You Gotta Pay To Play

Government of the people, by the people and for the people?  I think not.  In today’s world, thanks in part to the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v FEC, election campaigns are no longer about who is best fitted for public office.  It’s all about fundraising, and who can amass the biggest warchest.

Whether it’s for the Office of President, where one of the current frontrunners loves to boast about the size of his bank account and, perhaps, other parts of his “character”,

or for the local town council, the importance of how much money a politico has for his/her campaign is paramount.

If you read the local papers, you surely read from time to time about businesses who rely on the largesse of local government.  Whether it’s for tax breaks or grant money to induce business growth, or simply for approvals for expansion projects that happen to bypass the standard bureaucratic red tape, there are myriad scandals that arise every year as a result of what the local politicians get done with businesses, and how they get it done. Some call it good business sense, while others call it out and out criminal.

Bribery, extortion……call it what you will, but as Lord Acton expressed in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Very often, thanks to news-hungry journalists, the ugliness of the process is exposed, and the pols and/or their pals get in some hot water and pay the price.  Fines, removal from office, disbarment and, sometimes, even prison sentences are not uncommon in the game of ‘pay to play’.

In the old days, money exchanged hands between business and politicians under the table, so to speak, with a lot of winks and nods.

Nowadays, there is a very open and honest method that politicians can use to see who is most deserving of their political favors: the political fundraiser.

Now, you may think there is nothing new about political fundraisers, and you would be right.  However, there was a time when declared candidates would hold some fundraisers in the year or two leading up to the election.  They would have a committee of friends and supporters who would put together the events, and hold a bull-roast or other local type function and hope for the best.  Sadly, those days are long gone.

Now, to be successful, even the local politicians must amass hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in order to mount a successful run for office.  And the fundraisers have to happen every year to keep up the momentum.  It’s to the point now where elected officials hold fundraisers immediately upon taking office, to get a jump start on fending off the perceived threat of any opponents.  And it’s no longer a function of the committee of friends and supporters.  There are professional fundraisers who, for a fee  (maybe even a percentage of the amounts raised?), compile databases of donors and handle all of the details for the fundraisers.  I’ve been solicited by prospective politicians whom I’ve never met, from jurisdictions I have nothing to do with, who call me and ask for money.  And it’s clear they are given my name by the same professional fundraisers.

We see lame duck politicians, while in their last term of office thanks to term limits, continue to hold fundraisers without even declaring intentions of what future office they would seek. Shoot, I recently received two solicitations from a guy who is not in public office now, has not declared his candidacy for any public office yet, but just wants to have a fundraiser should he decide to run for public office in the future.  Of course, if he decides not to run for office, there is no requirement that he refund any of the contributions.

What I find even more egregious is when politicians raise money ostensibly for their own election campaigns, but in reality use the money to support others.  In 2010 then Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley was running for reelection.  It was a hard-fought campaign, with his opponent being a popular Republican by the name of Robert Ehrlich, whom O’Malley had unseated just 4 years prior.  O’Malley was in for a big fight, and rallied all the financial support he could in order to fend off this rival.  He was successful and won his reelection campaign.  Lo and behold, though, in 2011, it was reported that his campaign’s fundraising arm, “Friends of Martin O’Malley” was the second largest political DONOR in the state of Maryland.  (The rest of the top five that year were all companies interested in obtaining a casino license to be awarded by the State.)  What that means is that while he was hitting up donations in the name of his campaign for Governor, O’Malley really used a lot of that money to contribute to other campaigns.  Deceitful?  Perhaps.  But totally legal.

When Puff Daddy sang, “It’s All About The Benjamins” he couldn’t have been more spot on.

Since Big Bob is not one to just complain without offering a solution, here is a suggestion that makes so much sense you’ll just have to agree.  How about this:

Before holding any political fundraiser, or even before accepting a political contribution, an individual must declare publicly in the proper jurisdiction(s) his or her commitment to run for a specific office, and to publicize such declaration in any such campaign solicitation. 

You know, when you go to a store and hand your hard-earned money over to the shopkeeper, you generally know what the merchandise is you are paying for.  When you hire someone to perform services for you, whether it’s home improvement, personal or professional advice, entertainment or anything else, you are entitled to an expectation of what that service is.  Seems to me it should be the same in politics.  If you ask me for a political contribution, aren’t I entitled to know what political position you are seeking?  If not, I guess the contribution is simply to garner favor with a wink and a nod.  In which case, we’ve not evolved at all from the days of Tammany Hall and Teapot Dome.  And that is a real pity.

I can’t imagine any politician publicly disagreeing with my wonderful proposal, but of course, I also can’t imagine any politician attempting to make it law.  Perhaps we need to fund a grass-roots movement to make my idea law of the land.  So, if you’ll just send a few thousand dollars to “Friends of Big Bob”, perhaps my dream can become reality.

 

Lowe’s Home Improvement Wins Customer Service Contest

I’m a fan of good customer service. 

  I go out of my way to patronize places that understand this concept.  I love working with business owners and their staff who understand that my business is their payday.  I’ll pay more for something if it means dealing with knowledgeable and helpful people.  In the service business, it’s the telephone customer service rep who will stay on the line with me until my problem is solved.  In retail, it’s the store associate or store owner who works as hard as he/she can to sell me what I need, when I need it.

On the flip side of this coin, I go out of my way to avoid places where the hired help is hardly helpful.  In some cases it’s the service industry, where your average telephone support person is trained to read off of a script and is usually incapable of going beyond the “I’m sorry for your inconvenience” to solve real problems creatively.  In retail it’s the store clerk who seems generally inconvenienced by the presence of customers.

 

The latest adventure came this weekend.  My wife Shirley was baking nearly 1,000 cookies for an upcoming holiday open house. 

It’s a tradition we’ve been carrying on for over 20 years, and is one we inherited from her grandmother who baked the same recipes herself for nearly 50 years.  Each year over 100 family and friends count on our hospitality (read Shirley’s homemade cookies).

 In the heat of cooking this past Saturday, one of our freezers conked out.  Given that it was the Saturday night of Labor Day weekend, panic set in, with fears of not being able to freeze not only the cookies made that day, but those to be made the rest of the weekend.  With the holiday fast approaching, there would not be time to postpone the baking schedule.

We started checking the local appliance dealers.  Usually, we like to help out the small business owners, since they generally tend to be the most informative about their products.   Unfortunately, on the Saturday night of a 3-day weekend, the soonest we’d reach our regular retailers would be Tuesday.  Our need was pressing.  We had to find a store that had the particular style and size freezer  (upright freezer at least 16 cubic feet) in stock so that we could pick it up on Sunday, if possible.  Delivery would be preferred, but given the time constraint we figured that would be nigh impossible.  We lined up a moving company we know who would make themselves available.  We then phoned the closest appliance big boys:  Sears and Home Depot.

The local Sears stores did not have the particular size upright freezer we needed in stock. 

 

 We then called the local Home Depot.  The operator checked with the appliance department, and then assured me that they had two upright freezers of the size we needed on the showroom floor.  Happy that we would have a freezer, we cleaned up to go out and make our purchase.  When we got to the store, we gladly waited while the Home Depot appliance salesman was waiting on another customer.  We walked around the appliance department and got concerned when we did not see anything on the floor that we needed.  Finally the salesman was available, and I told him that we had called looking for an upright freezer at least 16 cu. ft.  He checked his inventory list on his computer and told us he had nothing available.  He did not remember any store operator calling him about this in the last few hours.  Of course, we had no idea who it was that took our call, and even if we did, it would not change the fact that they did not have what we needed in stock. 

As our panic grew, my wife called up the closest Lowe’s Home Improvement Store,

and was able to speak with the gentleman in appliances.  They had several models that would meet our needs, so she gave him her name, and off we went to the Lowe’s. (Notice that I’ve hyperlinked Lowe’s, but not their competitors?  Read on…)

Sounding like a real wild and exciting Saturday night, huh?

We arrived at the Lowe’s hoping that this was not just another wild goose chase.  When we walked into the appliance department, the salesman was helping out another family, but looked at my wife and said, “Are you Shirley?”  My wife got a big smile that someone actually remembered the call and said, “Yes.”  He said, “I’ll be with you in a few minutes.”

We looked around and found the unit we needed, and when the salesman came to us, he was not only knowledgeable about the features of our unit, but he was happy to place the order.  Most amazing and wonderful of all…. he said they would deliver it to us….FOR  FREE…. on Monday.  Labor Day Monday!  As in less than 48 hours! 

While the other stores had backed up delivery schedules or no delivery at all on Labor Day, Lowe’s rose above and beyond to ensure we had the product we needed, when we needed it.

So let me recap.  Sears….no help.  Home Depot….told me they had what we needed but couldn’t deliver, and when we got to the store they did not have what they said they had.  Lowe’s, had what we needed and could provide delivery on a holiday.  I think you’ll agree….Lowe’s did what they had to do to make for some satisfied customers. 

Thank you Lowe’s.  I think you can count on the fact that…..

 

 

Comcast: OK, maybe things are improving

This post was originally an irritated rant about my experiences with Comcast and their customer service.  In response to the post, I received a call from a very nice woman named Gail from their corporate offices.  She was sympathetic to my latest tribulations, gave me some very good ideas as to what my business could do to try to avoid at least some of the problems that piqued my ire, and provided me with enough good will that I agreed to retract my rant and issue a thank you to Comcast for trying to right their wrong.

Thank you to the Social Media scouts at Comcast who made this connection.  I hope this is a harbinger of good things to come in the future.

 

Big Bob

Hey Verizon Wireless – whose side are you on?

Dear Verizon Wireless:

I have a problem that you should be able to help with.  You see, the world is full of creeps, stalkers and telemarketers (oops, sorry to be redundant).  They like to make telephone calls at random times of the day and night, but for whatever reasons they like to hide behind the *67 feature, and not let their caller ID information be known to us.  After a while, it gets annoying.  Oh sure, we can always just not answer the phone, but that still puts us in the position of having to see who is calling, only to be disappointed to see “Unknown” or “No Caller Information”. 

Your brothers at Verizon FiOS have figured out a great solution.  There is a setting we can check on the website that prevents callers with blocked Caller ID from getting through to us.  When one of the aforementioned cretins calls with their number blocked, they get a recording asking for the identification, or else the call doesn’t go through.  Sure would be great if you would do the same.

I called my Verizon Wireless support team, but all they could suggest was that there might be “an app for that”, but of course, he was not at liberty to give me any actual names.  So I’ve checked on my own, and no, there does not seem to be an app that folks are generally happy with.

Therefore, I appeal to you, oh wise ones at Verizon Wireless…..help us in our fight against unwanted calls.  I realize you are in the business of facilitating communication among us all, but seriously, do you want to promote annoying behavior?  Or do you want to help your customers fight it?

Thank you for your consideration,

 

Big Bob

Word from the people.

I don’t know who this guy is, but he’s hitting the nail on the head, don’t you think?

 

Who really has mortgaged our country’s future?

There is an old saying that goes, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” 

Time and time again, in this election season that has yet to really heat up, we’ve heard the Republican rhetoric about how President Obama and the Democrats are mortgaging our country’s future.  It’s the main plank in the Republican National Committee’s platform.  They point to the spiraling deficit and, using all the scare tactics of a Joe McCarthy hearing on communists in our midst, insist that the Republicans are the ones who will save this country.

Really?

Under which party’s President do you think our nation’s deficit has grown the most?  Whoa, Nellie, hold on there.  Before you rush to judgment and yell at the Democrats, lets look at some facts, provided to us by the folks at the United States Treasury.  Since Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the nation’s debt has grown from $907,701,000 in fiscal year 1980, to $14,790,340 in fiscal year 2011.  (Fiscal year runs from October through September.  Thus, the first fiscal year of Obama’s presidency was fiscal year 2010, which ran from October 2009 through September 2010.)

Take a look at this chart listing by year, who was President, and what the total debt was, according to the US Treasury.

US_Deficits.xlsx

I ask again, which Presidents presided over the largest growth in our debt?  From these numbers, the current hero of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan, presided over the largest average annual growth, 14.05%.  In second place is his successor, George H W Bush, with an average annual growth of 11.47%.  In third place, with only half a term under his belt is President Obama at 11.44%.  In fourth place is George W Bush with 9.39% .  Believe it or not, folks, and the figures are there thanks to our own government, the federal deficit grew the least under the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, at an annual growth rate of 3.49%. 

Now I ask you, in the last thirty years, which party’s Presidents have overseen the greatest growth in our federal deficit?  The winner here is the Republican Party.  So if the Democrats are the party of “Tax and Spend”, I think you have to agree that the Republicans are the party of “Borrow and Spend.”  For the good of our country’s future, whom would you rather see at the helm?

Newt Gingrich wants to be a Reagan Conservative?  Well thank you, Newt, but I’d rather not run up the deficit uncontrollably, thank you very much.  The next time your Republican-loving buddy spews forth hate about the Democrats and their fiscal policies, feel free to share your newfound wisdom.

Thank you, and may God Bless the USA.  Please!

Republicans are Right

Every once in a while it’s a pleasure to be surprised by right-minded thinkers.  Actually, it’s always a pleasure to be surprised by right-minded thinkers.  Of course, by “right-minded”, I don’t mean ‘right’ in the sense of conservative, but right in the sense of correct, wise, sagacious, prudent and/or enlightened.  In today’s episode, though, it applies to the movement to bring a modicum of wisdom and sanity to our election process.  It just so happens that this movement is underwritten by Republicans who are spearheading movements in several states to tighten up the election process.  We should thank the New York Times for bringing this to light. 

I’ve often marveled at the fact that when I show up on election day to exercise my franchise (that means to vote), there’s no request to prove that I am who I say I am.  Suppose someone were to get to the polls before I do, and claim to be me.  Heck, I wouldn’t blame someone for wanting to be me, would you?  Yet, I’d be pretty steamed if I showed up and was told that I already voted.  Thankfully, my memory is still pretty much intact.  Intact enough to know if I had voted earlier in the day.  So, it’s surprising in this day and age that with the large number of voters, there’s no checking of ID’s. 

The Libyan Question

I’ve been thinking a lot about the whole Libya question, and its fearless leader Muamar Gaddafi.  Or is it Kaddafi?  Qadaffi?  Kadhafi?  I mean, this guy’s got so many spellings, you’d think he was dodging creditors.  Which may very well be the case.

The question is whether Obama and the US, together with its “International Allies” (read Britain) are right to be lofting missiles into Libya.  Now look, at the outset, I’m not saying this guy is any kind of gem.  I mean look at him.  Is he the kind of guy you want your daughter bringing home to dinner?

Way back in the late 70’s and early 80’s, this lunatic used to say a lot of things about doing away with the United States.  Then, we let a few missiles stray and blow up part of his palace.  Shortly after that, we stopped hearing about him.  I guess you could say that he got our message, loud and clear.

Let’s say that what we’re being told about him being a ruthless, murderous dictator is true.  Yeah, that might make him a bad person.  But is it our place to do something about it? 

In this country we have national elections.  Now our system is far from perfect.  (Can you explain the primary election process with a straight face?)  Nor is our election process guaranteed to be free of fraud.  In fact, let’s just say that it is fraught with fraud.  But it’s a pretty good system nonetheless.  Certainly better than what they have over in Libya.  However, instead of elections, what would happen in this country if the Tea Party or some band of lunatic militia out there (and they ARE out there) decided to take matters into their own hands and begin some rioting in selected cities.  I would imagine that our government would want to quash those riots, probably using military force.  Now, take the scenario one step further.  Suppose some foreign leader wanted to support the revolutionaries, and decided to start bombing our air force bases to help weaken our military forces.  Would this be right?

I guess what I’m asking is why is it right for our government to use our military capabilities to settle a civil war in another country?  We certainly wouldn’t want another country meddling in our own affairs would we? 

Yeah, I guess you could argue that in Libya’s case, the UN got involved and approved a “No-Fly Zone”.  OK, sounds real good.  Let the world assembly rise up and speak out against the atrocities of this mad man (like most of the countries in the UN don’t have their own dirty laundry when it comes to Human Rights).  By the way, congrats to Brazil, China, Germany, India and the Russian Federation, all of whom lacked the stones to cast a vote, choosing to sit on the sidelines and abstain. 

Well I say, let the rest of the world take the lead once in a while.  Let’s see one of the Arab League send their flyboys in on something other than Israel for a change.  Sure, the US can be on the ground cheering them on.  Just for once, I’d like the US to say to the world, “Hey, we got rid of Hussein in Iraq, now someone else can take care of the next nutjob.” 

And by the way, now that we got rid of Hussein, how’s that working out for everyone, huh?  Mission Accomplished my butt!  Speaking of which, even if by some fluke we made this guy go away.  Then what.  What’s the prize?  A bunch of local war lords would then run a free-for-all to try to assemble some kind of majority rule.  What are the odds there won’t be blood shed making that happen?

Look, there’s no question this guy is a bad buy.  I mean, as a supreme ruler, he doesn’t even have the common sense to promote himself from Colonel to General.  What kind of military mind is that?  But seriously, he’s a guy we know, which may very well be better than the alternative. The devil we know may be better than the devil we don’t.  Remember the sage advice of a one-time para-military genius.

Peace Out.

 

 

 

Mama was right!

One of the foundation’s of our great nation’s criminal court system is that an accused is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty.  This is a concept that sets us apart from many other nations around the world, where the justice system is kind of a “shoot first, then ask questions” mentality.  Our nation, though, has a bit more compassion in the process, which probably has aided and abetted the freedom of many perpetrators.  When a guilty party’s rights have been trampled, the courts have found cause to set them free, because the proof of guilt was obtained improperly. 

Now that’s a topic for another day, but in terms of finding proof before declaring guilt, I have a great litmus test.  In fact, I think that in the cases of these individuals, these photos are all I need. 

My mother always said that first impressions are lasting.  So, my impression of these upright citizen is that they are all guilty of something.  Harsh?  Probably, but ask yourself in all candor……do you want any of them showing up at your door to date your daughter?  I didn’t think so.

Happy New Year, and best wishes for 2011.

Big Bob.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?………. I Don’t Care

Lest you think I don’t care about gay rights here, relax.  I care.  

I was talking with some of my, hmmmm, let’s call them “less enlightened” compadres.  One of them, let’s call him Red Neckerson,  who served in the military in the 1960’s, was disgusted over the thought of being in the showers, with no stalls, with “one of those guys”.  I looked at Red square in the eyes and asked him if he were worried that “one of those guys” might be attracted to him, or upset that he would NOT be attracted to him. 

Back in the Clinton era (seems like such a long time ago, doesn’t it?), the military initiated this don’t ask, don’t tell policy.  What that means is that if you’re gay, you’re welcome to join up, but keep it to yourself.  Now on the one hand, you might think that sexual activity shouldn’t be going on while on active military duty.  The reality is that it doesn’t mean spit.  According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 12,500 servicemen/women have been discharged from the military under this policy since it was enacted in 1994.  Doesn’t seem to me to be working too well.  So our fearless leaders thought it was time to revisit this policy, especially with our military assets being depleted around the world. In a rousing display of open-mindedness, last week Senate Republicans led the movement to block the repeal of the policy.  Thank goodness our leaders know what is best for us.  (That’s sarcasm, if you couldn’t tell.)

I need to add here that the movement to repeal the law doesn’t have someone whom I would refer to as the best spokesperson for the cause.  I mean, Lady Gaga?  Are you kidding?

It’s wonderful that Ms. Germanotta wants to voice her opinion.  But to gain some traction and legitimacy for the cause, I’m not sure she’s the best choice.  In fact, it’s kind of like having Foster Brooks speak out on in favor of temperance.

In the interest of full disclosure here, let me state that I have never served in the military.  Sure, I played “Army” as a kid, played the card game War and enjoyed the board game Risk (the game of world domination)

Heck, two of my childhood heroes were officers in the military.

But despite my lack of battlefield experience, I believe wholeheartedly that homosexuality should not be a litmus test used to keep anyone out of the military.  Hey, if you want to volunteer to risk your life on behalf of our great nation, God Bless, abi gezunt.   Go….. kill the bad guys, protect our borders, keep us safe.  Doesn’t matter to me what you’re into (as long as it’s legal, of course).  If I’m not mistaken, there are already rules against fraternization with other soldiers.  So, gay, straight…..nobody should be canoodling while on duty, right?

Something tells me that if you’re into members of your own sex, there are probably better places to meet loved ones than the military.  Why do you think it’s so fun to stay at the YMCA? 

I probably should ask my friend Red how he feels taking showers at the local gym.  Although I suspect the only weights he’s lifting these days are the 16 oz variety.