Sunday Evening, 8/31/14

I probably ought to have a post that's going to tell the two or three readers that I have what's going on in my life these days, and what I'm doing to keep busy. 

I am these days, considering myself as "between jobs".  If anything, I have realized that at this point in my life, I'm not ready for retirement, even if I have managed to find enjoyment in my time off.  I have caught up on a lot of reading and have had some fun in working on my coin collection.  I've picked up the guitar again and have gotten my chops back, and I may start a new songwriting project even though I should finish those that I started some time ago.  But songs can take time to develop.

So what's happening on the job search front?  Plenty.  I am not at liberty at this point in time to disclose the machinations that are going on behind the scenes, other than to say that there are machinations.  If for some reason in my next post I'm able to tell you something, then I'll also tell you what else had been going on.  Right now it's stay tuned.

Now for some other observations.

* * * * * * *

In some conversations that I've had with my father and with Sheila, both of them independently brought up this feeling that the nation will be at war soon.  I passed that along to a good friend of mine who agreed with that, and even went so far as to say that the nation needs a war in order to get back that sense of unity that we once had.

He wasn't advocating that we go start a war somewhere, and neither were Sheila or my father.  The feeling is, and I'm beginning to suffer from that as well, is that we are due for another terror attack on our country.

The King of Saudi Arabia (who our President bows down to) has stated that terrorist actions against the United Kingdom and the United States are coming and coming soon.  We've had generals state that we need to do something about ISIS, a group that no one had heard about until recently.

What is President Obama doing?

He has admitted that there is no strategy, which is possibly the first time in his life that he's told the truth about anything.  No strategy.  None.

His defenders are praising him for being brilliant, for not advertising his strategy, even though he has no strategy in the first place.

However, his defenders are squirming because instead of having a strategy, that he's doing fundraisers, out on the golf course, or out riding this girlie bike while wearing a pair of mom jeans.

As for that coming war itself, it will not be a war that Obama wants to win, but it will be a war falling into the lap of his successor.

 

* * * * * * *

The Arizona primary elections were held last Tuesday.  From what I can tell the Establishment Republicans, who along with ISIS are a threat to our national security, didn't get all of the candidates that they wanted, but they got a few of who they wanted the most.

One of them is Martha McSally, who is running once more for Congress against incumbent Ron Barber.

I'm no Ron Barber fan, but I'm going to be brutally honest and state that I want to see him win.

Martha McSally, when she first ran two years ago, stated in her campaign that she deserved the seat because she was the first female Colonel to lead a flight squadron in the Air Force.  Hello?  Air Force service is a plus, and most (but not all) bird colonels I've met were great people.  One of the best bosses I ever had was a bird colonel. 

But what Martha McSally isn't telling you is that her supporters, when she lost the special primary to Jesse Kelly, went behind the scenes to support Ron Barber and to sabotage the Kelly campaign.  The Establishment Republicans here came out to voice their support for Barber, and even though McSally wasn't one of them, she wasn't supporting Kelly either.  She wanted him to lose so that she could run again in November against Barber, which she did.  She narrowly lost that election and my conscience is clear in telling you that I did not vote for her.

Two years later, McSally's back at it, and with the support of the Republican National Committee.  You know, that Committee that is on record for stating that they wanted to see President Obama succeed. 

This time around, Martha McSally isn't taking any positions on the burning issues.  Two years ago she was in favor of "amnesty" for illegal aliens, but she's not taking a stand on that issue this year.  She also isn't stating her position on the Second Amendment.  Her ads feature testimonials from people who know her who tell you what a great person she is, but her ads do not state in any way what her position on Obamacare is.  She simply isn't taking any positions.  We don't know what she stands for because she's not going to tell us.

At least, those people who speak about her aren't telling us. 

They probably don't know either.

 

* * * * * * * *

In the race for governor, Doug Ducey has won the nomination, much to the chagrin of the Republican National Committee.  We know where Doug Ducey stands on the issues, and I agree with his stand on all of them. 

However, Doug Ducey isn't running against President Obama for the governor's chair.  He isn't telling us what he plans to do for Arizona. 

It seems to me that Arizona has an opportunity to attract businesses from other states which would bring us jobs.  He might want to capitalize on that and take some lessons from Rick Perry of Texas.

* * * * * * *

That's it for this evening.

Time for Some Tunes!

We did this kind of post once before, and I think it's time to do it again:  a selection of tunes that I hope you will enjoy as much as I do.  These are all YouTube links; if you want to come back to this blog you'll have to hit that "return" arrow that's in your browser.

I apologize for any ads that you're forced to endure.  In picking these out, I have tried to select links where there aren't any ads, but the Google Boyz have a way of sneaking them in there anyway.  Look at the bright side......they didn't make you pay to come here, or to watch these.

 

* * * * * * *

Our first selection for this evening is from Randy Bachman.  I've linked to it before in a previous post, but I thought it would be a good leadoff for this collection.  Its' from his Survivor album, released in 1978, and it's the leadoff track.  You might notice a Beach Boys influence in this one.

Just a Kid

* * * * * * *

Next up is April Wine.  This is track #2 off of their Harder....Faster.... album, which was released in 1979.  This was released as a single in 1980 in Canada as well as stateside.  I think it's better known up there than down here.  It's a longtime favorite of mine.

Say Hello

 

* * * * * * *

The third selection for this evening is from the Smithereens.  This is a interesting song, in my opinion.  Well structured, with an interesting concept about having to leave something behind.

House We Used to Live In

 

* * * * * *

The fourth song is a classic from Foreigner.  It was one of Hal's favorite tunes due to its science fiction theme.  It remains in Foreigner's set list to this day, testifying to its staying power. 

Starrider

* * * * * * *

The next tune is one that comes from an album that I do not own, and I'm going to have to get off of my sitting end to rectify that situation.  From north of border, where a lot of good music comes from, we have Kim Mitchell!

Lager and Ale

* * * * * * *

Now we're at side two, and the first track for side two has to come from a vinyl album that had its song positioned at side two, right?  That's how I see it.

So..........this next one is from Tom Petty's solo effort Full Moon Fever, from 1989.  This is one of my favorite albums. 

Feel A Whole Lot Better

* * * * * * *

This next one is a bit difficult to play on guitar, and if you don't believe me then give it a try and let me know how you make out.  Its claim to fame is that it was the B-side to the BTO single "Let it Ride".  It is from the album Bachman-Turner Overdrive II, released December 1973.

Tramp

 

* * * * * * *

This next song is an old classic from Creedence Clearwater Revival. 

 

Run Through the Jungle

* * * * * * *

This next one is what you call a song.  As Greg Kihn would say, they don't write 'em like that anymore.  I'd like to think that I can write one like this.  It's from one of the best albums ever recorded, American Woman, by The Guess Who.

Proper Stranger

* * * * * * *

Our final song this evening is from the Smithereens.  One this one we have a rare vocal by Jim Babjak.  And I'll admit, this one has influenced a song that I've co-written that's called "Junkyard Road".  "Junkyard Road", of course, is the closing track of the first album that we did, that hasn't been recorded yet.  Maybe one day it'll be on YouTube.

Anyway.........I thought of this song when I was doing yesterday's post.  I like not only the song but I wish this burger chain would open up here in Tucson.

White Castle Blues

* * * * * * *

 

That's all folks!

 

 

Don't forget to pet a dog or a cat!



Boycott Burger King? or, the Law of Unintended Consequences

In the business headlines today it was announced that Burger King is in talks to buy Tim Horton's, a well-known chain in Canada, and that BK will move its headquarters to our northern neighbor and become a Canadian corporation for tax reasons.  This is a move that is called a "tax inversion", which means that the acquiring company obtains a tax benefit by leaving the United States for a country where the corporate income tax rate is lower.  This is due to somewhat recent changes in the tax code.  Corporate income taxes are hiked since those hiking them think that the corporations aren't doing their "fair share", and by hiking their taxes the government gets more money in the process.

This seems like a good idea to Joe and Jane Citizen and it seems like an even better idea to the government taxmasters.  Make the corporations pay more; they've got the money, right?  But as is often the case where what seems like a new law is a good idea, that new law fails to take into account what I call the Law of Unintended Consequences. 

The Law of Unintended Consequences, in the instance of increasing corporate tax rates, can have two obvious results.

The first result is higher prices passed on to the consumer.  Think about this for a minute.  A corporation isn't in business to provide you with some sort of service.  A corporation is in business to make money.  Oh, there are some enterprises out there who are very customer-service oriented and they see their revenue as an indication as to how they are succeeding in providing customer service, but even those corporations are not going to remain in business if expenditures outpace revenues.  Corporate beancounters are all well too familiar with the "cost of doing business", and although they accept that as a reality, another reality is that they are going to keep that under control.  Increased costs will be passed along to the consumer of the product if those increased costs are seen as remaining for any foreseeable future.  Higher prices for the product is the most likely consequence of increased corporate tax rates. 

The next obvious consequence is what you're seeing happen with Burger King.  It's nothing new as that it's had precedent for several decades in one sense.  Increasing the corporate tax rate to something that the corporation is not willing to live with can and will result in that corporation relocating its headquarters in some cases and relocating its state of incorporation in many other cases.

How many of you have heard the term "Delaware corporation"?  I use to work for one.  The corporate headquarters were in southern California, and later on in Maryland, but for legal (tax) reasons the corporation was incorporated within the State of Delaware.  A corporation doesn't incorporate in Delaware because the CEOs want to live there.  The corporation incorporates there because Delaware doesn't charge them as much to incorporate there as California does.  (When I was living in San Jose, I heard frequent ads on the radio encouraging business execs to incorporate in Nevada for similar reasons). 

But this second consequence isn't limited to where a corporation files their articles of incorporation.  Corporations will also migrate to states that are more business friendly.  Governor Rick Perry of Texas has mounted efforts to bring corporations to Texas, where residents do not pay state income tax and where the regulations not as burdensome.  Huntsville, Alabama has seen major defense companies expand there while contracting facilities that are elsewhere (as in California).  A good friend of mine back in San Jose works for a company based in Tennessee, and the parent in Tennessee seems to be making preparations for work to be done there and not in California. 

So if regulation and tax rates are having the unintended consequence of corporate assets from one state to another, is it really a surprise that the bigger corporations who have overseas assets would want to base in other countries if the tax rates upon them here are hiked?  Corporate lobbyists warned our lawmakers what would happen if their tax burdens were increased.  They said they would up and leave if the new tax rates are too high.  That might have been seen as threats and bluffing, but corporate CEOs are beholden to the bottom line so that institutional investors such as mutual funds will invest in their companies.  Reduced profits leads to reduced investment.  They can only pass along so much of their cost of doing business to the consumer.  Eventually, a  point is reached to where their corporate lawyers discover ways to legally pay lower tax rates, which is why tax inversions are now becoming popular.

Now let's get back to Burger King.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio is now calling for a boycott of Burger King.  He wants consumers to go to Wendy's or White Castle.  He's calling for people to patronize companies based in his state, and he very likely wants you to think that he's eating there too.

First of all, United States Senators aren't known for going for fast food meals unless they're on the campaign trail and they want to be photographed at one.  They eat in their own private cafeteria or have their staffers bring food to their offices.  Oh, I'm sure there are a few who like the occasional Big Mac or the Chinese takeout, but when they go on their lunch break they're not going to walk around in public until they find themselves at a Wendy's.  It's simply beneath them to do that.

Second, as far as boycotting goes, I'll eat where I damn well please.  I may or may not go to Burger King.  I normally don't here in Tucson since Burger Kings in this town tend to have bad service (if you can call it service in the first place), and plus, since we have Culver's, Freddy's Steakburgers and In-N-Out the odds of my going to BK aren't that great in the first place.  However, I've been known to stop off at them while on the road, as that the BK restaurants outside of Tucson seem to have decent service and I happen to like flame-broiled Whoppers. 

Third, why is the Senator surprised at what Burger King is doing?  If a corporation can reduce their expenses by basing themselves in Canada, why wouldn't they go there?  Canada will not be raising their tax rates, especially if they're collecting unintended revenue from American corporations relocating there.  They might be tempted to lower corporate tax rates in order to attract more outside investment.

I don't particularly like to see the corporations here move overseas.  I want to make that clear.

However, if you have a bunch of Tax Nazis in the government who want to confiscate more money from them since they can't get the budget under control, can you blame them?