The way out is the way in

"The way out is the way in" has an analogue: one door closes, another one opens.

After reading Suldog's "Happy New Year to Me" entry, it may be true: lose a job, get hired for a new one.  It might take a month, a year, or longer, but it's never easy, especially when it comes to the end of the year and at the expense of longevity.

Whenever people get laid off for business purposes (and not disciplinary ones - as in getting flat-out fired for being flat-out stupid), or at meetings where layoffs are discussed and people are concerned they'll be next, I always go back to the time I was laid off in 1995 from a company operating in Newton Corner.

Layoffs and staff reductions are usually geared to getting rid of deadwood, but sometimes when management has already gotten rid of incompetent and corrupt employees, they have to get rid of the loyal (those who have worked over 20 years) and those who make too much money (why keep a $40k worker when you can retain $20k workers?).

I was between temping in Downtown Boston after college and beginning to pay off student loans when I happened upon an ad working for hotel reservations for major companies.  The pay wasn't stellar, but enough to pay the bills I did have and keep a little cash on the side.

I began in August of 1995.  We had one big firm that was having a major convention in the South.  First, they had me typing in reservations...which was fine.  Then they had me going onto the phones, taking reservations.

There were good days when the reservationers were friendly; other days, I simply wanted the job to end.  I used to work from 11am to 8pm, come home on the express bus, and did it all again the next day.  Soon, I went to a traditional 9am - 5pm schedule.

Sometimes, to cheer employees up, management brought in food and had prizes, but somehow all that food got consumed while me and a few other people were on the phones.  In between doing the phones and entering reservations, I frequently got called to the carpet for accuracy and/or not selling people places other than the Big Hotels.

My health was also going downhill.  I had a near nervous breakdown in November 1995, enough to send me home and have a meeting with my supervisor the next day.  However, after Thanksgiving, everything seemed to improve.  I received about details about health insurance, salary, etc.  The company was going to have its annual Christmas Party at the hotel across the street.

Then December 5 came around.

Back then, I didn't see the warning signs: my time card was filled out for the rest of the week and it was only Tuesday; an admin handed me a $17 check for items I had purchased.  I was doing my usual work after I returned from lunch when my manager tapped me on the shoulder and told me to come to the office.

He gave The Speech - we lost two accounts, and as a result I no longer had a job.  He gave the same speech to nine other colleagues.   When I returned to my desk to collect my stuff, other managers and supervisors were devastated, apologized profusely, but the damage was done.

Oh, and we were disinvited from the company Christmas Party.

About a few months later, after I got hired temp-to-perm, I met up with an old colleague.  She was still working there and filled me in on the details of what happened after we were laid off:

• One woman who came that night to work and discovered us laid off quit immediately.
• The group we were making reservations for had their credit cards charged two or three times, which led to very angry conventioneers and a loss of another account, which led to more layoffs.
• Some of the subordinates were having inappropriate personal relationships with supervisors, which resulted in more firings - the people who were participating in those relationships and managers who looked the other way.
• Some of the management who had severe personality conflicts and rage problems with other co-workers was later fired.

From what I can gather, the final straw came when the owner sold it to a national congolmerate, sent the phone jobs to India, and fired everyone else.

The more I think about it, I was glad I got laid off from that company.  I don't like to talk cold on the phone (and a later temp job cemented that so much that I actually gave my agency my last day), but the promise of health insurance and being hired full time made me hang on until management decided, after four months, to let me go.

Businesses naturally don't want to panic other workers into feeling, "oh my God, I might be next!" but that's the nature of business, cruel as it is.  I say that each and every time someone gets laid off - and add that months from now, we might look at those layoffs as blip on the screen.

The impending death of WTKK

WTKK, ex-WSJZ, ex-WKLB, and for the longest time, WJIB (before it found a new home on 740 AM, which itself was WCAS), will likely go to the big Talk Radio Station in the Sky in the next week or two and be replaced with yet another derivative, shallow, dare I say corporate (as a slur/code word meaning profit grubbing capitalists) dance/top 40 radio station.

When I began listening to 'TKK in 1999, it was a fresh change.  I started getting more conservative leanings listening to Eagan & Braude, the Inside Track girls, Jay Severin, Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus, Michael Graham, and others.  It outsurvived Air America (in which the hosts of that long-gone network now ply their wares on MSNBC and NPR), and up until a couple of years ago, had promise and talent.  Then controversy worked its way in.  Imus and Severin were fired; Bill O'Reilly was shelved; and national conservative broadcasters far more strident filled in.

The big thing I take away from this is that any kind of media format or gimmick has its niche until it runs out of steam.  Westerns, for instance, ran on TV from the early 50's to the late '70s.  Then game shows had their run on daytime from the late '50s to the late 2000's.  Soap operas were on every station from 12 noon to 4pm on every network between 1951 to 2008; now, there are only three soaps remaining.  Scripted reality shows will die out;  "Housewives of (fill in city here)", Survivor (fill in far-flung and dangerously infested country), and Big Brother will have its heroes elevated and its villains shilling infomercial products.  And rarely do you hear about scripted professional wrestling anymore.

Compare this to the late David Brudnoy, the late Jerry Williams, and the current Dan Rea on WBZ, who treated their audiences to a differing viewpoint without being shouted out.  They treated their listeners with patience, respect, and honor, not as people to be mocked so they can sell shady products.  And you actually learn something from these hosts - you don't walk away with a side-eye looking for the nearest shower.

Talk radio - conservative and liberal - is a dying breed because it's bloviating and preaching to its separate choirs.  Listening to 'TKK became tedious - it was as much the pro-Bush network as it was the anti-Obama network.  But any network falls into that place where they don't have to worry about their dissenters because they have their blunderbuss aimed right at their face.

The Fairness doctrine didn't kill WTKK.  The audience just dwindled away.

Update: WTKK 1999-2013, as of the end of Eagan & Braude's program.

The Alternative Minimum Tax Silencer

I've never advocated for the Alternative Minimum Tax because it never affected me. Without giving away too much on how I earn, it seems every time the waves of the AMT reach my financial front door, they seem to be swept away by another few bags of sand, in the form of a "patch."

The AMT is a lovely little tax that has only two rates - 26% and 28%.  If you reach the magic IRS amount, you will be made to calculate your income tax twice - first through the traditional method, and then through the AMT - and then pay the higher tax amount.  With the AMT, you cannot claim the standard or personal deduction; other deductions are very limited.  You would end up paying a LOT more in taxes, and you'll be very lucky to escape alive (with a refund).

Over the past few years, the AMT has become more like a surf wave that hits more houses, as it has never been indexed to inflation since 1969.  It would make sense to raise the AMT level, rather than having tens of millions of middle class earners to fork over an obscene amount of tax.

A new, revised AMT would involve the following:

1. Those earning more around $250,000 for singles, $375,000 for head of household, and $500,000 for married couples would automatically be subject to calculating the AMT.  Once the AMT is paid for the year, a credit is applied to next year's taxes.

2. The percentages on which levels would be increased from 26% to 33% for $250,000-$500,000 and from 28% to 35% for above $500,000.

3. All members of Congress - including the President - will automatically be subject to the AMT for as long as they hold office.

Now, I don't earn $250,000 a year, but the people who would be affected would be the same people clamoring for higher taxes - like celebrities, sports players, entertainers, activists, and other lobby groups.  It would certainly shut them up when they see that they're on the hook with Uncle Sam for at least $82,500 - the cost of a luxury car, a vacation to an exclusive island, a Rolex, or a shopping spree in New York - and perhaps more, because the AMT doesn't allow deductions.  They cannot schmooze away what they really owe with fancy accounting footwork - they have to bite down and write that check.  It would be a treat to watch Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other billionaires be forced to fund the government to the tune of $350 million per billion.

This is what Obama should unequivocably advocate for - updating and raising the level of the AMT, while excluding a lot of middle class earners from it.  By doing so, it would bring in real revenue from the real rich - those with an aristocratic attitude who want to influence the daily lives of others through their caprice, their arrogance, and their profligacy.  Recalibrating the AMT also alienate and infuriate all his friends and supporters that contributed millions to his (perpetual) campaign, only to be backstabbed with higher taxes.

Maybe with elections, forced retirements, and other activities, some authentic tax reform will come around that everyone would agree would be fair, bring in the appropriate revenue, and finally end class warfare.  But you and I know that Congress, given short time, would probably put in quick fixes until the same, tired, cliched drama rolls around next time.

The Fiscal Blarney Stone

It is rumored that the Blarney Stone in Ireland gives the one who kisses it magical powers of conversation.  If the Irish have transported even a small part the Blarney Stone to Washington, somehow it's given its politicians the gift to bullshit the entire nation.

What we have is not a fiscal cliff, nor a bump, curb, ant hill, or anything else.  It's a public pissing match between the radical wings of the left and the right in Congress, trying to put their version of fiscal and social utopia in place and trying to establish total power.  Whether it's taxes, entitlements, spending, or anything else, someone's going to be hurting no matter what resolution comes about.

Which is why I say do nothing.  Let the tax rates skyrocket, let the cuts to spending come home roost.  Let everyone share in the misery of everyone paying high taxes, watch the unemployment rate skyrocket, and then maybe, just maybe, the public who willingly votes people into office on looks and promises will dump these losers, hacks and know-nothings out in 2014 with quadruple the ferocity of 2010.

Simply do nothing - don't fix a damn thing.  For the first months, people will be fed up with gridlock in Washington.  Then the volume will get louder and louder until someone with guts says, "let's cut the crap and get things moving - or our political careers are toast."

And by all means, keep talking smack to one another, Congress and Mr. President, until someone lets the real agenda slip out of their mouths - total and absolute control over the entire nation.  The first person who utters on camera - even off the record - "we're doing this to grab power," and their party will be rendered into the ash heap of political irrelevancy.  It doesn't matter who does it - all it takes is one admission.

But don't call this a crisis.  It's a pure pissing match between the radical wings, all broadcast by a willing press.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And its only resolution will be to keep the status quo and kick the can down the road for another year - unless a brainstorm of lightning hits Washington and suddenly gives its politicians common sense.

Update: Jonathan Krugman of the New York Post comes up with the truth: Obama wants to raise the  the debt ceiling again so the government can spend more.  That's what happened the last time until Congress came to a "resolution."  Again, I say let everything melt down, go into a hellish talespin, and only then will someone come forward and say, "stop acting like pissy little drama queens and come to a solution - or else we vote you all out."

When "single (blank)" is code for "state monopoly"

Massachusetts operates its liquor stores by letting independent distributors purchase and sell the liquor in retail stores.  Other stores let the state itself price and distribute the booze - a prime example being New Hampshire, where you can buy certain kinds of beer in drug stores but you could only buy the hard stuff at State Liquor Stores.

Due to yesterday's Hurricane Sandy, many stores were closed up and down the Eastern Seaboard.  Most reopened today - except for all liquor stores in Pennsylvania (via Consumerist, Philly.com), which closed per their Liquor Control Board "to assess the damage from Hurricane Sandy."

Now, if that meant "to prevent people from looting the stores for free liquor," that's one thing (and understandable - but no one should be denied a tipple in between cleaning out from a hurricane).  If it means "we want to make sure none of the stores were damaged," it's fine.  But when it's a vague phrase meant to keep people in the dark (no pun intended), and when people are crossing into Maryland and Delaware to purchase - it raises a lot of eyebrows.

One of the comments in Philly.com, however, drew my attention.  In reference to Pennsylvania's oft-maddening liquor purchase laws, which would make Ben Franklin drink,

"The truth is if [the Liquor Control Board is] run really efficiently, and being a single buyer for the whole state, this system could really have the lowest prices anywhere."

I take "single buyer" to be the code for "state monopoly."  Single buyer implied some nice middle-aged guy named Fred works in Harrisburg and buys all the alcohol for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  State monopoly evokes deep bureaucracies that we thought had died with the Soviet Union.

In fact, "single (blank)" is shorthand for state monopoly in anything.  ("Medicare for All" is the cynically cutesy code for "You have no choice for healthcare other than what we're offering, and if you don't like it, tough.")  This is why it makes sense when people want "single payor" healthcare, they really are referring to a state monopoly where a thick, unwavering bureaucracy makes every decision on health care as if they have a rubber band firmly tightened over their hinterparts, controlling every single aspect of healthcare from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how much sleep we get, and what medicines we're allowed to take.  The state and only the state gets to determine things, not individuals or businesses.

And that's what people really believe to their own selfish and myopic means: that if they're ruled over by the state, they will be treated benevolently.  Most often, they realize the harsher reality of a dictatorship: no room complaints and criticism, no freedom of movement, and a huge cult of personality they must honor, or else.

The real meaning behind "you didn't build that"

Mark Trumbull of the Christian Science Monitor puts forth an excellent column behind Obama's "you didn't build that" speech.

Here is the complete excerpt:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

And also the final summary, emphasis mine:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Now if you put both of those phrases together, they do make an abundant amount of sense, don't they?  Any President who is mindful that (a) people have a great opportunity to be successful and (b) are willing to put forth their dreams can do it.  You could of course do everything on your own, from the sweat of your brow, and turn out to be wildly successful, but it's an uphill battle.  If you get more people involved, it makes the job a lot easier.

"You didn't build that" to me, doesn't mean "The government built it, it gets all of the credit, so don't try anything funny."  It's more astonishment and amazement that without even the grain of help the government could give (better yet, the rules and regulations it could impose), the government is saying, "C'mon, are you serious?  You got absolutely zero help from us or anyone else, and it's successful?" Then once the person proves their success, the government can say, "Well done."

Again, reading the whole speech and not cherry-picking certain phrases the left and right like, you get the full picture.

UPDATE 9/2/2012: Kyle Smith of the New York Post has more.

Chief Justice Roberts' neat tricks

Chief Justice John Roberts did something I like in regards to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare - it was certainly not a dirty trick, but a fairly neat one in its cleverness and simplicity.

After a few days of celebrating, chest-thumping, and self-congratulation, the hangover from the people who wanted ACA upheld will leave them thinking about something else.  "ACA is upheld, but what did they say about that tax thingy?"

In an election year, raising taxes in an election year is an election killer.  Walter Mondale, when running for President in 1984 against Reagan, stated thus when nominated by his party: "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."

Little wonder why Mondale was trounced; Reagan won 49 states; Mondale his own home state of Minnesota plus the District of Columbia.  525-13 was the soundest trouncing of a Presidential candidate since 1936.

If you were running for office, would you want to celebrate imposing tax increase on those who don't have health insurance?  If a person doesn't obtain health insurance in the first year of ACA in 2014, they pay a $95 per year/1% of income fine.  Later on, it increases to $220/2.5% of income fine.  Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people who can't afford or choose not to purchase health insurance and you have the biggest tax increase in American history, as the ACA will be funded not just with people who elect to pay the fine, but people who might be fined for not having adequate health insurance as defined by the government.  Update 7/1/2012: Terry Keenan of the New York Post has more - including fines for small businesses paying anywhere from $40,000 to $140,000 for not supplying health insurance to workers.

Chief Justice Roberts' tricks?  First, he took away Obama's ability to implement the ACA through executive order, which might have happened if the ACA were struck down and caused even more problems (executive branch usurping the judicial branch would have caused a huge firestorm).  Second, he gave Obama and the remaining Democrats the distasteful task of telling voters why the ACA must be funded through taxes.  Voters who brought in the Republicans in 2010 through a "shellacking" will now likely make sure those who mention ACA as "good for them" be drummed out of office.  Third, and most importantly, Roberts assured the public that judicial activism - ruling from the bench - does not replace or circumvent the right to vote to strike down laws.

Hence, you could be a judge who is hell-bound to rule for their own whims and biases, yet it ultimately comes down to the voters who will make the final, absolute decision to uphold or strike down a law, directly through referendum or indirectly through voting in someone who will strike down the laws in question.  That's what voters did with Scott Brown in 2010 and with Congress months later - they took their displeasure to the ballot box.

Chief Justice Roberts handed the Obama administration a victory - but not a victory they want to promote.  In effect, Chief Justice Roberts said, "Try to defend your law as a tax increase on every single American - and don't be surprised if more voters decide to speak loudly through the ballot box."

Full disclosure: I work for a health insurance company.  My opinions do not reflect those of my company and are wholly my own.