The following is a letter I sent to both of my Senators and my Congressmen. If you like it, feel free to copy and paste it and send it to your representatives, as well as your email list:
August 6, 2011
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Dianne:
Our country is in dire need of reform and the place to start is with our Congress, both House and Senate. I am writing to you as one of your constituents to request that you bring forth the following in a bill to the Senate:
1. Congress was originally envisioned to be a legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. To that end, Congress needs term limits. Twelve years is more than enough time to serve our country and then return to their former work, therefore Congressional terms should be limited to three four-year Senate terms, six two-year House terms or any combination of the two totaling no more than 12 years.
2. Congress receives their salary while in office. Upon completion of their term(s), they return to their former occupation. They do not receive any further compensation from the American people, be it in the form of pensions, retirement pay, etc., except as stated in number 3.
3. Congress (and all Federal employees) must participate in Social Security. All funds currently held in Congressional or Federal employee retirement funds are to be moved to the Social Security immediately. All future funds will be paid directly to Social Security. Congress and Federal employees will participate in the same retirement as the American people.
4. Like all Americans, should Congress wish to receive additional retirement money, they can participate in any private retirement fund that is allowable to the American people.
5. Congress will no longer be allowed to vote themselves a pay raise. Salaries for all Congressmen, whether they be in the House or the Senate will be calculated at a starting salary of $100,000. Any pay differential for leadership positions will be eliminated immediately. From this starting salary, annual raises of the lower of CPI or 3% will be added. Those currently serving in the Congress will have their salaries adjusted immediately. Future Congressmen will have a starting salary of $100,000.
6. Congress shall participate in the same health care system as the rest of America. Any health care currently offered will be canceled immediately. Additionally, Congress and all Federal employees will pay their portion of their health care premiums based on the average percentage of cost paid by Americans in the private sector. No union negotiations can alter this amount. Cost for dependents will be calculated in a like manner.
7. All benefits for Federal employees (including both houses of Congresses and their staff) will be no greater than the average of benefits offered to the American employees of the private sector. This includes vacation time, holidays, medical benefits and all other perks.
8. Congress and all Federal employees must equally abide by all laws imposed on the American people.
I realize that these changes will mean a decrease in pay and benefits for you and your staff but they will also ensure a fairness to all Americans. Should you choose not to introduce this legislation or to vote against it when it is introduced, you will be replaced as my representative in the next election.
Sincerely,
Mr. Patt Gavin
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Reforming our Congress
If you agree with the following congressional reforms, please follow the instructions at the end of this writing.
Our Congress (both House and Senate) is out of control and needs reform. The following ideas have been circulating via email and they have merit:
1. Congress was originally envisioned to be a legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. To that end, Congress needs term limits. Twelve years is more than enough time to serve our country and then return to their former work, therefore Congressional terms should be limited to three four-year Senate terms, six two-year House terms or any combination of the two totaling no more than 12 years.
2. Congress receives their salary while in office. Upon completion of their term(s), they return to their former occupation. They do not receive any further compensation from the American people, be it in the form of pensions, retirement pay, etc., except as stated in number 3.
3. Congress (and all Federal employees) must participate in Social Security. All funds currently held in Congressional or Federal employee retirement funds are to be moved to the Social Security immediately. All future funds will be paid directly to Social Security. Congress and Federal employees will participate in the same retirement as the American people.
4. Like all Americans, should Congress wish to receive additional retirement money, they can participate in any private retirement fund that is allowable to the American people.
5. Congress will no longer be allowed to vote themselves a pay raise. Salaries for all Congressmen, whether they be in the House or the Senate will be calculated at a starting salary of $100,000. Any pay differential for leadership positions will be eliminated immediately. From this starting salary, annual raises of the lower of CPI or 3% will be added. Those currently serving in the Congress will have their salaries adjusted immediately. Future Congressmen will have a starting salary of $100,000.
6. Congress shall participate in the same health care system as the rest of America. Any health care currently offered will be canceled immediately. Additionally, Congress and all Federal employees will pay their portion of their health care premiums based on the average percentage of cost paid by Americans in the private sector. No union negotiations can alter this amount. Cost for dependents will be calculated in a like manner.
7. All benefits for Federal employees (including both houses of Congresses and their staff) will be no greater than the average of benefits offered to the American employees of the private sector. This includes vacation time, holidays, medical benefits and all other perks.
8. Congress and all Federal employees must equally abide by all laws imposed on the American people.
If you agree with these reforms, write to your Congressmen, both in the House and the Senate. If you don't know who your representatives are, you can find them from the Congressional websites. Go to www.house.gov for your United State Representative and www.senate.gov for your Senator. For the Senate you will have two representatives. Once you have located these people, simply cut and the past the eight points (above) into a letter and mail it to your representatives. You can also email them but emails may be limited in size so it might not include the entire list. Add to your correspondence that you wish your representatives to bring these reforms to the floor and that failure to do so and to vote for their passage will result in their being replaced as your representative at the next election. Finally, cut and paste this entire writing and email it to your like-minded friends.
It's time the American people let our voices be heard.
Our Congress (both House and Senate) is out of control and needs reform. The following ideas have been circulating via email and they have merit:
1. Congress was originally envisioned to be a legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. To that end, Congress needs term limits. Twelve years is more than enough time to serve our country and then return to their former work, therefore Congressional terms should be limited to three four-year Senate terms, six two-year House terms or any combination of the two totaling no more than 12 years.
2. Congress receives their salary while in office. Upon completion of their term(s), they return to their former occupation. They do not receive any further compensation from the American people, be it in the form of pensions, retirement pay, etc., except as stated in number 3.
3. Congress (and all Federal employees) must participate in Social Security. All funds currently held in Congressional or Federal employee retirement funds are to be moved to the Social Security immediately. All future funds will be paid directly to Social Security. Congress and Federal employees will participate in the same retirement as the American people.
4. Like all Americans, should Congress wish to receive additional retirement money, they can participate in any private retirement fund that is allowable to the American people.
5. Congress will no longer be allowed to vote themselves a pay raise. Salaries for all Congressmen, whether they be in the House or the Senate will be calculated at a starting salary of $100,000. Any pay differential for leadership positions will be eliminated immediately. From this starting salary, annual raises of the lower of CPI or 3% will be added. Those currently serving in the Congress will have their salaries adjusted immediately. Future Congressmen will have a starting salary of $100,000.
6. Congress shall participate in the same health care system as the rest of America. Any health care currently offered will be canceled immediately. Additionally, Congress and all Federal employees will pay their portion of their health care premiums based on the average percentage of cost paid by Americans in the private sector. No union negotiations can alter this amount. Cost for dependents will be calculated in a like manner.
7. All benefits for Federal employees (including both houses of Congresses and their staff) will be no greater than the average of benefits offered to the American employees of the private sector. This includes vacation time, holidays, medical benefits and all other perks.
8. Congress and all Federal employees must equally abide by all laws imposed on the American people.
If you agree with these reforms, write to your Congressmen, both in the House and the Senate. If you don't know who your representatives are, you can find them from the Congressional websites. Go to www.house.gov for your United State Representative and www.senate.gov for your Senator. For the Senate you will have two representatives. Once you have located these people, simply cut and the past the eight points (above) into a letter and mail it to your representatives. You can also email them but emails may be limited in size so it might not include the entire list. Add to your correspondence that you wish your representatives to bring these reforms to the floor and that failure to do so and to vote for their passage will result in their being replaced as your representative at the next election. Finally, cut and paste this entire writing and email it to your like-minded friends.
It's time the American people let our voices be heard.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Is This God's Punishment?
In the past, there have been a number of religious zealots who have accused homosexuals of being the reason for God smiting the world. From AIDS to all sorts of natural disasters, and even the bombing of the World Trade Center, the culprit is always gay people or the gay movement. With this in mind, I think we need to take a closer look at 2011. At least, the first half.
This year has seen a great many natural disasters hitting right here in the good ol' U S of A. I'm going to look at three categories of these, dealing with Wind, Fire and Water. If we had a good earthquake in the U.S. I'd include it and we'd have Earth, Wind, Fire and Water but I didn't find any record of anything sizable this year. Please correct me if I'm wrong. By sizable, I mean a 6.0 or greater.
First, let's look at fire. Wildfires burned huge parts of Texas and are still burning large areas of Arizona. These fires are still not 100% contained and threaten many more homes before they are eradicated.
Next, water. The Mississippi river flooded this year, resulting in damage in not only Mississippi but also Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Lastly, wind. There have been over 1,000 tornadoes so far this year and they have hit Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma and Kansas.
And what do all of these states have in common? They're all blue states.
Apparently, God has had enough.
This year has seen a great many natural disasters hitting right here in the good ol' U S of A. I'm going to look at three categories of these, dealing with Wind, Fire and Water. If we had a good earthquake in the U.S. I'd include it and we'd have Earth, Wind, Fire and Water but I didn't find any record of anything sizable this year. Please correct me if I'm wrong. By sizable, I mean a 6.0 or greater.
First, let's look at fire. Wildfires burned huge parts of Texas and are still burning large areas of Arizona. These fires are still not 100% contained and threaten many more homes before they are eradicated.
Next, water. The Mississippi river flooded this year, resulting in damage in not only Mississippi but also Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Lastly, wind. There have been over 1,000 tornadoes so far this year and they have hit Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma and Kansas.
And what do all of these states have in common? They're all blue states.
Apparently, God has had enough.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Here's To The Cheeseheads
I wish someone could explain to me what the heck is going on in Wisconsin. As I see it, their governor is trying to balance the state budget and one way he is attempting to do that is by reducing salaries of the government employees. Further, he is trying to eliminate their collective bargaining rights. If I have any of this information incorrect, I hope someone will please set me straight. So to speak.
Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000. I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work. Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349. The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve. These numbers are relatively recent.
Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much to someone like me living in Los Angeles but remember, this is Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000. This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16. With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.
What does this mean? It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin. This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it. It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.
In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760. That's 70% more than the per capita personal income. It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state. In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.
But wait, there's more. According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%. The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.
The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees. At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct? Further, if the average employee contribution to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?
The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place. Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back. Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.
It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing. Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average. Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average. Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.
There was a time when unions were necessary in this country. Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.
Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000. I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work. Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349. The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve. These numbers are relatively recent.
Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much to someone like me living in Los Angeles but remember, this is Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000. This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16. With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.
What does this mean? It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin. This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it. It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.
In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760. That's 70% more than the per capita personal income. It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state. In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.
But wait, there's more. According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%. The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.
The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees. At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct? Further, if the average employee contribution to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?
The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place. Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back. Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.
It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing. Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average. Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average. Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.
There was a time when unions were necessary in this country. Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.
Here's To The Cheeseheads
I wish someone could explain to me what the heck is going on in Wisconsin. As I see, their governor is trying to balance his budget and one way he is attempting to do that is by reducing salaries of the government employees. Further, he is trying to eliminate their collective bargaining rights. If I have any of this information incorrect, I hope someone will please set me straight. So to speak.
Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000. I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work. Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349. The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve.
Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much but remember, this is Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000. This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16. With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.
What does this mean? It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin. This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it. It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.
In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760. That's 70% more than the per capita personal income. It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state. In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.
But wait, there's more. According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%. The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.
The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees. At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct? Further, if the average to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?
The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place. Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back. Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.
It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing. Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average. Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average. Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.
There was a time when unions were necessary in this country. Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.
Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000. I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work. Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349. The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve.
Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much but remember, this is Wisconsin. According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000. This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16. With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.
What does this mean? It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin. This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it. It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.
In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760. That's 70% more than the per capita personal income. It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state. In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.
But wait, there's more. According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance. The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%. The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.
The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees. At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct? Further, if the average to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?
The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place. Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back. Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.
It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing. Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average. Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average. Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.
There was a time when unions were necessary in this country. Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.
Friday, February 11, 2011
18 Days to Freedom
The citizens of Egypt accomplished in 18 days what the United States military has been trying to do for eight years; they ousted a dictatorial leader and reformed their nation. What's more, they did it without firing a single shot. Something our government cannot brag about.
While the Egyptian uprising was largely peaceful, no revolution is ever entirely so and toppling the leadership of the Egyptian government has come at a cost of human lives. The exact number is not known at the moment but it is certainly at least 2 and possibly as high as 300. Some might even go as high as 1,000. The loss of even one life is tragic but here in the United States, we have always believed that one thing worth dying for is freedom.
Compare this figure with our war in Iraq where 4,436 American soldiers have given their lives (as of January 26, 2011). Added to this are the estimated 1,421,933 Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives (according to JustForeignPolicy.com). Even if the Egyptian dead total 1,000 it doesn't compare to the number who died in Iraq.
Added to that is the cost of the Iraq war. Since its inception on March 19, 2003 the United States has spent more than $3 Trillion dollars on this war. I'm sure the numbers in Egypt aren't in yet but I would venture to guess that like their dead, the cost will be far less than we have paid.
What is the lesson to be learned here? That toppling a dictatorial regime does not take military strength but the strength of conviction. The power borne of a desire to be free. It must come from within and be lead by those who have finally reached their breaking point, not by a military beyond their borders. We could have assisted the Iraqis to topple Saddam Husein if we had merely enacted economic sanctions against Iraq. If we had refused to buy oil and requested our allies to do the same. If we had ended any monetary contributions and again, made this request of our allies.
The Iraq war was never necessary. George W. Bush was wrong. 4,436 American soldiers have paid dearly for a war that should not have been.
While the Egyptian uprising was largely peaceful, no revolution is ever entirely so and toppling the leadership of the Egyptian government has come at a cost of human lives. The exact number is not known at the moment but it is certainly at least 2 and possibly as high as 300. Some might even go as high as 1,000. The loss of even one life is tragic but here in the United States, we have always believed that one thing worth dying for is freedom.
Compare this figure with our war in Iraq where 4,436 American soldiers have given their lives (as of January 26, 2011). Added to this are the estimated 1,421,933 Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives (according to JustForeignPolicy.com). Even if the Egyptian dead total 1,000 it doesn't compare to the number who died in Iraq.
Added to that is the cost of the Iraq war. Since its inception on March 19, 2003 the United States has spent more than $3 Trillion dollars on this war. I'm sure the numbers in Egypt aren't in yet but I would venture to guess that like their dead, the cost will be far less than we have paid.
What is the lesson to be learned here? That toppling a dictatorial regime does not take military strength but the strength of conviction. The power borne of a desire to be free. It must come from within and be lead by those who have finally reached their breaking point, not by a military beyond their borders. We could have assisted the Iraqis to topple Saddam Husein if we had merely enacted economic sanctions against Iraq. If we had refused to buy oil and requested our allies to do the same. If we had ended any monetary contributions and again, made this request of our allies.
The Iraq war was never necessary. George W. Bush was wrong. 4,436 American soldiers have paid dearly for a war that should not have been.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A Brief Look at Meg Whitman
Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of the state of California, is running her campaign based solely on her experience as CEO of ebay. Her ads claim she took ebay from a company of 30 people in 1998 to 15,000 in 2008, raising revenues from $4 million to $8 billion. Like most political ads, this information is technically true, but a closer look at her time at ebay is in order.
Meg built ebay up by restructuring and dividing. She split the company into factions and built up each faction and on the surface that strategy looks to have been successful, however if she is going to lead our state, we need to look deeper than the surface. Under Meg ebay's stock soared to its highest value of $58 in November 2004. This would be a laudable accomplishment were it not for the fact that the stock had fallen to $33.53 when she left. That doesn't sound too bad, but consider that Meg stayed on as an advisor for another year and that period saw the stock fall to its lowest level since ebay became public, selling at $12 a share in November 2008.
John Donahoe took over the reigns of ebay when Meg stepped down and one his first tasks was to reduce the spending, including salaries, that Meg had put into place. Over 10% of the workforce was let go. As is evidenced by the falling stock prices, Meg's growth was not sustainable.
There was also the matter of how to pay for this expansion. Meg did not seem to take this into consideration, apparently spending with wild abandon and raising fees to pay the bills. In fact, under Meg Whitman ebay's fees increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. During this time many of the "ebay stores" that were small Mom & Pop operations were forced to close. It should also be noted that in this same period, Meg's salary quadrupled.
I have to wonder what would happen if Meg became governor of California. She has already stated she will create a "Grand Jury" that will clean up the problems in our state. She hasn't said where the money will come from to pay these people. Nor has she mentioned how big this jury will be, what their salaries will be, what their benefits will be or how long they will remain employed by the state.
Her "Grand Jury" is just the beginning of her design to change the state. What else is she planning and where will the money come from? Looking at her record at ebay, it is fairly certain that she intends to raise taxes to fund her schemes. Can California afford Meg Whitman?
Meg built ebay up by restructuring and dividing. She split the company into factions and built up each faction and on the surface that strategy looks to have been successful, however if she is going to lead our state, we need to look deeper than the surface. Under Meg ebay's stock soared to its highest value of $58 in November 2004. This would be a laudable accomplishment were it not for the fact that the stock had fallen to $33.53 when she left. That doesn't sound too bad, but consider that Meg stayed on as an advisor for another year and that period saw the stock fall to its lowest level since ebay became public, selling at $12 a share in November 2008.
John Donahoe took over the reigns of ebay when Meg stepped down and one his first tasks was to reduce the spending, including salaries, that Meg had put into place. Over 10% of the workforce was let go. As is evidenced by the falling stock prices, Meg's growth was not sustainable.
There was also the matter of how to pay for this expansion. Meg did not seem to take this into consideration, apparently spending with wild abandon and raising fees to pay the bills. In fact, under Meg Whitman ebay's fees increased in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. During this time many of the "ebay stores" that were small Mom & Pop operations were forced to close. It should also be noted that in this same period, Meg's salary quadrupled.
I have to wonder what would happen if Meg became governor of California. She has already stated she will create a "Grand Jury" that will clean up the problems in our state. She hasn't said where the money will come from to pay these people. Nor has she mentioned how big this jury will be, what their salaries will be, what their benefits will be or how long they will remain employed by the state.
Her "Grand Jury" is just the beginning of her design to change the state. What else is she planning and where will the money come from? Looking at her record at ebay, it is fairly certain that she intends to raise taxes to fund her schemes. Can California afford Meg Whitman?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
