A two-part-er.....

Tonight the top-10-polling Republican presidential candidates will bloviate in a nationally televised debate.  And front and center will be The Big Wind himself, Donald Trump, aka "The Donald".  He's a lightning rod for sure, but I must give him due credit for two things:  

First, I like the way he speaks his mind.  It's obvious he says what he thinks, and not just what this morning's poll numbers say people want to hear.  Whether I agree with what he's saying or not is another matter, but at least I never have to wonder what he's thinking. 

Second, I like the way he is paying for his campaign out of his own pocket instead of having to prostitute himself before the usual cesspool of special interests.  

Of course, following this logic, that would mean only billionaires should run for president, which is of course a complete other problem.  But as my lovely wife pointed out, it's either the billionaire who funds his own campaign, or the common man who is corruptible.  Maybe we should look at public funding of campaigns, taking fund raising and all it's corrupting influence out of the equation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to rule soon on whether publicly traded corporations will have to reveal what their CEO's make (in TOTAL compensation, not just salaries) as well as the gap between what they make and what their employees make.  The two Republican commission members are against it, the two Democrats are for it, and the lone Independent is expected to be the tie-breaking "yes" vote.

Big business interests such as the US Chamber of Commerce are steadfastly against it saying it will cost businesses $700 million to calculate and report the yearly numbers (the SEC says it shouldn't cost more than $73 million), and that it is simply an excuse to embarrass highly paid CEO's.

That last excuse seems self incriminating to me.  If you haven't done anything to be embarrassed about, why should you fear being embarrassed?

I have no problem seeing CEO's make big bucks IF THEY DESERVE IT.  But too often they make their money via smoke and mirrors.  Think of the 2008 financial meltdown and today's Greek debt fiasco....those were just giant shell games!  They tweaked things to make it look like they were masterful business people when they were just blowing up a property bubble that eventually burst, or were making loans to credit-worthy sovereign countries.  Their shareholders were left ruined, while they lived happily ever after (with their millions of $$$$ in ill-gotten compensation) in the Hampton's.

Legitimate, skillful management that builds a solid, long term company SHOULD be handsomely rewarded (former CEO's like Southwest Airline's Herb Kelleher and Costco's James Sinegal come to mind), but not these "skim all you can and move on" shysters.  

Maybe this new rule will shed light on the "too good to be true" CEO's.  If their company is a laggard, but their pay is at the top of their segment chart, why shouldn't it be brought forcefully to the attention of their shareholders?  What possible excuse can you use to justify NON-transparency?

S

Here come the Big Guns

Oh boy, now they've done it.  "They" being the Tea Party, and "it" being piss off the American business establishment.  Today's news reported that many high-profile, deep-pocketed pro-business groups have had about enough of Tea Party shenanigans.

Their frustration has grown so intense in recent days that several trade association officials warned....that they were considering helping wage primary campaigns against Republican lawmakers who had worked to engineer the political standoff in Washington.

Such an effort would thrust Washington’s traditionally cautious and pragmatic business lobby into open warfare with the Tea Party faction....

“We are looking at ways to counter the rise of an ideological brand of conservatism that, for lack of a better word, is more anti-establishment than it has been in the past,” said David French, the top lobbyist at the National Retail Federation.

The same talk is coming from the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

“It’s clearly this faction within the Republican Party that’s causing the issue right now,” said David M. Cote, the chief executive of Honeywell

This is great news.  As I've said all along, a strong, healthy, pragmatic Republican Party working with a strong, healthy, pragmatic Democratic Party is good for our country.

My personal wish is that we had a third party to speak for people like me; plain, middle class working people.  The business establishment has their party, and the unions and shall we say "disadvantaged"  faction have their party, but I don't feel I'm a true constituent of either. 

Maybe some day I'll get my wish for an un-bought-and-paid-for 3rd political party that survives on $1's and $5's, but for now I'll just content myself with the knowledge that thinking conservatives are once again gaining the upper hand in a more responsible GOP. 

 *happy dance*

S

Who's running this asylum?

A couple of years ago I was invited to a presentation by a 4-star Air Force General who was the commander of Air Combat Command.  After his talk during the Q&A he was asked what his biggest fear was and he said a cyberwarfare attack against the US.  

As we all know, we live and die by computers.  They're both a blessing and a curse.  If some douchebag terrorist hits a few evil keystrokes how screwed would YOU be?  We might soon find out.  In recent days Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and several other major banks have experienced some sort of cyber attack, credit being taken by an arab group.   

So what are we collectively doing about it?  Apparently nothing.  That's because The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 failed by a 52-46 vote to pass the US Senate earlier this year.  This was a bill sponsored by Sorta-Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Susan Collins of Maine, and supported by Brick Obama.  It would have set up a voluntary program of security measures to bolster protections for critical infrastructure networks like water supply systems and electrical grids and banks from attacks by rogue hackers and foreign nation states.

You know who killed the bill?  Lobbyists for the US Chamber of Commerce.  On que Republicans fell in line and voted "no".  They said the bill would have "imposed debilitating pressures on businesses to establish cybersecurity measures."

How is this a partisan issue?  Won't measures to protect our infrastructure and banks help businesses, the Republican's core constituency?  Once again short term profits trumped longer term common sense.  

When some a--hole sitting in a cave somewhere in Hell-istan gets his feelings hurt because someone painted an eye patch or blacked-out a front tooth on 'ol Muhammad's Polaroid and fries our power grid and freezes up our bank accounts, let's all march on the headquarters of the US Chamber of Commerce and ask 'em, "So, how'd that work out for ya?"

S