Most likely the state is paying for the attorney to sue the county, with the enormous legal costs of the silly suit being absorbed by the taxpayers.  Perhaps Paul should have been shipped off to a prison much further away than Oregon where he could have recuperated better from his unfortunate injuries.  Maybe somewhere more tropical….. hmmmmm, maybe Cuba?

ShareThis

President Clinton’s Orders

• Lifted restrictions on abortions at federally-funded clinics overseas.
• Imposed new restrictions on lobbying that barred senior officials from lobbying the agency where they worked for five years after leaving the government.
• Established a National Economic Council.
• Cut 100,000 federal jobs towards his goal of ending “the era of big government”.
• Placed a ban on road building and logging in 60 million acres of national forest.

President Bush’s Orders

• Established a White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
• Changed several federal labor policies, including one that required federal contractors to notify workers they don’t have to pay union dues if the money is used for politics.
• Called on federal agencies to expedite government permitting for oil and gas exploration on public lands, including oil exploration.

It will be interesting to see what our new President does.

ShareThis

Just Glad it’s Over. Now Let’s Fix the System

by Ray Link

We have just witnessed an historical moment with the election of Barack Obama. Frankly I am thrilled. Not because he is African-American, intelligent, charismatic, thoughtful, compassionate, and inspires the country… I am thrilled because the election is over!

The country has just opted for change, so what better time to fix our outdated process to elect the President.

The primary process takes 6 months and gives tiny states undue clout while virtually depriving over half the country the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot as candidates fall out based on the whims of the voters of New Hampshire or the caucuses of Iowa. However, I do not support a single national primary day as that would give a huge advantage to the early big money, big name candidates. If we did that in 2008 the winners would have been Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.  There’s merit in starting out slowly in a few smaller states to allow less well-funded campaigns to gather momentum. A vetting process over a reasonable period of time allows for debate and more candidates to express views.

Instead, let’s start with a few small states that have traditionally had early primaries.  These would include Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, each having a primary election (no caucuses) in February. All delegates would be committed (no uncommitted or “super delegates”) and awarded proportionate to the vote.  Each state would have a total delegate count in proportion to its population so all states have equal representation.

Super regional primaries would then occur 3 to 4 weeks apart. The first super regional would include the original 13 colonies (minus South Carolina and New Hampshire) followed by a south and mid-west regional 3 weeks later and including all other states east of the Mississippi. The next would also occur 3 weeks later and include all states west of the Mississippi except those bordering the Pacific Ocean.  The last primary would be the first week of May and include Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California and include enough remaining delegates so all voters have a say (perhaps those in the last primary would get the all important final say).  This would shorten the process by almost 2 months and have just 5 days of voting compared to 22 we had in 2008.  It would also group most of the primaries by region making it easier and less expensive for candidates.

The conventions could continue and still be valid, especially in situations where no candidate has a majority of the delegates.  Absent that need the convention would be more of a pep rally to finalize platforms and confirm the selection of the Vice President.

The next and most antiquated system is the Electoral College, adopted in 1787 as a compromise to balance power between large and small states and to give greater power to the “well-informed” elite. With the advent of 24-hour cable, the internet, and a literacy rate of nearly 100%, it’s clearly time to move on from a 220 year old idea and return the power to the people directly. It’s ridiculous that it’s theoretically possible to elect a President with fewer than 25% of the vote and the “loser” getting 75% because the “winner” got 270 electoral votes.  There is also no requirement for the electors to vote the candidate they were elected to support.  The person with the most votes is the only logical way to elect anyone, including the President.  I can’t fathom how anyone can disagree with “most votes wins” as this is how we elect over 100,000 political offices in every other election in America. The Senate, with each state regardless of size getting two representatives, is the balancing mechanism in place for small states to have more say in government.  We don’t need another.

Let’s act now, otherwise we will never fix this broken system.

Ray Link is the CFO of FEI Company, a leading manufacturer of electron microscopes, and a former city councilman from Florida and a 30 year member of the Republican Party.

ShareThis

“Hey, still there?”, I inquired.  He nodded but was still glued to his tiny screen, as if God were about to text him the Dow’s performance for the next year.

“I was suprised you ate that big ball of hair that was in your salad”, I commented to him.  “Was it good?”

“Yeah, good lunch”, he replied distractedly.

Now I am the first to admit that I can sometimes be a bit verbose, but normally my friends will smile and say “yeah, I remember you telling me that” to move the conversation on.  They seldom transport themselves completely out of the discussion into some other digital world to speak abbreviated languages to people they barely know.

Cell phones and PDAs have certainly helped people connect in many ways, but they have also transformed many of us into distracted, communication-addicted zombies - and unfortunately have added an entirely new level of rudeness into society.

I have a new iPhone.  It is my first foray into portable e mail and texting, and I see how the addiction and corresponding rude behavior develops.  I sometimes feel myself slipping, my hands grasping the sleek little device, wanting to log on just to see if anyone is looking for me or to check how the market is doing. I haven’t connected digitally with anyone for minutes!  Important stuff could be happening!  Would the person I am with notice if I just checked it quickly? 

Of course they would. 

I’m in another restaurant the other day.  There is a father and child sitting next to me - Dad and lad out for a day of bonding.  But lad is sitting distractedly  - figeting while Dad types away on his Blackberry - oblivious to his son, and the fact that his current parenting skills will help develop a rude little man that prefers video games to people.

If you attempt to have normal human interaction while chatting on an electronic device you are missing the wonder of real conversation, you are probably not comprehending important info, and you are being incredibly rude.

Two months ago after spending two weeks preparing an important presentation, I spent $1200 to fly 2000 miles to present to a potential client.  Throughout the presentation the clients stared down between their legs.  At first I thought they had some kind of personal fixation on their genitals - but they turned out to be Crackberry addicts - typing away while I wasted my time and a very expensive presentation. 

And in a twist of fate (and another sign of the current economic turmoil) one of the clients is now out of a job - and contacted me looking for work.  For some reason I can’t even remember what they look like - my only memory is the top of their head as they stare down at the screen between their legs, and the sinking feeling that I wasted a lot of time and money, and I probably would not want to work with such a rude client anyway.

ShareThis

Shop Online.  It saves time, gas, parking fees, frustration, weird encounters with guys dressed like Santa, and the annoyance of having to wrap and ship gifts, since they do it for you, and most of the sites are pretty efficient!  Also, with our current economic state I would expect great discounts this season! To save some money, first go to a shopping rebate site.  I have written about these before, and I am suprised more people don’t use them.  They are easy-to-use sites that conglomerate major shopping sites.  When you click through, they register your click and rebate you on everything you purchase.  Depending on the sites, some of the rebates are up to 10% or more of your total purchase.  A couple favorites I have mentioned before - www.fatwallet.com, and www.ebates.com.  Otherwise, Amazon continues to be the premier shopping site for almost everything.  Unfortunately you will not find them on either of the above sites, but their prices and service more than make up for it.  I suggest signing up for their “Prime” program which allows free two day shipping.  You pay a yearly fee for this, but if you are buying a lot of gifts it more than makes up for the fee.

Get a Rebate Credit Card.  Of course, we all know that the credit card industry is a Weasel-infested corporate cesspool that charges ridiculous fees and steals from the poor!  OK - maybe not the entire industry…..  But, if you are smart and pay your bills you can actually play the credit card biz to your advantage.  First point - if you are carrying credit card debt - stop reading now as you should not be even contemplating buying Christmas gifts. Bake cookies.  Send a coupon good for an hour of your time to clean the attic. Write them a song.  But don’t spend money!  The best gift you can give your family is to be personally financially stable - so don’t increase debt to buy gifts!  But, assuming you do pay your bills on time and in full every month, consider one of the new cash rebate credit cards.  I was a fan of airline cards, but the points get more and more difficult to use, and I think the best deal around is a cold, hard cash rebate.  My personal favorite rebate card is the Chase Freedom Card (and here is a site that gives you a $50 rebate on the card) - www.chasefreedomnow.com  This card rebates you from 1 to 3% on every purchase.  They have a really easy to navigate website, and when you have accumulated $200 in rebates they will actually send you a check for $250.  Their customer service is also the best I have encountered with a credit card company.

Look For Coupons.  There are dozens of couponing sites that often offer great discounts from your favorite online and traditional stores.  The easiest way to find a discount?  Just Google what you are buying and “coupon”.  For instance, last month I needed new tires. I Googled “Firestone Tire coupons” - and found a coupon good for one free tire with the purchase of three - which saved me $200.

Use American Express Rewards for gift cards.  Another idea if you are an American Express Membership Rewards member. If you are like me you have been accumulating points to transfer to airline programs.  But as covered earlier most of the programs are really difficult to use and return less than 1% (that should be the minimum goal of your credit card rebates).  So consider purchasing gift cards with your Membership Reward points - and specifically look for the cards that redeem at 1%.  Then buy gifts with those cards (a better choice than giving them as gifts as a lot of people loose them or don’t redeem for other reasons).  A few good choices available from Amex that redeem at 1%: Home Depot, Pottery Barn, and Banana Republic.  There are dozens to choose from.

Negotiate.  If you had the good sense to read my book Warriors, Workers, Whiners, & Weasels (By the way - you can click to the right - go right to Amazon, and get a great deal on this essential personal and professional management tool.  It also makes a wonderful gift!), you know the following:

1. I’m not afraid to shamelessly promote my book.
2. I am a firm believer in the concept that everything is negotiable.
3. I like titles with lots of W’s.

The big point here as you shop.  Almost everything is negotiable - even in stores you would not think it possible.  A couple months ago I negotiated a discount at a Brooks Brothers Store.  Feel free to ask if an item is going on sale, if they are running a promotion that is not reflected in the price, etc. Often they will offer dramatic savings, and it is relatively painless.

ShareThis

CEO                         Company                     Compensation

Larry Ellison                Oracle                               $193 million

Frederic Poses             Trane                                $127 million

Aubrey McClendon      Chesapeake Energy           $117 million

Angelo Mozilo             Countrywide Finance         $103 million

Howard Schultz           Starbucks                            $99 million

Nabeel Gareeb             MEMC Electronic                  $80 million

Daniel Amos               Aflac                                     $75 million

In fact, the highest paid 25 CEOs in the country all made in excess of $46 million each.  These are phenomonal numbers.  I am the CEO of a private company  - considerably smaller than any of these individuals run (though last year I am pleased to announce we were more profitable last year than several of the companies on the list of the 25 highest paid CEOs).  I founded the company, but now have investors, and those investors deserve a decent return on their money.  Accordingly I work on a reasonable base salary, and a bonus based on profitability and growth.  No profitability - no bonus.  Seems like a reasonable deal to me.

While there are certainly great companies and great CEOs on the highest paid list (and many founders that created those great companies) - many actually were at the helm of shrinking companies with little or no profit - yet they made massive amounts of money - hence the great public concern of overpaid CEOs.  Average pay exceeding forty six million dollars a year is an incredible statistic, and shareholders have every reason to be irate. I am a believer in the power and importance of the entrepreneur, and compensation based on performance. CEOs that take home tens of millions per year while driving stockholder value into the ground should be thrown out.

ShareThis

Well, as we all know now the flat screen is now the standard for new televisions, and many homes do have them.  While the price has fallen drastically from $15,000, they are still pricey (hovering a little over a thousand to several thousand).  They are still gorgeous to look at, and it is no wonder that consumers are captivated by them and need to own one or two.   I own several. Fifteen years ago the average “home theatre” consisted of a 19 inch TV that could be purchased for $199.  Now many homes have huge plasma screens and sound systems that cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

And how did America pay for these home wonderful techologies?  Many families tapped into their home equity and essentially took out long term loans they could not afford to purchase luxury items that would last a few years.

The causes of our current economic meltdown are and will be widely discussed.  Certainly there is a lot of blame to go around.  Deregulation, greed, idiot politicians, excessive Wall Street compensation, silly and complicated financial instruments…… they all play a big part in the problem. But despite all the factors that created this perfect storm in the financial market, the real essence of the issue is that people bought a lot of stuff they could not afford.  The average American went on a buying binge.  They bought houses that cost two or three times what their salary could support.  They filled them with expensive “stuff” - including plasma televisions.  They lost control of their spending, and assumed that rising valuations would somehow bail them out at the end of the day.

And now it has all come crashing down.

My parents, both depression-era self-made people, were very conservative financially.  They resisted all debt.  That meant no credit card debt, no installment loans….. the only debt they had was their house loan, and it was a fixed-rate fifteen year loan that they paid off early.  The idea of buying a house you could not afford, “stuff” to fill your house, and then using your home to leverage that debt would seem incredible to them.  Their mantra was “only buy it if you can afford it”. They were disciplined. They bought used cars until they could pay cash for a new car.  They understood - as the country in learning now -  that debt is your enemy and a form of slavery.  If they needed extra money for something, they found a way to make some extra money.  They didn’t go out and borrow.

And when my Dad finally did buy a plasma television a few months before he passed away, he paid cash - and still complained about how much it cost until the day he died.

So America is suffering now because of our lack of fiscal control.  Like teenagers with a credit card, we went crazy, spent more than we could afford, and we have to figure a way out of the mess.  And this will result in a profound change in the way most people live. 

And here’s the ironic sidenote to the plasma television.  It was reported last week that the process of manufacturing them creates excessive amounts of methane gas that is leading to more global warming.

ShareThis

What funds were eligible to participate?
According to Treasury, all money market mutual funds that are regulated under Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, maintain a stable share price of $1 or more, and are publicly offered and registered with the SEC were eligible to participate in the Program. Tax-exempt and taxable money market funds were eligible to participate.

Why is the Program limited to accounts and assets as of Friday, September 19?
The decision to limit the Program to the value of accounts at the close of business on September 19 arose from grave concerns that ICI raised with the Treasury over the Program’s potential effects on flows among funds. Recently, large institutional shareholders, who hold almost two-thirds of assets in money market funds, have been moving money from general-purpose money market funds into funds that invest primarily in Treasury securities. The Program raised fears that this flow of funds would suddenly reverse if general-purpose funds joined the Program. By limiting the protection to account balances as of September 19, Treasury’s amendments should alleviate that problem.

Money market funds have $3.4 trillion in assets. The Program is funded with $50 billion. Is that enough?
We believe that the program is large enough to help restore investor confidence, for three reasons:

• In the 25-year history of money market funds, only one fund ever failed to maintain the $1.00 NAV prior to the unprecedented market conditions of recent weeks. Money market funds are strictly regulated by the SEC and operate under tight requirements for the liquidity, creditworthiness, and diversification of their assets.
• When a fund cannot maintain the $1.00 NAV, the shortfall is likely to be just pennies on the dollar. The fund that broke the buck in 1994 ultimately paid investors 96 cents on the dollar. If the guarantee plan were used, it would probably be called upon to pay only a small percentage of the assets of a covered fund.
• Recent large redemptions and other strains in money market funds have been caused primarily by lack of active trading in the money markets, principally in commercial paper. The Federal Reserve has taken and continues to take additional steps to improve liquidity in those and other markets. If those steps succeed in unlocking these markets, we have every hope and expectation that this Progam will never pay a claim.

I had an account in a money market fund on September 19, but I’ve withdrawn or added money since. How much am I covered for?
If your fund enrolled in the Program and then cannot maintain the $1.00 NAV (or, depending on the fund, a NAV greater than $1.00), you will be covered for the amount you had in the fund on September 19, or the amount you have when the Program is invoked-whichever is less-so long as you did not actually close your account. Treasury’s investor FAQs offer examples.

Is there a cap on the amount per account that’s covered?
No, there is no per-account cap on the coverage.

Why should I invest now in a money market fund if I’ve missed out on the guarantee plan?
Money market funds have long provided investors with capital preservation along with competitive rates of return. Money market funds are strictly regulated by the SEC and operate under tight requirements for the liquidity, creditworthiness, and diversification of their assets. In 25 years, $325 trillion in assets have flowed in and out of money market funds. Those same regulations are in place for all investors, whether they are covered by the guarantee plan or not.

Are retail and institutional shareholders all covered? What about foreign shareholders?
The plan covers all shareholders, retail and institutional, domestic and foreign, who had accounts on September 19 in the eligible funds that enrolled.

What about foreign-domiciled funds?
Only U.S.-registered funds that operate under Rule 2a-7 and are publicly offered were eligible for the plan.

How will I know if my fund is participating in the Program?
Ask your fund sponsor.

How long does the Program last?
The Program is intended to address temporary dislocations in credit markets. The initial Program will operate for three months, after which the Secretary of the Treasury will review it. The Secretary has the option to renew the Program until September 18, 2009. If the Secretary renews the Program after the three-month review, funds must re-enroll to extend their participation.

What were the Program costs? Who will bear the fees?
Funds paid a fee of 0.01 percent (1 basis point) or 0.015 percent (1.5 basis points) of their assets as of September 19, based on their NAV that day, for the initial three months. The fee may be paid from shareholder assets.

How will the coverage work?
If a participating fund cannot maintain its NAV (typically $1.00, but sometimes more), and the fund sponsor chooses not to provide credit support, the fund board would notify the Treasury that it has determined to liquidate the fund. The fund would then close and liquidate. The Program would pay the fund the difference between a $1.00 NAV (or an NAV of greater than $1.00) and its shareholder payout; the fund would distribute that payment to shareholders.

Does the Program cover a fund that broke the buck before September 19?
No.

What should I do if I’m concerned about my money market fund?
Contact the fund company for its latest available information.

So, the bottom line seems to be the following:

1. Check to see if your fund is participating.
2. Note you are only covered by this program if you invested in the money market fund prior to September 19th.
3. Also note the covereage ends on December 19th.

ShareThis

But while the Washington braintrust is tackling problems, perhaps they should give a little thought to cow farts. The gaseous old men in Washington might actually have special talents in this area.  My guess is that W and Dick Cheney are quite accustomed to gas attacks.  I can even envision Bush yelling at Cheney with delight as he enters the Oval Office - “Wyoming, get over here and pull my finger”.  But back to the topic. 

Unfortunately, when cows “poof” - or belch for that matter - they expel huge amounts of methane gas.  And experts pinpoint methane gas as a main contributor to the greenhouse effect.  In fact, they estimate 18% of the greenhouse effect is due to methane gas.

Now to be fair to cows, their gas is not the only source.  Sheep, goats, even water buffalo expel the toxic gas.  Certain plants emit it.  But cows are among the worst offenders, since there are over 1.2 billion cattle in the world, and the number is growing.  I love steak, but perhaps we all need to cut back on our carnivorous diets and eat a few more salads.

Entrepreneurs might see this as a great opportunity.  Beeno for cows?

ShareThis

Researchers Hannah Shaw Grove and Russ Alan Prince found that the rich have sex more frequently and with a greater variation of partners.  Now this might not come as a suprise to many rich men.  After all, do any of us really think that Donald Trump would be scoring super-models if he was “Donald the Plumber”?

But here is the stat that caught my eye.  Rich women actually seem to use their money to sexual advantage better than men.  84% of rich women versus 63% of rich men say having money means having better sex. And as all of us have always known, women regard sex differently than men.  The women in the study were much less concerned with multiple partners, but loved the idea that wealth brought them more exciting sexual experiences.  In fact, 72% of the women said they had “joined the mile high club”, as opposed to only 33% of the men.  Makes you look at the friendly skies completely differently!

Here was another suprise.  Rich women are even bigger cads than men!  73% of rich women, versus 53% of wealthy men admit to having an extramarital affair.

ShareThis