Senile of Omaha

He was once known as 'The Oracle of Omaha'. His reputation as the best stock picker is still very much intact and almost legendary. And yet I am not sure if the rest of his thinking is still as sharp as it used to be. Has senility kicked in?

He claims his 'class' is not taxed enough. I do not quite think there is a cohesive 'class' that can be identified. He and a few other mega rich are very philanthropic. So, by his own admission, he would rather give to private charity than to public spending. If he ever wanted, he had every opportunity to write a check to pay down the debt. And yet he has not chosen to do so - that would have been quite a drummed up event, if he did.

He didn't object to low taxes when he was building out his Berkshire empire. Now that his empire is high flying, he is proposing this taxation. Doesn't it look like he does not want others to catch up to his empire? It seems obvious to me.

There are really only a handful of people in his league. So, when he is proposing this taxation, he is obviously proposing it for a whole lot of people that make a lot less than him. Taxation that he is proposing is not significant to him, but everyone else it affects.

Now, on cue, the President wants to implement the 'Buffet Rule'. And by and large it is going to impact everyone - not just the mega rich. And here is why.

First of all, there aren't enough of them to generate $1.5 trillion. So, this billionaire rule is going to hit everyone who makes more than $200,000.

Next, they claim that the dividend tax rate is not high enough. We have 2 classes of dividends and it is really the 'qualified dividends' that get the lower rate. And the qualified dividends are issued primarily by stable, domestic companies - that either manufacture domestically or in the services sector state side. By increasing the tax rate, you are encouraging investors to find instruments that are either in the speculative growth sector or foreign companies. Smart move, Mr. President.

And then the capital gains tax rate. Short term capital gains is taxed as regular income - so, it gets progressively worse. Long term capital gains get the lower tax rate. These are the gains that I reap from investing in our economy to grow with an upfront investment - with my disposable income that has already been taxed to the hilt. Sounds like yet another smart move, Mr. President.

Mr. Warren Buffet has essentially turned into 'Senile of Omaha' and a mouth piece for Obama Socialism.

9/11/11

I watched the 10 year anniversary at Ground Zero on TV. Quite a dignified and somber service dedicating the memorial. Wish they did not squabble in the early years and completed the construction of all the towers. That would have shown the real resolve of American psyche.

It was good to see George W and Laura Bush along with the President and the First Lady. For the Bushes, it was quite an emotional stage fighting back the tears.

None of my family was lost in that tragedy 10 years ago. And yet I feel violated for so many of my country men died that day. As I watched the reading of the names and listened to the memories of loved ones lost that day, I did not hold back the tears. In the confines of my living room, I let my tears run down.

It was cathartic.

'Faceless' Corporations

Naderites are convinced that all corporations are faceless - that they are run by heartless boards and chief executives driven by profits and personal greed. And this narrative is regurgitated by our willful Left media ad-naseum. And I know that a vast swaths of the population believes that.

The current administration loves this. From the day of the inauguration, the administration has mounted a massive offensive against the 'faceless' corporations. They want to replace these with the friendly faces of your government. Well, if you want to believe that, I have a unicorn that I want to sell to you.

A majority of Americans work for a corporation. And a majority of the decisions within these corporations are made by fairly low level staff. Yes, major decisions that affect fundamental operations and growth of these companies are done at very high levels. This happens to be the case even at our homes. Do you always get your way at home? Of course, not. If you do, either you are single or a tyrant household.

So, first let us look at profits and greed. Are we all so altruistic that we are not driven by greed? Greed is what has led to man's progress. Why do each of us want to be paid more than our needs? Isn't that a 'profit'? Whether it is a corporation or a person, a profit and a little greed is what is essential to do better. When people refer to excessive profits and excessive greed, they are being very subjective. It is all very relative. However, if the profit and greed leads to illegal activities, that is when our laws should be enforced. But merely engaging in a 'profitable' activity and satisfying one's greed is not criminal or detrimental to the society.

Let's illustrate a few examples from my 'faceless' corporation.

I have a colleague who supervises a team. Over the years, her team's responsibilities have shrunk. Naturally, the management expects her group to shrink. Her choice for the reduction was not her, but rather a grumpy, nasty old fellow. And being of a liberal persuasion, she is convinced it is the 'faceless' corporation that made her do it. Not seeing that she had a choice - she could have been the one to go. Yes, she has responsibilities for herself and her family. She also has responsibilities towards her 'staff' - which has performed admirably over the years, but still could not improve this fellow's disposition (well, the guy was a good worker despite a nasty attitude). She also failed to grasp the need for the 'faceless' corporation's well being of within the expense limits afforded by its profits.

Next example illustrates the emotional issues: One department served its purpose admirably over the years when we were a large company requiring centralized training. However, as the company divested and became a more nimble and smaller company, it was becoming a luxury. At this point, the company decided to eliminate this department. There were only a supervisor and a staff. At crunch time, the supervisor switched to another team and saved her job. So, the company had to eliminate the other person's position. Interestingly enough this supervisor went around telling anyone who would listen what a heartless the corporation was to let go of that staff member as his spouse was battling a terminal illness and needed a job and healthcare to support it. It feels wrong. But the supervisor could have saved that job instead of hers - if she were that compassionate. I do not know her own circumstances. However, it is wrong of this person to paint the company as heartless. Doesn't the company have to live within its limits as to what we can afford and not maintain a department it no longer needs?

And last, this is pure self-centered thinking. We had a system that evolved over the last 40-years, still runs on the good old IBM mainframe. And many of its features still remind you of the old punch card days. Supporting this system is a group of 6 people (much reduced from its glory days) and 5 of those would retire in the next 5 years, have been around for 30+ years. Over the last 7+ years we have sought to replace this system with a more modern fit for our company. Almost every single attempt has come up empty. And finally this year, we found a system that would work. And seeking cooperation from this group to get the new system up and running has been extremely difficult. As to how stupid we were to attempt to replace such a complex system. And what would happen to them. Never did it occur to this group as to what would happen to the company if they retire and we do not have competent staff to support the old system. But they all want to ensure they have a comfortable retirement, I fully understand that. What about the company's interests? Don't they count?

I am not a key decision maker, but I am a key 'influencer'. I do take my job seriously and deliberately. I also take my individual responsibility seriously towards my coworkers, myself and the company. If the company lives beyond its means, unlike the Federal government, the company cannot raise its debt ceiling - which means an ultimate end of the company as we know it. In whose larger interest is to see the company progress in the most optimal fashion. It belongs to each and every one of us the employees. Even the senior executive team is an 'employee' and ultimately answerable to the share holders. Without proper stewardship at every level, the companies do not last for long.

I believe we are the faces of these 'faceless' corporations. We must show individual responsibility towards every single one of our decisions - however small and insignificant we might think they are.

I must agree with Mitt Romney - Corporations are people. Do not demonize them. For a large number of us, these corporations pay our bills.