Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.
You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.
- John McCain during the last presidential debate
Dear Joe the Plumber:
It seems like your heart is in the right place, and you've worked hard at an honorable job. Now you have some hope of buying the other half of your two-man shop. Ownership and its rewards are a big part of your personal American Dream.
Good for you.
Now, thanks to tonight's presidential debate, you've become a temporary national figure. The exposure will be worth more than a full-page ad in the Yellow Pages and a top level Google ad, so I guess you could say you have John McCain's policies to thank for boosting your business growth.
Or at least he would have, if you'd remembered to mention the name of your business during all the media attention.
If I were you, first thing in the morning, I'd change the company's name to Joe the Plumber, get a new phone listing and throw up a web page.
Or not.
The interest in your political thinking will be good for less than a week, but people will always have clogged drains and faulty water heaters. And the real issues you face as a future business owner aren't about national policy, including Obama's tax proposal.
In fact, I'm concerned that your thinking about owning a business may be clouded by all the political rhetoric. Here's what I, as a former small business owner, think you should be concerned about.
Do you know what you're buying? According to reports, you want to buy the two-man plumbing shop you work for and plan to pay for it over a number of years. What, exactly, are you buying? A name and phone number, two used trucks, tools and inventory, maybe some relationships with customers or contractors that you've had a role in building. And the opportunity to pay for it over time, out of the cash flow from the business.
This may be a good plan, depending on how much you're paying for good will - which shouldn't be very much for this small business. Otherwise, this decision will cost you far more than any income tax plans being proposed.
Don't feel bad. Most Americans don't know what they've been buying.
You need to separate your American Dream from Small Business Reality. Sorry, but when you consider that your ambitions call for only one or two employees, the chances of you paying off your purchase and ever earning $250,000 a year are very remote.
John McCain encourages you to dream about making $250,000, where you can fear Barack Obama's tax plan, instead of looking at the realities facing you now. That is, most small businesses fail or fail to grow, and almost all of them earn less than $250,000 in taxable income for their owners.
The reasons have nothing to do with their income taxes - unless they fail to pay them.
I applaud your hard work and determination to control your own destiny. That's where you should focus. If you do, you'll discover that paying a slightly higher marginal tax rate some day is probably the smallest problem you've had to overcome.
Do you understand the financials? I'm extremely suspicious about the reports that your tiny shop "clears" about $250,000 a year. Two plumbers fortunate enough to bill $150 an hour for 30 hours apiece every week would have gross billings of $468,000, plus maybe some mark up on materials and trip charges.
Anyone who bills by the hour knows that's a hard standard to maintain, especially if you're doing smaller jobs that require you to move around to different job sites, pick up products, take phone calls, pay vendors and do estimates. Stuff you can't bill for.
Maybe the boss pays you a pittance and is able to clear $250,000 after his truck payments, cell phone bills, advertising, etc. But I'd make sure I understood the financials before I added debt to the expenses you'd have with this business.
Obama's tax plan won't hurt you. If you do reach the $250,000 threshold, you'll only pay a slightly higher tax rate on the dollars above that amount.
If you don't like that, you have another choice. You can put those extra dollars into healthcare for your employees, buy a new truck, beef up your advertising, get some help to do the paper work or even hire another plumber. Your business will grow and your life will probably get better because you can spend more time doing what you like - whether it's thawing pipes or selling.
The Republicans want you to believe the scary stories that your business will by hamstrung by a couple percentage points tacked on to the extra dollars you decide to keep for yourself. That's not really how it works, and if you don't see that, stop listening to all the politicans and get over to a small business center and ask for advice.
Good luck,
Charlie Quimby, a guy who reached the American Dream
The movie Groundhog Day was a gentle comedy in which the hero finally makes the right choices and gets the girl in a crowd-pleasing happy ending. But in 2008, Groundhog Day has become a national nightmare in which we, the heroes, may have only one chance to get it right. Each day we wake up hoping to find a leader who has the intelligence to understand how best to navigate our current crises and the discipline to hold a steady course through an economic perfect storm that is raging across Minnesota and the rest of the nation. But again and again, rational deliberations are drowned out by voices that tell us to fear those who are not like us, because Joe Sixpack and all those hockey moms have what it takes to preserve the freedom and greatness that we inherited from our founding fathers: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, just your ordinary kind of guys. On November 4th, the alarm clock will awaken us for what may be our last best shot at securing Minnesota's future and making the 21st century an American century. After eight years of shooting ourselves in the foot, how can we avoid shooting ourselves in the head?
John McCain and Sarah Palin have spent much of the past few weeks attacking the greedy, corrupt villains behind the collapse of our financial markets. And there truly were some pretty shady characters involved in some very questionable financial dealings. But a crisis of this magnitude never is the fault of just a few rotten apples. What McCain and Palin can't seem to grasp is that environmental factors can turn honorable people into criminals and people of questionable morality into models of probity.
Shade the truth just a bit, do this over and over again, and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction becomes a certainty. Create financial instruments that no one really understands, add a little more risk with each derivative, and all of a sudden you've inoculated the entire financial system with a virulent strain of almost worthless paper. But John McCain and Sarah Palin are as wedded to their mistaken notion of free market economics as George Bush is to his war in Iraq. Out of political necessity, McCain and Palin may try to sound like they understand the need for government referees at a free market football game, but in the end they simply can't surrender their favorite theory to some stubborn little facts.
To call a spade a bloody shovel means more than speaking plainly; rather, it means saying something that is true but unpalatable -- or impolitic.
During an otherwise stellar appearance on David Letterman's show last night, Barack Obama missed an opportunity to deliver a kidney punch to John McCain. In my view, this missed opportunity vividly exemplifies a weakness in the election style Democrats have used over the past three decades.
(I'm not saying Obama's campaign exemplifies this style; to the contrary, despite a few missteps -- and who among us could do better? I submit that, given the fact that Barack Obama has steamrolled over every obstacle thus far, this man just might know better than anyone how to correct the Democratic Party's mistakes of the past and finally, FINALLY beat these bastards in this rigged game. But I'm making a point here, so... bear with me.)
Letterman asked, and I'm paraphrasing,
"If you'd been able to pick your Vice-Presidential running mate after McCain picked Palin, would you have chosen differently?"
Obama answered -- and again, I'm paraphrasing:
"I chose the person I want in the room with me, giving me wise advice and different points of view..."
Intelligent, cogent and sincere.
But I think he should have phrased it thusly:
"Maybe this is another difference between Senator McCain and me:
I didn't pick my running mate because I thought he would help me WIN; I picked him because I thought he would help me GOVERN."
Stark, simple and true. Did John McCain pick Sarah Palin because he thought she was the best of all possible candidates for the role of Vice-President in a McCain Administration?
The very suggestion is a joke. Nobody could make that suggestion wit a straight face unless he worked for McCain or Fox News. McCain picked Palin to help him win the election.
Just one more in an endless series of proofs that John McCain's campaign slogan of "Country First" is an empty, shallow and insulting lie.
So, for one of her theme songs, in a play off her high school basketball nickname (a nickname she would not have gotten if not for Title IX requiring equal funding for girls in sports) the Republican Party played "Barracuda" by Heart.
(MtkaDem gives us a great summary of what's going on regarding the rough time Sarah Palin's had in the national spotlight -- make sure you watch that Daily Show clip, though. Srsly. - promoted by Joe Bodell)
Sarah Palin's credentials and credibility are in a freefall, and at the same time, dragging down the credibility of Republican strategists and analysts that are publicly defending her qualifications and her integrity. Joe Bodell has previously visited this topic, and more examples of ideological hypocrisies have come to light since then. Thom Hartmann has summarized the questions for which the answers will be flushed over the coming days here, and asks the main stream media to pursue these alarming issues.
Why is Sarah Palin involved with AIP? Several days ago the chair of the AIP, a secessionist party, said that Palin attending the 1994 convention. "she was there."
To be clear, I believe the media frenzy over Bristol Palin's unfortunate situation should not imply any judgment towards Bristol herself. Democrats are much more understanding and compassionate towards those in such situations, and she should not be dragged through the national gauntlet. The reason it is an issue that garnered attention is because her mother espouses an ideology that leaves no forgiveness for those in such situations, and claims to hold the solution (abstinence) that she would otherwise push as national policy if elected. Sarah Palin cut funding to homeless mothers of illegitimate children. Given that Palin herself was apparently involved in a shotgun wedding (check wedding dates vs. birthday of her first born), one would think she might have more compassion and insight into a better avoidance policy. Again, the judgment here is not of her situation, but of how she, her party and her ideological base publicly denounce and condescend to those in similar circumstances. The hypocrisy, lack of empathy, and inability to learn from mistakes, are disturbing for a potential executive office position.
At least as disturbing is the purported membership in the AIP, or Alaskan Independence Party. If she was indeed a member of a group that wanted secession, or a similar withdrawal, that could only be read as, at one point, she did not want to be an American. This should be worse than, say, a communist charge -- or at least have much deeper implications than any statement Michelle Obama made about pride. I would expect that the minimum requirement for a Presidential ticket to have never wanted to break from our great nation.
So, to end on a lighter note (or at least a light as blatant hypocrisy in media and government can be), be sure to watch the following from yesterday's Daily Show. This could stand as one of the greatest today vs yesterday clip montages ever -- if only the legacy or main stream media would do the same:
Note: This is not about Sarah Palin's daughter. This is about the right-wing reactions to the news of her pregancy.
My God-Niece is an amazing woman. She is 30 years old and her son just turned 13. A son, who once he gets past being a freaking teenager, will be an amazing young man. She is an amazing Mother with a solid family. But it was a struggle.
All this "pro-life" praise of Ms. Palin keeping the baby seems to have no mention of how this adolescent has just lost the rest of her childhood. No apparent mention of how she now has to skip over several developmental steps into adulthood and become a responsible parent. No mention of the absolute physical danger she is in from the effects of a pregnancy on such a young body.
So John McCain suspended the fighting to run an ad congratulating Barack Obama on willing his historic nomination.
However, noting that I have not done the analysis I am about to suggest, maybe we should take a look at where the ad was run the most.
The fact is that while it may have been genuine it may also have been a back-handed reminder to the less evolved in our society that Barack Obama is black.
And, to me, it had tinges of denigration ... verging on the "you are so well spoken (for someone of your type) ..."
Maybe ... maybe not. But while we are keeping an eye out for blatent, vulgar racism let's not let the subtle stuff slide by either.
Article V, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution provides that if there is a vacancy in the position of Lt. Governor then the last elected President of the State Senate would become Lt. Governor. (shout out to the MCLU for my portable copy of the US and MN Constituions I got at the State Fair last week)
So, if the United States went crazy and actually elected a McCain/Pawlenty ticket in November we would have Governor Molneau (just threw up a little in my mouth) and Lt. Governor Jim Metzen.
First, doesn't that sound like just the funnest morning staff meeting? Executives from different parties would make the gridlock of the past six years look like nothing.
But, it could also open up an interesting race for President of the Senate at the DFL Caucus meeting right after the election with some State Senators actually wanting the position so they would then be "promoted" to Lt. Gov with the idea that it would give them an advantage in running for Governor in two years.
Right off the top of my head a contender would be Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark. She is already on lists as a possible candidate anyway.
Who else would be poking their head into this possibility?
The 3:00 AM Phone Call.
Who's the best Commander in Chief?
Hillary Clinton's priceless contribution to McCain's campaign, the 3 AM phone call, has triggered an avalanche of Commander in Chief arguments. The Georgia-Russian conflict is fertile ground for the war makers.
Commander in Chief involves far more than jingoistic speeches and sending troops and bombs to create hell around the world. The most important part of the job is to responsibly lead this nation including managing the resources of our military. We are not selecting a Generalissimo to parade around the world in grand regalia and to invade and bomb at will. This is still a democracy responsible to the people.
Who should answer the 3:00 AM call? An intelligent, moral leader with a spine of steel who will render a reasoned decision based on fact? Or a hot head who sees a war opportunity under every rock? A leader committed to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights. Or a dedicated supporter of the failed Bush actions in war, loss of moral leadership and destruction of civil liberties.
The phone rings, now what? President Obama answers and immediately evaluates the severity and immediacy of the reason for the call. First and foremost consideration is the security of the US. Then, how can we take the moral high ground, exercising true leadership? What are our options and the consequences of each? He's willing to talk to any of the antagonists. Listen to appropriate advisers and then make the decisions that are best for our citizenry and the rest of the world.
Contrast with Field Marshall McCain donning his battle uniform, calling out the Crusade warriors with spear and shield and then buzzing the affected area with nuclear loaded B1s and a variety of shock and awe aircraft and missiles. Maybe we should invade Iran, Syria and North Korea. Bring em on, bring on WW III.
In response to the allegations that the McCain campaign also employed a contest to raise funds, I contacted the Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division. The Obama campaign had just been told that their fundraising ploy was a contest and had to be open to anyone, those paying or not.
The MAGED closed the case, determining that there are no current violations. But, the McCain campaign may have had violations...
Earlier this month, I wrote a piece laying out what I thought Obama and McCain needed to do to make good on their promises of a new type of politics. So far, that does not seem like it's happening--not by a long shot. Dan Balz of the Washington Post has a great piece on this that I think is worth quoting at length:
A campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.
Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.
...Don't blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyper-aggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge however small or incidental can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.
This is a great analysis of a phenomenon that's a crying shame. I love politics; I think vigorous debate over the future of our nation is crucial to our continued success. But like a lot of Americans, I'm getting ready to tune out unless there's a change in the overheated rhetoric. We should be debating the issues, but our politicians need to drop the personal attacks and the hostility behind them.
I think we can all agree that American politics is in ugly shape. Over the past few campaigns, we've seen little substance-mostly they've been based on ad-hominem attacks. Americans' support for our politicians, from President Bush all the way through Congress, are at all-time lows. It's difficult for voters to focus on the issues when even our mainstream news media rarely focuses on the issues. We're due for a change.
Now we have a presidential election featuring two reformers running on messages of change. Barack Obama and John McCain have, at various times, both promised to run outsider, issue-focused campaigns. This election thus has an opportunity to bring long-overdue changes to the way debates are being conducted in our political system.
Of course, this isn't a guarantee. It's pretty easy to get pulled back down into the muck of politics as usual-just witness Obama's primary fight against Hillary Clinton, which at time devolved into a substanceless mess about lapel pins and whose associates were more offensive. To rescue American politics and regain voters' trust, there are four things Obama and McCain should do during the campaign:
1. Lay out a clear, positive vision for the nation. 2. Campaign together 3. Accept public financing 4. Avoid "going personal."
(I would like to shake the hand of the McCain finance staffer who thought this would be a good use of campaign funds. Seriously? Golf Gear? Sure to go over well with disaffected Clinton supporters..../snark - promoted by Joe Bodell)
John McCain has debuted some ridiculous new campaign merchandise: "McCain Golf Gear." I would like to suggest a slogan for this particular line of gear: "Stay the course while you play the course."
