Massachusetts Flip Flop

Five years ago, Massachusetts had the very interesting prospect of having a Republican governor (Mitt Romney) be given the authority to name a replacement for the US Senate Seat occupied by then Presidential candidate John Kerry if Senator Kerry were to win the election. You see, Massachusetts, like many states, had a Constitution that empowered the sitting governor to name a successor to a US Senate seat if said seat were to become vacant. Well, as you likely already know, the Massachusetts legislature is seated with a super Democratic majority. They quickly took the Constitution into their own hands, and passed an amendment revoking that power from the governor, and turning it to the people through a Special Election. Let that sink in. The governor no longer has the power to appoint someone to an open US Senate seat. The people will now do so through a Special Election, within 5 months of the seat becoming open.

Well, as the story went in 2004, Senator Kerry remains a Senator. Mitt Romney stepped down as governor and pursued a presidential run himself in 2008. The governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Deval Patrick. And now, in August of 2009, our country lost one of its long-standing leaders and Senators, Edward M. Kennedy. And per the amendment passed in 2004, a Special Election will need to occur. See above. A seat is now open. Within 5 months, an election will occur where the people will vote to name the successor. Again, this was voted in by the Democrats in 2004, "to empower the people to utilize their right to vote".

But hang on. Don't go so fast. The Massachusetts governor is now a Democrat. And there is some crucial legislature about to pass through the chambers of Congress in Washington (think Healthcare). The Democrats could use that seat now. Senator Kennedy's seat will remain unfilled for several months until the Special Election can occur, passed into law by the Democrats just five years earlier. But now, since the Democrats will be the impacted party, a call for swift legislative action is being made to reverse that law and to re-empower the governor to appoint someone to the seat. And by the time I write my next entry, I suspect it will be passed into law and we will have a new US Senator from Massachusetts. (Let's hope Governor Patrick doesn't pull a Blagojevich on us. But I don't think he will. There is so much integrity in Massachusetts politics for something like that to occur. I mean, who would manipulate law with backdoor deals and such?)

I am not a fan of Republicans. And I am not a fan of Democrats. True stories, like the one above, can be told and re-told over and over again about both of these parties. I ask you this, is this why we elected these people to office? Did we ask them to tear up, and then tape back up our Constitutions? To pick and choose which elements they like, and to discard the elements they don't? To flip flop based on who is in office, who has the majority, who has the most at stake? And to do it under the guise of "this is what Teddy wanted as a dying wish"? Using a man's death to swindle deals is disturbing, if you ask me.

On whichever side of the aisle you reside (or if you are like me, you don't pay too much attention to aisles, but rather to the individuals standing in the chamber), I hope this infuriates you. I hope it disgusts you enough to seek true change. Our president campaigned and got elected on a premise of "change". In 2004, Massachusetts changed law to suit the needs of an elected majority, NOT the needs of all individuals, as all our constitutions propose. And now, in 2009, our President supports another change, yet again to suit the needs of an elected majority (his majority), NOT the needs of all individuals. Until we elect officials that strive to represent 100% of their constituency, and not just the 40something% that got them elected, we will continue to see stories like the one above.

Change. Yes, we can. Hope. Change is coming. Yeah, right.

Musings about American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

This morning, I sat in 15 extra minutes of traffic than usual. In fact, it's been a solid month where I've spent 15 extra minutes in traffic. You see, my commute goes through a section of Interstate 90 that is under construction. There is a very pretty sign that informs all the drivers that it is funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

From what I can tell, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped save some jobs. For one, the sign company that makes those signs got some new business. That's good. The auto industry got so much of the hype, but I guess that the American Sign Manufacturing companies were pretty critical to the economy, too. I'm glad someone was looking out for them. See? Stupid me, I would have overlooked their need for a bailout. Further, the four empty construction trucks on the off ramp in the midst of construction were saved from being victims of the "Cash for Clunkers" plan. (Wait, didn't we want those traded in? I noticed that all four trucks were domestic and that none of them were hybrids. Strange. I would have thought they'd operate off ethanol or battery. Perhaps my eyes deceived me.) And even further, thank goodness that Dunkin' Donuts was able to get some business from the 5 workmen that were standing on the off ramp drinking coffee. Not only did we save those 5 workmen their jobs, but we also assisted Dunkin' Donuts by giving those workmen the income to purchase those coffees. And further, since we all know that the economy provides ripple effect after ripple effect, we also helped Wrangler Jeans because the jeans these 5 workmen were wearing will undoubtedly wear out their bottoms soon, at least I presume so, from sitting on the guard rail while drinking their coffees.

While I was driving by, and thinking about how this all helped stimulate the economy, I thought of the thousands of drivers who are losing 15 minutes every morning due to the increase in traffic. And since I like to think of ripple effects, I was wondering how the companies for whom all these people work are affected by the lost productivity from all these workers. I'm sure the net value these people provide to the GDP is far less than the GDP contributed by the workmen with their Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, thank goodness we have elected officials who know more about economics than I do.

Stimulus, Taxes and Healthcare, Oh My!

A funny thing happened during the "Cash for Clunkers" debacle. Our government learned that if people had more money in their pockets (i.e. in this case, a $4500 credit), they do something very profound with it...they spend it. I wonder if that would work if taxes were lowered and people had more money in their pocket? And if they spent the additional money, I wonder if it would stimulate the economy? And if the economy got a boost like that, I wonder if it would put more people to work to offset the overall spike in demand? And if more people went to work, I wonder if that would translate to lower unemployment? And if unemployment was lowered, I wonder if that would translate to a smaller deficit since less money would be spent on our welfare state? Thank goodness our elected leaders know more than I do. See? I would have gone and decreased government spending and lowered taxes.

The great state of Illinois is adding candy to the list of items that will now bear the full brunt of the highest sales tax in the country. In Chicago, candy will now get the same 10.25% sales tax as clothing, shoes, automobiles, etc. You see, candy used to be considered "food". And "food" was only taxed at a little over 2%. Now that candy is no longer "food", it gets the full 10.25%. But, there's a silver lining. Some candy has flour in it, and flour is the determinant if the item is "food". Snickers? Candy. Kit Kat? Food. Seriously. I'm not kidding. Let's play along. Three Musketeers? Food. Butterfinger? Candy. So, if you're in the checkout line and you have a chocolate craving, remember to buy "food" and not "candy". Pick up the Kit Kat, and leave the Hershey's Chocolate Bar behind. I'm looking forward to the bailout of the "candy" makers, since they were unfairly impacted by this new tax. Coming September 1 to a theater near you.

I lived in England for a year, and had the "benefit" of socialized healthcare. My salary (bartender/waiter) was clearly "lower class". My tax rate was astronomical. And my doctor had dirty hands, didn't wear gloves and seemed annoyed that I would ask any questions when he prescribed me an antibiotic without looking at me for longer than 3 minutes. Oh, and my wait was well over 2 hours. Thank goodness we formed a nation back in 1776 (severing ties with England) and yet we are still smart enough to take over their best traditions. I'm going to buy some Billy Bob teeth now so that I can prepare myself for my new dental outlook.

To our elected officials, for years I have felt like you and I were simply on a different side of an argument. I favored adherence to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution of the United States, preserving the rights of every individual, and you favored quotas, patriot acts, "progressive" taxation (i.e. legalized Robin Hood) and spending money you don't have. But now, you have gone further. You have offended me. You have offended my intelligence by not only presenting falsehoods in the name of "yes, we can" and "change", but you have spit on the traditions that our country and your predecessors held dear. People used to earn what they got. You've taught us that we can do nothing and still get. What will happen when the "getters" outnumber the "earners"? It's not that far away.

Affirmative Distraction

I am a white man. I was born that way. Barring major surgery, I'll die that way. Because I did nothing to choose my skin color or my gender, I should not be proud of them nor should I be ashamed of them. I should not brag about them nor should I hide them. However, a funny thing is occurring that makes me wonder how my life would be different if I was not a man or if I was not white.

A few years ago, I had an itch. I've always had an adventurous mind, having dabbled in bold travel, creative writing and the performing arts. But I settled down after not too long. I got a stable job and established myself in a successful career with a large consulting firm. But the adventurous mind was still at work, and like I said, I had an itch. So, I left. I started a consulting firm, attempting to invent a new business model with a focus on extreme quality, modest margins and affordable pricing. And we got some momentum. I found my adventure, my calling, my passion.

As we've attempted to grow the business organically, we've encountered the obvious challenge any entrepreneurial venture faces, business development. And so, we've put on our thick soled shoes. We've networked the networks. And we've pounded pavement, looking to use our reputation, our resume and our references to land us new work. Companies have been impressed. But then they ask "the questions".

"Are you minority owned? Are you female owned?"

"Ahhm. No, we're not...I'm the owner", I state with a level of apology. Apology! I was born. I grew up. I learned my trade. I started a business, doing it the right way. And I'm apologizing. But wait, there's some good news. The companies that I'm calling on tell me, "don't worry, there's a way around it. We can set your company up as a subcontractor to one of our minority-owned vendors...they only take a 10% margin".

Is this really what we want for our country's version of "free enterprise"? Most economists will tell you, markets by nature weed out the bad and reward the good (government intervention of the US automotive industry notwithstanding). However, if law limits how successful the good can be based on skin color or gender, are we in a free enterprise system anymore? I believe the answer is obvious.

If I complain loudly, we risk losing the "privilege" of being a subcontractor and donating 10% of our service fees to someone who did nothing to earn our business. If I stay silent, I contribute to the growing demoralization of entrepreneurs.

Does anyone have the name of a good plastic surgeon?

Patriot Acts

When King George's government elected to tax tea and limit the choice of what kind of tea the colonies could obtain, patriots dressed up like Native Americans, stormed boats in the harbor that were importing tea, and dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. That act was illegal, by law. The patriots broke the law to prove a point, to stand up for their basic civil rights, later documented in the Declaration of Independence and later, in the United States Constitution.

A few years later, the local elected leaders (note: farmers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) in the colonies, true "representatives" of their constituents, signed a document that formalized their intent to commit treason. Yes, treason. Treason against the royal government that enacted law after law without appropriate representation from the colonies. We as modern day Americans, applaud that signing, that document and that day. Have we forgotten what they did? They committed treason. And for that act, they could have been hanged.

And a few years later, many of these same leaders created a government that was based on preserving the rights of every individual, not as a collective. But each and every individual, even those that wanted to speak out against the government.

Fast forward to 2001. Shortly after one of our country's darkest days, September 11th, 2001, our government, still operating under our same Constitution, voted to violate rights of every individual. The "Patriot Act" was passed, under the guise of protecting us. Yet this very act was one of the greatest inhibitors to the very freedoms sought so fervently by the true Patriots during our country's birth. This act granted our government the rights to listen to our phone calls, to entry into our homes and to monitor our internet usage. For a country governed by a Constitution that is supposed to protect its people FROM the government, we passed an act called the "Patriot Act" that now puts the government in control of its people. We used to fight wars against governments that did this to its people. Now, we've done it to ourselves.

I applaud our current administration for eliminating our country's recent practice of torturing people who have been neither convicted nor indicted of any crime. Torture is what we wage wars against. We should never use it as a tactic. When we use terrorism to fight terrorism, we have become our own enemy. So kudos to this administration for turning back some of the measures that made us no better than the people we are fighting.

I hope our elected officials go further. Much much further. Let's take the Patriot Act off our books. Let's preserve the Freedom of Speech and allow my cell phone calls to occur without Big Brother listening. Let's preserve each and every individual's right to succeed or fail. If I fail, it's on my watch. If I succeed, don't take the fruits of my labor to reward the failures. If you do that, you incent me to fail, too.

Without swift changes, we are moving towards the need for another Declaration. It will probably look a lot like the first one. Maybe we should rewrite the words and pretend it's a new idea. Is it treason if we all re-sign the original?

Please Make Howie Go Away!!!

Apologies for not having written in awhile. I've been watching a lot of sports of late, March Madness, late NBA and NHL playoff pushes, MLB, etc. I do have my priorities. Anyhow, as I've been watching TV, upon the 477th time Howie Long came on the screen to talk about Chevy and how it compares to Honda, a funny thing struck me.

GM is using MY MONEY to advertise TO ME to buy a car I WAS NEVER INTERESTED IN. I know this is probably obvious, but I need to dissect it further. People we elected voted to take our money and invest in a car company we weren't investing in and whose cars we weren't buying. Apparently, our elected officials know better than we do about how we should spend our money. Anyhow, they took our money, invested in GM, and what does GM do? Advertise to us that we should buy their car. I know this expression got a lot of use and misuse during the last election. But talk about lipstick on a pig.

I would have loved to have been in the executive conference room when the leaders at GM were deciding what to do with the bailout money. "Hey guys, nobody is buying our cars. Our cars are getting out-done by our foreign competitors. Nobody is investing in our stock. What should we do?"

And the solution? Hire Howie Long to tape dozens of commercials in an attempt to convince me that the cars are actually good. Don't change the labor practices that cause your prices to be too high. Don't change the product choices that make your products impractical for the everyday consumer. Instead, let's advertise our way out of this mess. Let's take the bailout dollars we received FROM YOU and advertise TO YOU that you should have been giving us your money all along through purchasing our cars. They didn't get our money the old-fashioned way, i.e. by earning it. They got it the same way any other panhandler gets money for their fix, by sticking their hand out and begging for it. And to say that I'm surprised that they are misusing my money would be like saying I'm surprised that the crackhead who got a dollar from me used it towards his next purchase of smack.

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. It applies to dating, working and yes, spending. But apparently, our government seems to think that past performance is NOT a good predictor of future performance. Thank goodness they stepped in and took my money and did the right thing with it. And to think I would have invested in companies that have proven successful track records. How very foolish of me. Thank goodness we elected people who know better.

Inhospitable to Hospitality Industry

Well, here we go again. Government intervention begets government intervention. And around and around we go. Last week, I posted a blog here that conveyed the expected ripple effects of increasing taxes on small businesses, not the least of which is reduced revenues for other critical businesses crippled in this current economy, including the catering and hospitality industries (i.e. restaurants, hotels, etc.). The more money you take away from people who could have and would have spent it, the less they will have to spend. This seems so obvious, and like I've said many times before, this is simple math. I'm not quite sure how I can help stimulate the economy if my government (through its words and actions) encourages me to cook for myself, do my own ironing, etc. instead of dining out every so often or utilizing a dry cleaners. Do they not realize that reducing my dispensable income translates into less revenues for the businesses I use? Do they not realize that less revenues for these businesses translates to unemployment for workers in those industries? Unfortunately, the answer is no. They don't realize it.

We all have heard by now the backlash engineered by Congressman Barney Frank (D - Massachusetts) when he criticized what seemed like every financial institution for spending money on marketing (e.g. stadium naming rights), client satifaction (e.g. hosting clients at golf events) and employee retention (e.g. bonuses to the highest performers). Subsequently, we have seen a dramatic (and I mean jaw-dropping dramatic) decline in season ticket renewals, hosted quarterly meetings and sales-incentive trips. And guess what has happened, hotel leaders have petitioned to Congress (Link to Article on Hospitality Industry backlash.) to "ease up" on the rhetoric. Why, you ask? Because their industry is being crippled by the REACTION to Barney Frank's REACTION!!! Companies are spending less out of fear of perception issues.

Side note and perhaps a future blog topic: the best employees are not being adequately rewarded by their employers, which means they are now less-incented to be the best.

So what will our leaders do to resolve this? Perhaps a "bailout" for the hospitality industry? Print some more money, sell some bonds to China to keep the hotel business afloat? Maybe we could mail out vouchers to everyone making less than $30,000 a year for a one-night stay at the hotel of their choice, and our government can reimburse the hotels with their freshly printed money? Mark my words, there will be a government reaction to this problem. It might be embedded in some future "stimulus package" and may not get the publicity of the auto bailout. But it will happen.

My Dad and I think our ancestors in our family tree may have had a candle business. But when electricity came along, the candle industry was crippled. Perhaps we can apply for a retroactive bailout. On my Mom's side, we think that our ancestors ran a buggy business. When Henry Ford, that evil entrepreneur who didn't like the status quo, invented an automobile, our buggy business went under. Another retroactive bailout for me.

When does this end? When will we elect leaders who actually read our Constitution? When will we elect leaders who actually adhere to our Constitution? Perhaps we can host a convention at a resort hotel to discuss the merits of the principles of our founding fathers' view of free enterprise and free markets. Ugh. We can't do that just yet. We're not sure if the hotel industry will survive long enough to host our little delegation. Perhaps they need a bailout.

Will someone please invite me to a tea party? In Boston, perhaps?