Messing around

I woke up this morning around 6:30 and laid in bed for about 10 minutes, trying to go back to sleep, before I decided it was just ridiculous lying there and just got up. Gave Clyde some treats, made the coffee and brought the paper in. By 7:30 I was done with the paper - not much news worth reading in the paper this morning. More of the same old stuff - Hillary complaining about Barack, McCain in trouble because of ethics, drought, etc. Enough of this.

Fire up the computer, read through email, not much there either, not even much spam last night. Start reading articles from the NY Times, sports sites and others. Hmm, maybe I should peruse the blogs of my family and friends. Not much going on there either.

So maybe it's time to blog about public campaign financing now, but nah, not right now. But, oh, here's something interesting, on the Blogger dashboard I read about GrandCentral and since I like to investigate new things I decided to see what it was all about and then signed up.

The concept is pretty neat - you put a call me button on your blog that looks like this:



and someone, anyone, can click it and call you without ever giving out your cell, home or business phone number. Your calls go to any number you want. You can screen the calls if you want by having them go directly to voicemail. All of your calls can be accessed online through your GrandCentral web account. You can even post the conversations on your blog if want to.

Courtesy of Google

Well, I guess this is what happens when your wife goes out of town, you're home alone with the cat and left to your own designs! Thanks, Google, this at least kept me entertained for awhile. I'll have to wait and see what happens with this. I guess it's time to go do some taxes now - I've put work off long enough.

Just me and Clyde

Well, Mrs. B. is in Florida with Lucy so it is just us boys at home.

Clyde, as you all probably know, has been a little under the weather. But, so far so good. He has been quite the attention hog when I've gotten home from work each night. Last night I decided that I would just read in bed and it was all I could do to see my book. He kept trying to get between my head and the book so that I would pet him. I probably "read" for about 2 hours and didn't get more than 10 pages into the book. Hmm, maybe it was the book! I am starting to read Ceasar Milan's second book about dogs so that might be it. If it was about cats he might not have minded. :-)

Well, anyhow, I got home tonight and dutifully went upstairs and gave him a few pets as well as supper. Then went back down and made a martini and started with email when I thought that, you know, I should just go get Clyde and bring him downstairs. So I did.

I sat back down and put Clyde in my lap, after having paraded him around the entire downstairs to show him that his nemesis, Lucy, wasn't here. He jumped down pretty quickly, as he usually does, but wandered around downstairs. He then crouched on the rug at the foot of the stairs, being very vigilant. It was almost like he couldn't believe that the dog wasn't here!

Right now he is sitting on my lap, after having explored one more time on his own. He must have decided in that cat brain of his that everything is okay. The only thing that I wish was different is that he didn't breath that god awful, fishy smell in my face every time he talks to me.


Yes, Mrs. B., the Cldyster ate some tuna and egg tonight. Warmed it up in the microwave - yum, yum!!!!

Clyde and me at the table
in front of the computer

Campaign Financing

Okay, just so you know, my blog isn't going to be just about politics and taxes, I promise! But, you know how something catches your eye and you start reading - well that happened to me this morning.

Usually I'm not this interested in politics because frankly it was my ex-wife's near fanatical support of the democratic party. Any time I said anything that was in disagreement with her views it led to a huge fight. Since I couldn't talk to her about politics I just barely read enough to be able to vote intelligently. Now, it's different - Mrs. B. has her viewpoint and I have mine. And we can talk about politics, not that we do very often, but at least it doesn't lead to an argument.

I'm registered as an independent because I don't agree with the platforms of either party. There millions out there just like me that like concepts that both parties espouse, but find others abhorrent. My ideal candidate would be:

• fiscally conservative and reduce the deficit
• ethical, moral
  
• free market economic viewpoint
  
• supporter of an individual's right to choose (not only on abortion, but on numerous individual rights)
• support handgun restrictions (yes, I do believe that there should be some restrictions on an individual's rights, but that is another blog post all on it's own.)
  
• fix the mess our social programs are in, including social security, but keeping in mind the first point above
  
• find a way to create a reasonable national health insurance program

There are many other points, but this post is getting long enough as it is so I'll stop and return to the list at some point in a future blog. And I know that the only person that would match this description is probably a cartoon character, but anyhow, I can wish can't I?

Well, anyway, I have paid more attention to the presidential election this year because I really do not know who to vote for. I really do not like any of the candidates, and as Mrs. B. knows, I would rather have an independent, third party candidate to vote for like Michael Bloomberg. I know he is not perfect either. So I have been reading a lot of different articles about McCain, Obama and Clinton since it still doesn't appear that Bloomberg is really going to run.

This morning I saw a caption about an article that quoted McCain saying that Obama should take public financing for the general election campaign. And that he shouldn't back out on his promise to do so. Then there's the Obama camp's response:

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it."

and

Obama told reporters on Friday that it would be "presumptuous of me to say now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it."

and this from McCain

"If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we'd have to rethink our position," McCain said. "Our whole agreement was that we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I'm told, that made that commitment."


More political lies as usual, I wondered? So, I decided to check the truth behind the statements in the article to see what was and wasn't really true. I searched and found a number of articles from the NY Times that seemed to support McCain's assertion that Obama had in fact pledged to accept public campaign funds. I read at least half a dozen different articles that indicated that this wasn't a lie on McCain's part:


NY Times, March 2, 2007: McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

. . .“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said. . .

and

. . .Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent. . .

Ok, so Obama issues the challenge for the republican challenger to accept public campaign financing and will "... aggressively pursue an agreement..." Sounds like he is promising to use public financing to me.

He even went as far as to ask for an opinion from the Federal Election commission on whether he could raise funds for the general election and then give them back. And he did get a response to his inquiry.

Seems that the Federal Election Commission granted Obama the right to solicit funds for the general election and then return them to the original donors if he only followed a few rules that Obama originally proposed in his original request which are not very onerous at all:

"The Commission approved the process described by the campaign’s request in which:

• Contributions designated for the general election will be kept in a separate account;
• Only the campaign treasurer and chief operating officer will have access to this account; and
• The funds in this account will not be used for any purpose."

And the approval goes on to state that any other presidential candidate can either follow these procedures or seek a ruling on their own set of procedures.

Well, maybe Obama didn't come out and say he would only accept public campaign financing, but he did challenge the other party's candidate to promise to use only public campaign financing and that he would pledge to do so as well.

Where's your pledge Obama?

Don't get the wrong idea about this blog, I haven't decided to support McCain, I was simply interested in checking out the comments in the original article. What do you think?


In case you would like additional information on public campaign finance laws you can click on this link and it will take you to the Federal Election Commission's web page that contains the rules to qualify for public campaign financing. Which will be the content for yet another blog.

Superdelegates

There has been a lot of press lately about the so called "Superdelegates" and I thought that it was a very worthy topic to blog about.

Superdelegates are democratic officals, both in elected office and appointed that have the right to vote at the democratic convention. There are currently 796 of these individuals. The superdelegates are made up from the democratic members of congress, democratic governors, party leaders and former heads of the Democratic National Committee, former democratic presidents (Gee, I wonder who Bill is going to vote for?), former democratic leaders from the house and senate. There are some other democrats appointed to these positions that hold posts in other democratic organizations like Young Democrats of America.

So what this could mean at the nominating convention is that if the vote lead Clinton or Obama have over the other is less than this number then it is possible that the candidate with the fewer delegates based on the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses could become the democratic candidate for president.

Nice huh!

The current system was established in 1984 to prevent a candidate or populist ideal from swaying the party too far one way or the other. If this looked likely to happen the superdelegates were there to prevent this from happening.

What happened to: "Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people..."? I don't see anything in there that says "by a few people." I think that this is wrong to be able to undermine a candidate that has achieved a victory through the primaries and caucuses.

And to give the republicans equal time - that have "unpledged delegates" that currently stand at around 123. Much less of an impact on their convention, but it is there nonetheless.

I believe that much of what is wrong in this country today has been fostered by the two party system that is currently in place. The election laws need to be modified to allow a viable third party to join the fray or at least make it easier for a non-aligned candidate to run for president. The way it is right now no one, short of a very wealthy person, can afford to try to run for office against the two entrenched parties. I think that this is wrong and should be changed.

Recipe for Disaster

Ingredients
1 - car
1 - driver
1 - cell phone
1 - cell phone call (for an alternative spice replace with a text message)

Put the first three ingredients together, start the car and head on down the highway. Set the speed for at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. Oh, don't forget to turn on the radio or CD player.

Okay, now that everything is set, hmm, I know call or text someone! That's the idea - what a wonderful tool. You never have to be out of touch. Call that girl friend or your wife or parents. No sense letting all this time behind the wheel be wasted.

Bam!!!





Huh? Where did that car come from? How come they stopped?

Can you say distracted?

I know, I know, all of us do use a cell phone at times while we are driving, but seriously, do you really think that you are aware enough of everything going on around you when you do? I doubt it.

I remember in high school when I was in Driver's Education, Mr. Davis, the instructor, would constantly remind everyone that you should always keep your eyes moving. Never only look straight ahead. A driver needs to know not only what's in front of them, but behind and to each side. You never know when the person beside you decides that they need to be in your lane or that someone is closing the gap behind you much too quickly or that someone is backing out of a driveway to the side of you. Don't look in any one place for more than five seconds!!! That seemed to be his personal mantra. And not a bad one - it has served me well and kept me out of trouble on a number of occasions! Just ask Mrs. B. about our drive back on 85 from the Renaissance Festival a couple of years ago.

So, I have a question for you, how can you pay attention to your driving while chatting on a cell phone, waving your hands around, or worse yet, texting someone (which I have witnessed on numerous occasions driving home at night after work) ? Seriously, how can you watch where you're going if you are trying to key in a text message? The answer is you can't. No wonder there are so many accidents around here. I'm not saying that texting or chatting on a cell phone is the cause of all the accidents - it isn't. But, a lot of people drive really badly around here already (following too closely, passing where you shouldn't, speeding, rapid lane changes - the list goes on) and using a cell phone only makes matters worse.

On more occasions that I can count I have passed someone in the morning, during the day and at night coming home from work that is simply oblivious to what is going on around them. Driving 20 miles per hour below the speed limit in the left hand lane seems to be a favorite of some. Others are swerving in and out of traffic like they think are some type of IRL legend, all the while talking on a cell phone. Dumb, just plain dumb. And the thing I hate most about this is that it endangers me, my family and a lot of other people that I do not even know. So what's the answer?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? Turn off your cell phone, pay attention to where you are and drive safely! I think that it is high time for our state representatives to pass a law that bans talking, or texting, on a cell phone while driving. The legislature needs to step up to the plate and ban these devices while driving like New York and a number of other states have. Then if it is so important that you can't wait to chat to your girl friend about your new do, then pull over so you don't get a ticket and chat, but off the road and away from me!





I even have the perfect road sign to inform our pious and upstanding citizens that they shouldn't be talking on their cell phones on the highways and streets. What do you think? Think they might get the message?








If you have a better idea, please let me know.

By the way, for the uninitiated (which I was before I met Mrs. B.) IRL stands for Indy Racing League.

Mother first?

Give me a break! Hillary claiming to be a mother first and then a candidate? Right! Calling for the correspondent to be given a harsher punishment rather than just a suspension is really too much. Given the harsh tone of her message we will probably see some tears within the next 2 days to counterbalance her image.

Brings back memories of how the media was used and abused during the Clinton presidency. Deja vu anyone?

Pimp

Pimp
2 entries found.

pimp[1,noun] pimp[2,verb]

Main Entry:

¹pimp

Pronunciation:

\ˈpimp\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

probably akin to British dialect pimp small bundle of sticks, Middle English pymple papule, German Pimpf young boy, kid, literally, little fart, Pumpf, Pumps fart

Date:

1600

: a man who solicits clients for a prostitute

Main Entry:

²pimp

Function:

verb

Date:

1636

intransitive verb

: to work as a pimp transitive verb : to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit

Source: Merriam Websters online dictionary

Okay, okay, why am I posting a definition for pimp? Well, because as I was reading the paper this morning I happened to see this article about a correspondent being suspended for a remark he made. Don't know why the article caught my eye, but it did.

So it seems that the MSNBC correspondent made the following comment:

"Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Now, what he was asking about is how Chelsea is being used to try reach out to superdelegates, calling and asking them to vote for her mother. I happen to believe that she is also being used to lure younger voters that Hillary doesn't seem to be able to attract. Well, I for one, can't understand why anyone would be attracted to Hillary's campaign platform, but that's beside the point. Here's a link to one article about her changing role in her mother's campaign.

Seems that Howard Wolfson, Hillary's communications director for the campaign, didn't like the comment and was quoted as saying:

"disgusting," "beneath contempt" and "the kind of thing that should never be said on a national news network."

And now the campaign is rethinking their participation in an upcoming debate with Barack on MSNBC. Please, don't participate - there is already enough verbal pollution swirling around all of the campaigns.

Hmm, I don't know why it shouldn't have been said. For all appearances it does seem that Chelsea is being exploited for Hillary's benefit and I would say that meets the definition of being pimped. The use may not be dishonorable, but that doesn't mean the word doesn't fit or that it shouldn't have been used. Do you think this might be another ploy? Will we see another, staged, teary-eyed television news spot decrying the awful things this disgusting person said in an effort to show Hillary's softer side?

Pah! Hillary is about as soft as my tile floor. On second thought, maybe my tile floor is softer!

Give the guy a break and leave him alone. He only posed a question that is fairly obvious if anyone even remotely follows what's gone on during the earlier parts of these political campaigns. Each candidate is looking to exploit every advantage they have. They are all pimping, every blessed last one of them.

Just my 2 cents.

An update on Mr. Snipes

Mr. Snipes got very lucky I think - the jury's decision is back and he was found not guilty of fraud, but his two co-defendants face up to 10 years in prison; Blade just owes back taxes.

Here's the newspaper article.

Still, he is going to have to pay quite a bit. If you round up the $58 million to $60 and assume he earned it equally over 2002 to 2004 he would owe $7 million in tax for each year. Throwing in failure to file and failure to pay penalties adds another 100% to each year. Kind of harsh, I know, but the minimum penalty when returns are more than 6 months late is $100 or 100% of the tax due when both of these penalties apply.

There is also a fraud penalty that can be assessed that adds another 75%, but Blade managed to get out of this one.

So, what we have so far is $7 million in tax and $7 million in penalties for each year so far. Now we add in interest - I'm going to make it easy and say that he only owes 5%, simple interest and that it's going to take him until April to pay (I said I was going to make it easy, didn't I?). At 5% per year that adds $350,000 in interest for each year the tax hasn't been paid.

Blades 2002 return was due in April 2003 which means that he would owe interest for 5 years or $1.8 million. For the 2003 tax return he owes one year less or $1.4 million and for 2004 he only owes $1.1 million in interest.

What all this means is that my estimate of what he will need to pay is:

2002 $15.8
2003 $15.4
2004 $15.1

Total due $46.3 million!

Hmm, better start on Blade IV real quick! And file your tax return this time.

IRS Scams

No, not scams to try to cheat on your taxes, but scams leveraging people's fears of the IRS .

Since my business is taxes I subscribe to a number of news services like I mentioned yesterday. One of those services happens to be from the Internal Revenue Service. In one of the emails I received there was a list of scams that everyone should be aware of; the list is below. The important point is that if you receive a phone call or email from the IRS you need to verify that it is actually the IRS!

What I found really fascinating is that a scam has already cropped up concerning the rebate payments that were included in the economic stimulus package that hasn't even passed yet! Only a couple weeks have passed since it was announced and already some enterprising souls are out there trying to use it to take advantage of people. Makes me sick!

Well, here's the list in the email:

• Rebate phone call - someone calls and tells the person that they can receive a sizable rebate for filing their taxes early.
  
• Refund email - the email states that the person is eligible for a tax refund. All they need to do is click on the enclosed link and enter their personal informaion.
  
• Audit email - the email notifies the person that their tax return is being audited, but what's different about this one is that the name of the person the email is sent to is in the saluation at the beginning of the email.
  
• Changes to tax law email - this one is sent to businesses, accountants and other financial types. Clicking on the link in the email probably downloads some type of spyware, malware, etc. to the persons computer.
  
• Paper check call - the caller claims to be from the IRS and is calling to verify the persons bank account information because the check that was sent hasn't been cashed yet.
  
  

If you want to read all the details the report is IR-2008-011. And if you happen to receive one of these calls or emails or a different scam you can forward or report it to the IRS here: phishing@irs.gov. Given how quickly new scams come out this list might already be out of date!