.

People are upset, and they should be…raise your hand if you’ve ever taken a debt management course or read a book on improving your finances. Anyone ever tell you that you need to spend your way out of debt? It doesn’t make sense, does it?

A gentleman I work with just bought a home on short sale for $164,000; the home had two defaulting mortgages attached to it; a Primary for $250,000 and a Second for nearly $50,000 more. Just 8 years ago the family who now can no longer afford their house bought it for $139,000. I give you the root of the financial crisis right there. In 2005 the house was probably worth close to $300k on paper, and the family who lived there used their home as a Credit Card. Did I mention they have a Cadillac Escalade, an Audi A6 and a large Boat?

As sad as it is to see anyone displaced, there are some situations where I don’t offer a lot of pity; and when it comes to greed, that’s certainly a case for no remorse on my behalf.

Now to further prove that the ‘smartest man in the room’ has no clue; we, the tax payer, will be left with the burden of helping families like the one mentioned above, stay in their home. The Audacity of Hope indeed.