Terms & Conditions

Just out of curiosity...does anybody ever read (and understand) all of the Terms & Conditions you accept on the web? I've thought about this before, but today I observed several people at work scrutinizing the Terms & Conditions that were associated with a purchase order we received. These were executives who had to scrutinize the documents independently as well as with legal counsel...a timely and thereby costly task. It wasn't a large order that was going to generate significant revenue, but in these economic times you tend to fight for every order you can to keep the workforce busy and employed.

While there were multiple terms and conditions that were troublesome, the biggest point of contention stated (in layman's terms) that even if the customer was at fault in using or installing the piece of equipment we sold them, we would have to indemnify the customer...or essentially pay for any losses or lawsuits that was a result of THEIR negligence.

Applying this principle in a real world situation...let's say I manufacture steak knives which are intended for the purpose of cutting a juicy prime rib. If you had as a condition of sale this same type of legal condition, I could be sued and required to pay any damages if you who used this knife to destroy somebody's house, or worse, if you went postal and stabbed and murdered a bunch of people. How crazy is that? Would you agree to that?

What makes matters worse, is that all of this legal nonsense escalates the cost of doing business. This increases the cost of everything the U.S. consumer has to purchase. You have manufacturers who spend way too much money consulting with attorneys to create their Terms & Conditions, and then you have the distributor and ultimately the end customer such as a Wal-Mart that do the same thing in generating their own legal Terms & Conditions...none of which are the same....and each of which protect only the entity that created them. In this day and age, where everybody is sue-happy (not so happy), all of these businesses have to spend all of this money to TRY to protect them from the current legal environment. Common sense is out the window. Consumers (you and I) aren't capable of assessing the risk associated with hot coffee...you will get burned if you spill the hot coffee in your lap.

Next time you come across a Terms & Conditions you have to accept to say...update your iTunes, take a few minutes (okay maybe a few hours) to read and try to understand what you are actually agreeing to. Thank goodness there were a few people that read the Terms & Conditions that Facebook recently tried to put in place which changed user's rights associated with the content they post.

Now imagine, if you will, trying to operate a business (and make a profit) where every item you purchase and most services you purchase come with a different set of Terms & Conditions that you have to evaluate and sign off on, or negotiate, or you must find another vendor or service provider. Then for every different customer you want to sell to, you get a different set of Terms & Conditions you have to evaluate and sign off on, or negotiate, or decide not to accept any orders from the specific customer. And while you've spent all that time and money trying to cover your ass, you are still going to spend out the whazoo defending in court if you do get sued.

What Scares Me

It doesn’t scare me that our economy is experiencing a slowdown, recession or maybe even a depression. Our society has faced these crises before, and we have come out of them stronger than before.

It doesn’t scare me that there are businesses that might go bankrupt if the government doesn’t bail them out. Our history is rich with examples of businesses that have gone bankrupt – some of which rebounded after restructuring and others that have become obsolete or irrelevant and ceased to exist. I tend to consider this natural selection within the economic world. Businesses that don’t manage their debt structure or ride too high and spend too freely during the good times are vulnerable to service their debt when their revenues drop. Businesses that don’t keep up with changing market trends or technologies are likely to become obsolete. That is a good thing. Businesses should not be bailed out and rewarded for failure to run a good business.

What scares me is the total lack of any leadership in both government and businesses alike. I’m afraid that the most recent example of Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois is more of a rule than an exception. Lack of ethics is not exclusive to one party, because there are examples including Sen. Stephens (R) from Alaska who failed to acknowledge the $250,000 he received in gifts. Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Barney Frank getting loads of kickbacks from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while repeatedly denying that there were any financial problems. There is former Governor Eliot Spitzer of NY who was involved with a prostitution ring. Now we have just named Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary with duties of overseeing the IRS. He has admitted to not paying $35,000 self-employment taxes for several years, even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so, and had filed a request for, and received, a payment for half the taxes owed. He sounds like he is a very smart qualified individual; however, his confirmation sends a message to others that it is really okay to cheat on your taxes. Furthermore, why should we think that he won’t make decisions based on his own selfish greed, since he has demonstrated this in the past? Personally, I don’t think he can be entrusted to look out for the best of our country. Then there is Tom Daschle popping up with tax issues...at least he withdrew his nomination.


What scares me is that we have political leaders that are more interested in lining their own pockets and securing their own future instead of pursuing policies or legislation that secures America’s future.

What scares me is that we have business leaders that are more interested in how they can get bigger bonuses, more vacation homes, and nicer offices than they are in managing the businesses they run. These CEO’s have been entrusted by shareholders and employees alike to make decisions that build the business, not destroy the business. Bernard Manoff, former head of NASDAQ, is accused of a Ponzi scheme in which he took $50 billion from investors in his hedge fund. Reports indicate that this will be larger than the Enron scandal. Now you have all of these companies who recently took TARP money...every day it seems there is some new report of siphoning the money off for bonuses or trips or some other wasteful endeavor.

What scares me is that if this type of short-sightedness and selfishness continue...where will our country end up? Where are the political leaders and business leaders who are willing to step up to the plate and make decisions for the companies and the governments they are charged to oversee and lead. Where are the political and business leaders who can make decisions for their constituents and organizations instead of making decisions only looking out for themselves?

Sarah Palin - She Has My Vote!!!

I am appalled at the media scrutiny and criticism towards Sarah Palin since her selection as McCain's VP pick. Palin has dedicated her life to her family, to public service, and to energy independence.

Since the announcement that she was McCain's pick for VP, the media has 1) accused her of covering up her daughter's out of wedlock pregnancy, 2) criticized her husband's arrest 20+ years ago for a DUI arrest, 3) suggested that she covered up the birth of her most recent Down's Syndrome child to protect her daughter who was the supposed mother, and 4) accused her of abandoning her family (five children) by accepting the bid for VP. Have they highlighted any of her many successes? Have they recognized her for fighting big oil companies on behalf of Alaskan citizens? Have they credited her for being so dedicated to her family and her unconditional love that she has exhibited?

All this really makes you wonder why anybody would want to run for public service. After all, who hasn't made mistakes in life or who hasn't had family that has made mistakes in life. Kudos to Ms. Palin for sticking by her family. I think it is a credit to her and her family that she opted to have her Down's Syndrome baby after learning of his condition, instead of having an abortion. No, I wouldn't have criticized or blamed her if she would have chosen abortion, because I don't think that you can judge somebody unless you've walked in their shoes. I think it is a credit to her family that she has vocally supported her daughter in her choice to have a baby instead of choosing abortion. Most families experience these types of crisis. It takes guts to go public about these issues. It takes guts and grit to publicly acknowledge that you and/or your family are not perfect.

Sarah Palin is a new role model for me. I hope that she is our next Vice President. If her and McCain do not win, I don't think it is her fault. I think the odds were pretty stacked against McCain and any running mate he would have selected. Palin has generated enthusiasm for the party and for many women, Democrat and Republican alike. Even if Palin loses, she has won in my heart and in the hearts of millions of Americans, especially women, who go against the grain to succeed; Americans, especially women, who are willing to make hard decisions and take on additional responsibilities associated with types of disabilities of close family members; Americans, especially women, who deal with realities as parents that your children make mistakes and you love them unconditionally. Sarah Palin is a hero!

If Sarah Palin is guilty of anything it is for fighting for what is right for her family, her state, and her country. Yes, it would be much easier for her to coast through life like most of us do, but she is not accepting the status quo. She is fighting and will go down fighting.

Tax the Rich People & Businesses....Not a Good Idea

It amazes me how the liberals' solution to all problems involve raising taxes on the "rich." Currently, there are discussions on fixing the current oil crisis by imposing a wind falls tax on the oil companies due to their excessive profits. Other ideas...we can pay for health care for U.S. citizens by increasing taxes on the wealthy, and we can pay for increasing education costs by increasing property taxes. The government can provide anything to anybody... just raise taxes on the rich. Easy!

I have a question...will the government give the oil companies money when they are losing money? Some people fail to acknowledge this fact, but, if the oil companies make more money, they already pay more taxes. Although the effective tax rate for a c-corporation is something like 40-50% depending on the state residence, for simplicity purposes, let's assume it is only 10%. If this company makes $10 million dollars, they would pay taxes of $1 million dollars. If that same company is able to improve business to make $100 million dollars, they now pay $10 million dollars. Isn't it strange how the liberals try to make big business the enemy? In effect, they punish these businesses by making them pay more taxes the more money they make.

Sometimes, you have to wonder why anybody even wants to try to make money anymore. The harder you work, the more money you make, the more the government takes. Isn't it strange...you would think that the government would embrace businesses since that IS the source of their livelihood and spending. That is what the governments from overseas practice. It is not uncommon for countries such as China to help subsidize and cultivate industry. These countries understand the concept of Reagan's theory of trickle-down economics. When businesses make money, we all benefit...employees, employers, cities, states, and countries.

When businesses make money, they hire people. These employees make money and pay taxes on what income they bring home while the company matches some of the taxes and social security for each employee. Ultimately, the more people that are working for a business, the more payroll taxes the company pays the government.

When businesses make money, they buy materials and supplies to make their products or provide services. This "trickles down" so the vendors and suppliers have to employ people and purchase materials and supplies as well. The more money the business makes, the more this "trickles down" to more businesses and ultimately more workers who pay taxes.

When businesses make money, they pay more taxes the more goods they sell via the sales tax.

When businesses exist, even without necessarily making money or breaking even, they provide local taxes to the cities and counties in the way of property taxes which fund public schools as well as other local infrastructure needs. When these businesses exist, they consume utilities such as electricity, water, gas, telephone, etc. which makes it more feasible to provide these types of services to residential customers. When businesses exist, they make contributions to benefit local communities.

How can anybody be so quick to try to lay more tax burden on businesses than they already endure? Businesses are not the bad guys...they are the roots of our economy and the roots of our tax revenues. With the existing burden, not to mention the looming burden, is it really any wonder that businesses look to relocate overseas. Other countries welcome business. Other countries welcome the "trickle-down" benefits of businesses.

The liberals would have you believe that the government provides for their citizens. They provide social security, they provide welfare benefits, they provide unemployment benefits, they provide food stamps, they provide medicare and medicaid, etc. Where do they get their money to pay for all these programs not to mention all the pork barrel spending? Tax revenues from you and me and all the businesses that generate wealth for our country. When has the government really generated any wealth? When has the government created jobs? Most of what the government does is spend the money they tax you, me and our employers. And they don't do that very effectively!

I have a question...from whom would you rather receive money? Me, if I decided you were in need of $1000; or from the government after I sent my $1000 to the IRS and it was processed through the bureaucracy of collections , and all the committees that determine where all the tax revenues go, and then gets processed as a check and distributed? Most businesses calculate the cost of fulfilling an order at no less than $100. That means that just the paperwork and logistics of processing an order costs at least $100. I'm not sure how that translates into government collections, but I wouldn't be surprised if it cost the government $500 - $1000 to give you the $1000.

Have you decided yet? You can have $1000 from me, or you might get $500 from the government after all the processing costs. Oh yeah...did I mention that you could get my $1000 processed through the bank within the week? And from the government...I hope you don't need the money too badly, because I would imagine that it could take 3-6 months if not longer to get your money from the government.

Tax the rich...you're taxing the poor and needy more! Tax the rich...you're chasing businesses and investors overseas. Tax the rich...your employer might decide they can't afford to keep you on the payroll. Tax the rich...people lose their incentive to make more money and start businesses. Tax the rich...not a good idea!

Michigan economy

I just listened to a Democrat strategist on Neil Cavuto's program, and it was very interesting to hear her blame Michigan's economic woes on Republican philosophies, especially NAFTA and the deteriorating auto market. I concur that Michigan's problems are largely due to the erosion of the automotive business in Michigan.

First, NAFTA was pushed through during the Clinton era. While I have mixed emotions on NAFTA, there have been good things as well as bad things that have resulted from NAFTA. Yes, some jobs have gone overseas, but at the same time, the price of goods that consumers purchase has been lowered because other countries can produce those goods cheaper than we can. This brings me to my second point in my rebuttal.

One of the reasons that the Michigan's economy has suffered is because of the high cost of labor and overhead related to labor such as pension plans, workers compensation, health insurance, social security and other taxes. A lot of these exorbitant costs were exacerbated by the union's demands. While technology has reduced much of the labor content associated with automobile production while at the same time making it safer, unions in the automotive industry (much like the steel industry) continued pushing for higher pay and better benefits. All of this while at the same time, reducing the operational efficiency due to more middle-men between the management and labor force through the unions. Most people are familiar with the common practices of unions - if somebody is hired to be a welder, they won't perform another task even if it makes sense to get some product out of production and to the customer. The overhead associated with unions is a real drain to manufacturing plants and ultimately our society.

Even in a non-union plant, the increasing costs associated with all the new legislation such as FMLA, HIPPA, etc. make supervisors, managers, and owners spending more time and more money dealing with lawyers than dealing with real business issues such as making things more productive or developing new products.

I've oftentimes marveled at the fact that enterprising people still go the entrepreneurial route of developing new products and new businesses. Just the risk associated with product liability claims makes it pretty unattractive. All you have to do is read the headlines about how so many in our society are filing lawsuits in get rich quick schemes because they were scalded by a cup of hot coffee from McDonald's they spilled on themselves. Perhaps the best business to be in is making warning labels. Have you ever read some of the ridiculous warning labels that exist? Warning: Coffee is hot and may result in burns. Warning: Do not immerse this plugged appliance in the bathtub. Or, as evidenced by the influx of new lawyers, a person could pursue a law degree for some job security.

Tim Russert death

I am saddened at the death of Tim Russert. He was a class act! I didn't realize until today how he was probably a democrat based on is work with democrat leaders. I don't hold that against him, but instead, I'm impressed at how open-minded and practical he was regarding political subjects. Never could I detect any bias in his interviews with any political leaders, democrat or republican.

He is very inspiring in the way he loved his father given the tribute he wrote for his father. He was very inspiring in the way he loved politics, and even more so, the way he loved America. His concern was not so much about whether the country elected a democrat or republican, but rather whether the country elected a leader that could lead us in a good and positive way. I listened to Jack Welch speak on FoxNews about his relationship with Tim Russert. Apparently, he wasn't concerned about money he would receive or would be guaranteed with contracts with GE. Instead, his primary concern was that he would be able to continue as host of "Meet the Press" in the way he loved.

I hope I learn to emulate how much he loved his country, how much he loved his family, and how much he exuded unparalleled optimism. We all have something we can learn from him. He is a great hero, and he will be missed.