Months ago, the FTC began investigations into advertising on blogs. The early investigation has led to a rather strange outcome. Originally intended to examine the use of viral media in advertising, the investigation has led to recent news that the FTC will be requiring bloggers to provide full disclosure regarding any freebies they receive and then help promote. I must have missed a boat, somewhere. The blogs I read disclose just about everything. They talk about the companies that sent them free stuff. They talk about what they received, their thoughts on the product, and whether they would suggest it to other people. Then, they talk about having received the stuff, some more. Apparently, there is a super-secret blog cabal of people hiding the fact that they receive products for testing and marketing. I've always been of the mind that if someone asks me to check something out, or provides me with some product because they like what I've done, I should help them out, too. One good example is the Swim Smooth instructional video. I posted a You Tube video from the producer, and he noticed the traffic coming from my site. To help me better understand his teaching methods, he sent me the full video. I've used it for years, and benefited greatly from it. So, I keep a link to their site on my Training Partners page. Hopefully, others have seen the value of the program and purchased it. In the interest of "full disclosure," let me say that every single link on that page is to some company that has benefited my endurance career in a positive and worthwhile manner. Sometimes, that benefit has a very limited cash value. In others, the product or service was of much greater value. But the "worth" of their assistance goes far beyond dollar values. That's what the FTC may have missed. I'm waiting to see more details of the FTC guidelines. Perhaps the entire situation has no bearing on my blog. Perhaps the fines they are discussing are only for serious violations involving significant dollar values and no disclosure. Perhaps I'm overreacting. As I said, I must be missing something, somewhere. Are there bloggers out there making a living off "freebies" and hiding those associations from the world? Are there people promoting items they are unwilling to identify as freebies? I just have to wonder if the FTC might have better things to occupy their time. Maybe not.
As a member of the United States Congress, you took an Oath of Office to "support and defend the Constitution" of the United States. On March 19, 2009 you voted in support of resolutions to levy taxes against employees of AIG who received bonuses in accordance with contracts in force prior to and during the time Congress authorized funds to prevent a financial collapse of the company.
Through your vote, you supported a bill of attainder, legislative action expressly prohibited by Article I, Section IX of the US Constitution. This bill was generally targeted at individuals in bailed out companies and specifically targeted at AIG employees. The punitive taxes you support effectively punish AIG employees for receiving funds fully supported by previous legislation for which you voted. Having failed to fully comprehend the nature of the various bail-out bills enacted, Congress now seeks to cover their tracks by violating the Constitution.
In addition to this egregious violation, this bill seeks to retroactively alter contracts. This is both chilling and legally questionable. Congress is succinctly telling the business community that contracts can be rewritten at the whim of the controlling party.
My disagreement with prior votes can be attributed to a difference in ideologies. This vote cannot be answered as such. I, too, took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That oath did not end when I left the United States Navy, and it was never something to be taken lightly. I would ask that you return to the Constitution and recall the responsibilities and limitations that exist.
Though quite dumbfounded,
Very Respectfully,
Iron Pol
Member of Congress (insert your representative),
In light of the late availability of the full text of the final version of S.1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Congress puts itself in the awkward position of being unable to represent any of the constituents they serve. With more than 800 pages of text and thousands of items containing extremely controversial expenditures, quick passage of this bill will do a disservice to all Wisconsin citizens, regardless of their political ideology.
As this bill comes to the floor of the United States Senate, your first and most fervent argument should be that the American public deserves time to read and comprehend what is being proposed. If a vote is forced prior to Monday, February 16th, your vote should be in opposition to forcing this into law without giving your boss, the voting public, time to review the bill in its entirety.
Having read nearly the entire original text, a great many aspects of this bill disturb me, personally. Many more are downright frightening. The American public needs to time gain understanding of the full bill prior to it being voted upon and signed into law.
Very Respectfully,
Iron Pol (use real name and address for actual communication)
With Congress dead set on passing a stimulus package, and three Republican senators at least initially supporting the effort, it was interesting to listen to Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) justifying his vote for the aptly named "Porkulus" supplemental spending (oops, I mean "stimulus") bill.
He said that given our current situation, he felt that some action must be taken. While not perfect, he prefers taking any action over doing nothing. It seems nothing anyone says will help him to see the complete lack of logic in his stance. Here's an analogy that might do the trick.
While driving down the road, you hear a loud bang and feel your car suddenly swerve hard to one side. The ominous thumping confirms you have blown a tire. You pull off to the side of the road and head to the trunk of your car.
It's obvious you can't continue in your current "circumstance." You need change. Sadly, when you open the trunk, you see the spare is missing. This is bad, because you really need change. Since you can't fix the problem properly, but demand change, you do the one thing left to do.
Grab your shotgun, and proceed to shoot out the other tires on your car. Ahhhh! Change.
*Disclaimer* A distinctly political post follows. I welcome any responses, and retain the right to remove any specifically disrespectful and unreasonable responses.
Today, President Obama announced plans to limit executive pay packages at companies receiving funds from the federal government. The goal is to limit annual compensation to $500,000. In announcing the limits and referencing recent multi-million dollar compensation packages, President Obama said, "For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste. It's bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president."
Now, I can't begin to cover EVERY aspect of how this is wrong, so I'll limit myself to a couple. First, and most important, is that it is not the role of the President of the United States to determine what is or isn't appropriate in a compensation package for any individual that isn't directly employed by the Executive Branch of the United States government. President Obama has taken it upon himself to not only determine that a pay and compensation package is unacceptable, he claims the right to decide what package IS acceptable.
My first question for President Obama might be "What specific experience do you have with the management and oversight of a major corporation in the United States (or anywhere, for that matter)?" To the best of my knowledge, his experience in such matters is extremely limited. And the individual to whom he seems to have turned, newly confirmed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner can hardly be considered a trustworthy source of reasonable information. Secretary Geithner is a former executive at Goldman Sachs, the company at the center of tremendous scandal involving decisions about which companies the federal government will and will not bail out. He was also proven to be incompetent in the simple task of filing federal taxes when working for the International Monetary Fund. Despite being provided with detailed documentation on tax liabilities and increased pay to cover required taxes, he failed to report those taxes.
In his comments, Secretary Geithner commented that taxpayers feel those with no responsibility for the financial crisis are bearing more of the burden than those who played a greater role in the economic collapse. His comments are true, but his actions are misdirected.
Through his comments, Mr. Geithner implies the entire economic situation can be layed at the feet of financial executives. While those executives certainly bear some of the responsibility, the greater share of culpability belongs to the federal government. The government that mandated looser lending practices. The government that mandated Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac buy up marketable securities created from loans made under those looser policies. The federal government that refused to acknowledge that the environment created by their policies could not be sustained.
And the federal government that decided to force a $700 billion bailout down the throat of the American taxpayer.
Once upon a time, bad business practices were rewarded with failure. Had the federal government allowed the market to determine what should happen to the various companies, they would have gone under. President Obama would have no need to chastise executives for billions in compensation because they would have received little to nothing as the value of stock crashed, revenues ceased to exist, and assets became worth little more than the paper on which they were written. Instead, the federal government put the American taxpayer into the position of funding failure.
President Obama also said, "This is America. We don't disparage wealth. But what gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
You are right, Mr. President, but you have it backwards. The American taxpayer is upset about private companies once again being subsidized by their hard earned money. If the federal government wasn't rewarding failure, this discussion wouldn't even be needed.
Perhaps, rather than dictating the operations of private organizations, your administration can allow the free market to do what it has always done so well. Eventually reward those who work hard and play by the rules. And eventually punish those who forget how the free market system works.
Your plan is sure to have one effect. By limiting the compensation for the top executives of billion dollar companies, you ensure they will continue to be run by the very people who ran them into the ground. After all, what experienced and highly qualified executive is going to go to a company where they can earn $500,000 a year when there are so many others where they can earn far more?
Instead of getting out of the way, you have just made a move toward total control of the markets you claim to be "free."
WARNING: Inherently political post to follow. Those interested in triathlon specific content, there is none in this post.
Anyone who knows me with any amount of clarity can confidently state my political beliefs. I am a conservative. Note that I didn't say I am a Republican. It is an important distinction. Being a conservative means one holds a specific set of beliefs on social and economic issues. Being a Republican implies membership in a specific political party.
Over the past several months, there has been a great deal of discussion about the "failure" of conservative principles. As a true conservative, allow me to point out that it is really the abandoning of those principles that has put us where we are, today. And given the current state of things, it appears we may get to take a ride similar to what my parents experienced when President Carter was in office. I believe that to be likely regardless of who assumes the presidency in 2009.
While Senator McCain has supported many policies that go against deeply held conservative beliefs, Senator Obama voices opinions that are far more disturbing. Unfortunately, far too many people want to focus on Senator Obama's past, when there is so much of the present to discuss. Though I believe Obama's connections to frighteningly anti-American individuals show an incredible lack of judgment, I will take him at his word. When he says he can separate those beliefs from his service to the country, I see no underlying deceit.
I will also, however, accept him at his word regarding other things. Obama reveals most about himself when speaking in unscripted moments. Months back, speaking at a private event in California, Obama commented about bitter people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..." My question for Senator Obama would be, "Does that apply to everyone who owns a gun and believes in God, just the ones who don't vote for you, or some specific group?" It is interesting that Obama chose to pick those specific issues. Most of the issues he cited are issues important to the conservative voter.
Last Sunday, at a rally in Ohio, Senator Obama responded to a plumber's question about taxes stating, "It's not that I want to punish your succes. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Senator Obama made Karl Marx very proud with that statement. It was Karl Marx who stated, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." He was referencing communism. What Obama proposes with his "spread the wealth" comment is increased socialism.
His comment begs the question about success in this country. He presumes to state that if Joe the Plumber is succeeding, it is because someone else is somehow missing the opportunity to succeed. It's a flawed argument. Joe's success has no impact on somebody else's ability to succeed. Everyone has a shot at the dream job in this country. Just look at Senator Obama. From apparently humble beginnings he is in a very small group of people positioned to become President of the United States.
He says he doesn't want to "punish your success," then indicates that is exactly what he is going to do. If Joe builds a successful company, Obama will force him meet Joe Biden's definition of patriotism, pay more taxes. That money will then be "spread around" to those who didn't earn it (please note, there is no discussion of who may or may not deserve the money, that's irrelevant).
Here is another simple question for Senator Obama (and those who still think his plans are brilliant). How many jobs have you held where the employer was a lower or middle class individual? Now, how many jobs have you held where they employer was a very successful (and yes, wealthy) individual, or a corporation? Personally, other than mowing lawns as a youngster, I've never had a job provided by someone of modest means. And even as a youngster, lawn mowing jobs came from the more successful members of the neighborhood. Those of more modest means cut their own lawns.
Senator Obama asks that we take him at his word. I do. I take him at his word that he doesn't harbor some dark, hidden belief about the United States. And I take him at his word that he views a large majority of the US population as people, "clinging to guns and religion," and that he wants to, "spread the wealth around."
That's not what I want in a president.
Warning Two: Please feel free to respond. There are two things to keep in mind. First, I will take no offense at any respectfully offered rebuttal, and little offense at the rest. Second, I love debate, and may respond with passion. At no time will I mean to give any offense, and regardless of any disagreement, I place more value on friendship than political affiliation. Just ask my best friend, the die-hard liberal.
|
RSS Feed