The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem. Theodore Rubin

-- Theodore Rubin

The cat took up computer lessons in hopes of mastering its grip on a mouse.

Tax Reform

WHY FEDERAL TAX REFORM?

The cumbersome, bureaucratic nightmare that the IRS is to virtually every American taxpayer needs to end. Our tax code is crippling business, big and small, and it paralyzes citizens. It costs American citizens and businesses an astounding $265 billion in tax preparation costs each year alone. In comparison, this is $100 billion more than the cost to the government of the taxpayer stimulus checks sent out earlier this year. And after the tax preparation efforts are complete, American families spend months working just to pay their taxes to a government that continues to grow in size and scope.

That's why I intend to nail the "going out of business" sign on the Internal Revenue Service's front door!

IS THERE A BETTER WAY?

Our goal is to find a better way for taxpayers and businesses to participate in the federal tax process. And we believe the FairTax is the best way for citizens to do so. However, we are open to your creative ideas and diverse solutions, and are confident that working together we will find a better way.

THE FAIRTAX PLAN

The FairTax (HR 25/S 1025) is a thoroughly researched national tax system carefully designed to replace all income and payroll taxes with a simple, transparent and fair national retail sales tax. The Fair Tax will eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. It will do away with all personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment taxes.

The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a progressive consumption tax. When consumption is taxed instead of citizen's earnings, savings and investments, the economy functions much better because taxes are levied on what we take out of the economy as consumers instead of what we put into the economy as producers.

The FairTax eliminates all federal taxes on the poor and gives the middle class a dramatic tax break. Each American citizen will receive a monthly prebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on basic goods and necessities. Instead, Americans will only be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. And, the tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.

The Fair Tax also isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend - it is revenue neutral. However, it doe broaden the taxpayer base by taxing the $1.5 trillion a year annual underground economy, eliminating unfair tax loopholes for the wealthy and by making taxpayers of 12 million illegals as consumers. Under the FairTax nothing is withheld by the government from paychecks, the IRS is abolished and April 15th becomes just another spring day!

The Fair Tax is progressive, but it doesn't punish the American people for their success as does the current system. Nor does it punish the old fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift. Instead it rewards and encourages them. Expert analysis of the Fair Tax have shown that it lowers the lifetime tax burden of all of us-single or married; working or retired; rich, poor, or middle class.

THE FAIR TAX IS AN ADVANTAGE TO AMERICA IN THE COMPETITIVE MARKET

The Fair Tax will instantly make American products 12 to 25% more competitive because the cost of those goods will no longer be inflated by corporate taxes, costs of tax compliance, and Social Security matching payments. When we buy products now, those taxes are built into the cost, so all of us pay corporate taxes indirectly on top of the personal taxes we pay directly. Compliance costs have no real added value, yet they consume as much as 3% of our gross domestic product annually. These costs are an especially heavy burden on small businesses, which generate most of our jobs. The fair tax removes the income tax effects that are driving American jobs offshore.

No matter how hard Americans work, no matter how innovative and creative we are, no matter how superior our products are we suffer from a built-in competitive disadvantage simply because of our tax system. A recent study by MIT found that our tax system deprives us of about $1 billion in exports annually. When you export over-priced goods as we have, you inevitably end up exporting jobs and industries as we now are.

We are the square peg trying to fit into the round hole of international trade. The rest of the world isn't going to change, it's time that we do. Under the FairTax American companies are far less likely to move overseas and foreign companies are far more likely to come here, hiring Americans to build and work in their new plants. The Fair Tax is the path to greater prosperity and job security for us and for our children.

The FairTax broadens the taxpayer base by taxing the $1.5 trillion a year annual underground economy, eliminating unfair tax loopholes for the wealthy and by making taxpayers of 12 million illegals as consumers. Under the FairTax nothing is withheld by the government from paychecks, the IRS is abolished and April 15th becomes just another spring day!

THE FAIRTAX AND THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS

Furthermore, many experts believe the FairTax can help solve the current financial meltdown by:

1. Increasing take home pay which will allow distressed homeowners to stay in their homes and satisfy mortgage obligations.

2. Attracting an estimated $12-15 trillion of foreign investment into our economy and

3. Greatly benefiting "Made in America" products resulting in rapid job growth.

And just as importantly, all of these effects do not require huge taxpayer investments.

You may visit www.fairtax.org for more information on the FairTax including the supporting research.

QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED

Here are some of the questions we believe need to be answered:

Are there other tax proposals that might meet our short and long term revenue needs?

The FairTax represents a massive overhaul of our tax system. Many are skeptical of whether or not it could ever pass through the Congress. Are there intermediate steps that should be taken to enact the FairTax?

Vertical Politics Institute 

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle

Even though Ashley was blind and under arrest, she still had hope that someone would brail her out.

Why I Am A 'Conservative'

By Harris R. Sherline

December 15, 2008

It's no surprise, I'm sure, that I am a registered Republican. However, I consider myself more a "conservative" than a Republican. For me, it's more about principles and values than it is about political party. I don't have a particularly strong allegiance to the Republic Party, whereas I am an avid believer in Conservatism. If a true "Conservative" party were to emerge, I would change my registration in an instant.

That said, my reasons for being a "Conservative" are primarily based on what I believe are the differences in the core beliefs of Liberal and Conservative adherents, which are founded on their respective philosophies about human nature, what motivates people, and how to best organize the economic activity of societies.

Liberals generally tend to believe it is wrong for people to accumulate wealth or to have income substantially in excess of their individual needs. Their core concept is that, in general, everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from the available resources, which are finite, thus requiring government to be organized as a top down structure of decision-making. This in turn limits individual freedom of choice. They also believe societies work best when they are organized around this principle, with command and control authority concentrated at the top.

The most extreme example of this principle is Communism, which attempts to centralize all key production, pricing and distribution decisions about the millions of products and services that are made every day throughout a society. The failure of the USSR within a single century clearly proved that this doesn't work. Unfortunately, true believers don't see it that way, they just think the Soviets didn't do it right. On the other hand, Conservatives generally believe the best way to organize society is to allow maximum decision-making by individuals acting in their own self interest, as they themselves perceive it.

The primary difference between the two concepts is found in the degree of personal freedom and government control that each permits or requires. "Conservative" economic philosophy is based on the idea that people are motivated by self interest, while the economic (political) philosophy of Liberals is that individuals are (or should be) motivated by some higher standard.

Liberal economic models are based on the principle that the size of the economic pie is static, that those who are highly successful can only succeed at the expense of others, whereas Conservatives believe that the growth of the economy is based on increased productivity, which means the size of the economy is potentially unlimited.

Human nature leads people to act in their own self-interest. However, this does not mean self-interest is necessarily defined in economic terms. People also work for rewards other than money: power, position, status, security, even love or altruism. But whatever their individual motivation, it is always self-interest in one form or another.

The concept that in America we are all "created equal" is being perverted by Liberalism to mean equality of outcome, that everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from society. But, the world doesn't work that way. No two people are really "equal" in all respects. Some are smarter, better educated, shrewder, better looking, more personable, have more drive or ambition than others, and no form of government can alter that reality.

For true "conservatives" and for me personally, the most important core value is having the individual freedom to pursue our own happiness as we define it for ourselves, with a minimum of interference from government.

---

I really can't add anything to this. The author says it better than I could. 

There comes a point in your life when you realize who matters, who never did, who won't anymore...and who always will. 

  

So, don't worry about people from your past, there's a reason why they didn't make it to your future. 

To Kill an American 

You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is. So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet Army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best of everything... the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America.

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

from email

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't know whether an Australian dentist wrote this or not. I don't really care. The author hit the nail on the head. An American may be legally defined as someone born in the United States or one who is a citizen (natural born or naturalized) of the US. But what makes an American is really defined in the final two sentences: 

They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

Americans believe first and foremost in freedom. We hold that dearer than just about anything else, except maybe hearth and home. And we are willing give our lives for others so that they can be also be free. Not all Americans agree with this part of our psyche, but that's for another post. Where else in the world has it been the norm since the founding of the country? And one of the reasons for the founding of that country? As Americans, we know we can say just about anything, short of libel, and others, who may not agree with what we said, will at the very least, agree that we have the right to say it.   

I don't like knowing that there are people out there who want to kill me simply because I was born in the United States. That's really scary. Usually when someone wants to kill others, it's for reasons we understand, but just because of where we were born? But you know what? It's not really because of where we were born, but what our country represents to the rest of the world: freedom. 

Freedom to speak out, freedom to live as we want, freedom to worship as we want. They believe that we live a sinful, corrupt way of life. And perhaps to their way of thinking we do.

Our ancestors left their European homelands because the government wanted to them to live by certain standards they didn't believe in. And now there are those who want to kill us for not living by the standards they believe in. I don't like to make promises that depend on other people but I think I can make this promise: We're not abandoning our homeland again and we will fight for our homes, families and, yes, our freedom. 

Those who want to kill us may succeed to a certain extent. But I think I can safely say this: you will never kill the American spirit. It exists in far too many people around the world. As the author of the above piece says: Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

"We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience."

--Theophilus Parsons the Essex Result, 1778

A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.

The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart. "What do you think you're doing?" asks the wife.

"They're on sale, only $10 for 24 cans," he replies.

"Put them back, we can't afford them," demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.

A few aisles further along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.

"What do you think you're doing?" asks the husband.

"Its my face cream. It makes me look beautiful!" replies the wife.

Her husband retorts: "So does 24 cans of Budweiser and its half the price."

On the PA system: "Cleanup needed on aisle 25, we have a husband down."

Jeb Bush Signals He's Poised to Run 

Saturday, December 27, 2008 12:22 PM

By: Dave Eberhart

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has been busy testing the waters since Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., announced this month that he won’t seek reelection in 2010.

According to Politico, sources indicate the president’s brother hasn’t yet made a final decision, but Republican Party leaders are giving him a thumbs-up. And President Bush has already said his brother would make an “awesome” candidate and senator.

"Everything indicates that he's in," said David Johnson, a Republican strategist and the CEO of Strategic Vision. "You're not making calls and laying the ground work for fundraising unless you're clearing the field for your candidacy."

[To see the recent Newsmax interview with Jeb Bush, go here now]

Even with his brother’s low, low popularity ratings, GOP leaders are of the mind that the Bush family name won’t be a hindrance if he decides to enter the race.

"Quite the opposite, actually," said one source close to Jeb Bush. "What he's found is that everyone is encouraging him to run. It's actually been a little overwhelming," according to the Politico report.

Indeed, the possibility of another Bush entering a crucial national race seemed to excite both politicians and veteran observers in Bush’s home state of Florida over the weekend. Until rising stars like Sarah Palin or Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal are better tested, Bush could bring some much-needed gravitas to Republican circles, according to several observers.

Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida and an expert on Florida politics, said Bush's phone calls around the state are "a good sign" that he could be jumping in the race, something that she says is "music to the ears of Florida Republicans."

"Nothing could have come at a better time," MacManus told Politico. "Republicans here in Florida were so down after the election. The mere mention of Jeb's potential Senate run has put Republicans in a much more festive holiday mood."

In the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, Fla. State Rep. Dean Cannon, who is slated to be the speaker of the state house in 2010, wasted no time in throwing his support to Bush.

“As Floridians ask who would best succeed Martinez in the Senate, I believe that the best and most logical successor is Jeb Bush — not because he has proven that he can win, but because he has proven that he can lead,” Cannon, of Winter Park, Florida, wrote.

”Bush led, not only on issues that were popular, but on issues that were so difficult and so full of political thorns that a generation of politicians before him chose to simply ignore them in the hopes that they would go away or resolve themselves.”

Although there was some speculation that a veteran business leader and former chief executive of his state might hesitate at being just one voice among 100 in the Senate, most seem to think that Bush’s sense of public service would outweigh his ego.

Mark Silva, a veteran Florida politics reporter, wrote in the Chicago Tribune’s Swamp politics blog: “For anyone who has known Jeb Bush a long time, the thought of him even thinking of the Senate came as a surprise — he is the chief executive's chief executive, not the go-along, get-along sort of compromiser that life in a legislature requires. Yet anyone who has known him also knows that he takes his politics, and more importantly, public policy, seriously. He sees a certain void in his party at the moment: An absence of someone in Washington with a pulpit to advance the opposition's cause in a reasoned and methodical manner.”

Another source added, "I think he was a little surprised by the magnitude of support. It was so broad and so deep."

Bush left the governor's office two years ago with high approval ratings, was praised for his hands-on role in handling several destructive hurricanes and has held on to his popularity as a private citizen.

"The support is there," a source said. "Fundraisers are calling him. The money will be there."

But Jeb Bush might face some formidable competition from Gov. Charlie Crist, who is also among those eyeing the empty Senate seat. So is Republican Bill McCollum, the Florida attorney general and former congressman.

Among the Democrats, Alex Sink, the state's chief financial officer, and Reps. Allen Boyd and Ron Klein are also considering a Senate run.

[To see the recent Newsmax interview with Jeb Bush, go here now]

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope Jeb does make a run. I believe that he would be better than either of our current senators. For that matter, I believe he would do a good job based on his time as Florida's governor. I don't agree with everything he did in office, but I think he did a better job as governor than I really expected. And I personally don't care about his family connections, although I know some wouldn't vote for him just for that reason alone.

I'm not so interested in a candidate who can win the seat. That can be accomplished by being a major fund raiser (to pay for TV, radio and print advertising and make yourself known. Remember what it did for Obama). I'm far more interested in a candidate who can lead and lead with the best interests of his (or her, of course) constituency in mind.

As I said, I don't agree with everything he did as governor; only a sycophant agrees with everything another person says or does. Of course, there is also the person who just can't, or won't, think for themselves. The difference between the two is that a sycophant may not agree, or believe in the person they are fawning over, but they think it's to their advantage in some way to do so. The other is a person who's just too lazy to be bothered to think for themselves; of course, it is to their advantage because they don't have to do the work to find out why they should agree or disagree. Now that I think of it, there is a third type. That's the person who agrees with the last person they talked to.  In any case, Jeb Bush does not fall into any of the three categories.

He's a proven leader. Florida was hit by four hurricanes in 2004. Florida was further ahead than Louisiana or the Federal Government before, and after, Katrina. I personally will not blame GWB for the Katrina debacle. I'm not going into that here. It's in the past and not part of this issue. Jeb was on top of the situation from the beginning, not waiting for, or relying on, the Feds to take control.

Based on his performance during the hurricanes, I do believe he will do a fine job as a Senator representing the Great State of Florida. Time will tell, of course. I thought the same of Martinez and was sadly disappointed. 

I've been told that the first video was removed from YouTube (and here) because it violated music copyright laws. I don't know about that (I'd appreciate if anyone would advise that this is true; I wouldn't intentionally post something that would be illegal). I checked with my favorite source, snopes.com, but they didn't have information on it with any of the keywords I used. 

Maybe someone has more information?

One Flaw In Women

Women have strengths that amaze men.

They bear hardships and they carry burdens, but they hold happiness, love and joy.

They smile when they want to scream.

They sing when they want to cry.

They cry when they are happy and laugh when they are nervous.
They fight for what they believe in.

They stand up to injustice.

They don't take 'no' for an answer when they believe there is a better solution.
They go without so their family can have.

They go to the doctor with a frightened friend.

They love unconditionally.
They cry when their children excel and cheer when their friends get awards.

They are happy when they hear about a birth or a wedding.

Their hearts break when a friend dies.

They grieve at the loss of a family member, yet they are strong when 
they think there is no strength left.

They know that a hug and a kiss can heal a broken heart.

Women come in all shapes, sizes and colors.
They'll drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you to show how much they care about you.

The heart of a woman is what makes the world keep turning.

They bring joy, hope and love.
They have the compassion and ideas.

They give moral support to their family and friends.

Women have vital things to say and everything to give.

However, if there is one flaw in Women, it is that they forget their worth.

"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others."

--James Madison, Federalist No. 48, 1 February 1788

AP IMPACT: Wall Street still flying corporate jets

Dec 21, 5:19 PM (ET)

By STEVENSON JACOBS

NEW YORK (AP) - Crisscrossing the country in corporate jets may no longer fly in Detroit after car executives got a dressing down from Congress. But on Wall Street, the coveted executive perk has hardly been grounded.

Six financial firms that received billions in bailout dollars still own and operate fleets of jets to carry executives to company events and sometimes personal trips, according to an Associated Press review.

The jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money - lots of money. And some firms are cutting back, either by selling the planes or leasing them.

Still, Wall Street's reliance of the rarified mode of travel has largely escaped the scorn poured on the Big Three automakers.

(AP) Graphic shows 2007 personal use of corporate aircraft by CEOs of financial firms that received...

Full Image

Insurance giant American International Group Inc. (AIG) (AIG), which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.

"Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now," AIG spokesman Nicholas J. Ashooh said. "I'm not saying there's no use, but there's very minimal use."

To cut costs, AIG sold two jets earlier this year and is selling or canceling orders for four others.

Five other financial companies that got a combined $120 billion in government cash injections - Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS) - all own aircraft for executive travel, according to regulatory filings earlier this year and interviews.

A cross-country trip in a mid-sized jet costs about $20,000 for fuel. Maintenance, storage and pilot fees put the cost far higher.

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

A few big U.S. companies have shunned jet ownership. Chip maker Intel Corp. (INTC), for example, requires executives and employees to fly commercial. Intel occasionally charters jets for executives on overseas trips for security reasons, though.

For automakers, the public relations nightmare exploded last month when the chief executives of Ford, GM and Chrysler were criticized for flying on corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for federal bailout money.

"Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled, or something, to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked the CEOs.

When the executives went back to Capitol Hill two weeks later for a second round of hearings, they traveled by car.

So why were Wall Street executives spared from the corporate-jet backlash? One reason is that they didn't have to go before Congress to request bailout money, so no one asked how they traveled to Washington.

But an AP review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and FAA records offers a glimpse of Wall Street firms' ownership and use of private aircraft. Among the findings:

- CITIGROUP: Has a wholly owned subsidiary, Citiflight Inc., that handles air travel for executives. Citi spokeswoman Shannon Bell refused to comment on the size of the firm's fleet but said it has been reduced by two-thirds over the past eight years. FAA records show four jets and a helicopter registered to the company.

In 2007, then-CEO Charles Prince used company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons. Those trips cost the company $170,972 for that year. Current CEO Vikram Pandit began reimbursing the company for all personal travel on company planes since being appointed in November 2007.

Use of Citigroup's aircraft currently is confined to a "limited number of executives," Bell said. "Executives are encouraged to fly commercial whenever possible to reduce expenses."

- MORGAN STANLEY: Has reduced its executive jet fleet size from three planes to two since 2005, company spokesman Mark Lake said. FAA records show two Gulfstream G-Vs as registered to the company.

In 2007, CEO John Mack's personal use of company aircraft totaled $355,882, according to a February proxy filing. Mack is required to use company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons.

- JPMORGAN: Registered as the owner of four Gulfstream jets, including a 2007 ultra-long range flagship G550 model, FAA records show. A G550 ordered for delivery that year would have cost roughly $47.5 million.

CEO Jamie Dimon is required to use company aircraft for personal trips; In 2007, his personal use of company jets totaled $211,182, according to a May filing with the SEC. Company spokesman Joe Evangelisti refused to comment on whether the bank has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since accepting $25 billion in TARP money.

- BANK OF AMERICA: Registered as the owner of nine planes, including four Gulfstreams, FAA records show. Company spokesman Scott Silvestri refused to say whether the company has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since taking $15 billion in bailout money.

CEO Kenneth Lewis, also required to use company aircraft for personal trips, racked up $127,643 in such travel last year, according to a March filing with the SEC.

- WELLS FARGO: Owns a single jet that "is strictly for business purposes under appropriate circumstances," spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said. "No (government) funds will be used for corporate jet travel," she added.

SEC rules require publicly held companies to disclose executives' personal use of corporate aircraft. But there's "a lot of gray area" in how they do it, said David Yermack, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who has studied the matter.

"If you use the plane for a personal trip but make one business call, should you report it?" he said. "Or if you're playing golf with potential business partners, does a company report that as business or personal?"

As mounting losses force companies to cut costs, some are becoming stingier about personal use of the company plane. Merrill Lynch & Co. (MERPO), for example, has banned such trips, according to company filings.

Experts say other companies that took bailout money will probably follow suit.

"The personal use of these planes is virtually indefensible at this point," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Group. "Once you're on the federal dole, the pressure is going to become immense on these firms to cut these costs."

Private jet manufacturers say the debate over executive travel has been overblown.

"What people don't understand is that business jets are mobile offices," said Robert N. Baugniet, Gulfstream's director of corporate communications. "If time has any value to you, then you'll understand why people use business jets."

He said the dustup hasn't hurt orders for new planes.

Still, some firms have avoided corporate jet ownership. Goldman Sachs Group, whose executives in past years have been among the highest-paid in the industry, has never owned its own aircraft since going public in 1999, spokesman Michael DuVally said.

The company does make private planes available to some executives through a fractional jet agreement, a timeshare-style arrangement, according to filings. Duvally refused to say how much the company spends on its fractional agreement.

Wary of being perceived as opulent, most companies fly in unmarked jets. Aviation buffs can usually track planes over the Internet using aircraft tail numbers. But many companies, including AIG and Citigroup, have blocked the public's ability to do so for security reasons.

Some corporate chieftains make no excuses for flying the private skies.

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRKA) CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I really need to say anything? Wall Street takes our money, then continues to bleed money by using corporate jets. Now, look, if I had a business, and the business were profitable enough (or shoot, I was just rich enough) to purchase, maintain, and operate a private airplane, I'd have one too. It's got to be the best way to travel. No going through TSR lines, comfortable seating, plenty of legroom, and travel on your timetable instead of the airlines.

But, when your business is in danger of going under, and especially when you take public money to keep it afloat, you have to show that you are cutting costs and trying to economize. Flying commercial is cheaper than flying privately, even if you have to fly on someone else's schedule. 

AIG had that lesson shown to them. Remember, they were scheduled to have a retreat at a resort spa that was going to cost thousands? And this was after they got emergency bailout money. Only after the ....uh, news...about the retreat hit the fan, was it canceled. AIG didn't look so good in the glare of the spotlight when it was found out that the execs planned to continue the retrreat. Had it been canceled when money got tight (meaning before Washington came across with the cash to save their buns), AIG would have looked a whole lot better.

I keep saying perception is everything. If Wall Street, Detroit, and anybody else going before Congress for their handout flies to Washington in a private jet, or doesn't make the effort to cut costs, the public just won't buy that they need the money. 

In these economic times, the average, and even the not so average wage earner has to cut back somewhere. We don't want to see a business go hat in hand to Washington begging for a handout so they can stay in business, but fly there in private jets, stay at 5-star hotels, use limos while in Washington, all the while planning a corporate retreat, planning to payout the alphabets (CEO, CFO, etc) severance packages and so on. It's just not prudent to continue on as if nothing changed. The company has to cut costs, fly commercial, stay at the local Howard Johnson's, and use public transportation go Capitol Hill. 

If you want the public's money, you gotta play the game. Sorry, but them's the rules. We've all had to play the game at some time in our career, or in our lives, why should Wall Street, Detroit, or any other entity that comes begging to the public fountain be any different? 

A guide to the RNC chairman race

By: Alexander Burns

December 18, 2008 01:13 PM EST

The six contenders for Republican National Committee chair are rolling out every gimmick, plan and endorsement in the hopes of gaining an edge - any edge - in the tight contest for the GOP's top job.

Just Tuesday, Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state, announced that he was forming a ticket with Texas Republican Party Chairwoman Tina Benkiser, who is running for national co-chairwoman of the party. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele unveiled a set of ethics regulations designed to polish the GOP's tarnished public image.

Earlier this week, Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis contacted RNC members to advertise his "Blueprint for a GOP Comeback."

Not to be outdone, incumbent Chairman Mike Duncan, who confirmed his intention to seek a second term last week, is making plans for the formation of a new conservative think-tank, the Center for Republican Renewal.

The attention-grabbing stunts are a necessity in a race where the candidates don't have many chances to confront each other directly. Two of the few opportunities will take place during the first week of January, when candidates will face each other at a debate hosted by the fiscal conservative group Americans for Tax Reform and then later that week when they compete for support from the RNC's Conservative Steering Committee, which will hold a straw poll and release a list of approved candidates.

There's still a ways to go in the race, and experienced Republicans point to the 1997 contest for RNC chairman - when Jim Nicholson upset a crowded field in the party's last competitive leadership election - as evidence that anything can happen.

Here's a look at each candidate's prospects six weeks out from the start of the RNC's winter meeting on Jan. 28.

Mike Duncan - As the current committee chairman, Duncan knows the party's insiders better than anyone else in the running. And while his present term in office has left Republicans with mixed feelings - his prolific fundraising doesn't quite make up, in some leaders' minds, for the GOP's devastating November losses - he's ended on a strong note thanks to Saxby Chambliss's victory in the Georgia Senate runoff and the GOP's two House wins in Louisiana.

Most of all, Duncan is benefiting from a divided field of opponents who haven't developed a consistent critique of his leadership and against whom he could quickly become an unobjectionable consensus candidate.

"If there was a movement that could push Duncan out, I think it would be identifiable at this point," said one Republican strategist who expects Duncan to be reelected. "I just do not get the feeling that there is going to be some great change."

Saul Anuzis - Among the field of candidates seeking to become the anti-Duncan, Anuzis stands out for his energetic campaigning and his emphasis on technology. The Michigan GOP chair announced his bid on Twitter and has been hammering away at the theme of tactical innovation. Multiple Republicans noted Anuzis's big, colorful personality - he rides a Harley-Davidson and sports a goatee as an asset in a race where candidates are struggling to distinguish themselves from an ideologically homogenous field.

Anuzis has also rolled out more public endorsements than any other candidate, drawing heavily on support from blue states like New Jersey and Connecticut and shaping a perception that his candidacy is picking up steam.

"If I had to assign momentum in what has been a very, very sleepy race, I'd assign it to Anuzis," said another Republican strategist.

Anuzis's weakness? Michigan has been very tough ground for the GOP in recent cycles, and the support he's receiving from Republicans back home may not be quite enough to kick voters' suspicion that he just hasn't delivered the wins an RNC chair needs.

Michael Steele - Steele, a former state party chair who served as Maryland's lieutenant governor before losing a Senate race in 2006 to then-Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), is essentially tied in second place with Anuzis. Steele announced his candidacy on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" to great fanfare, touting his skills as a political communicator at a time when Republicans lack a high-profile leaders on the national stage.

Steele's campaign hasn't gone quite the way he expected it to, according to some Republicans, who believe Steele expected his star power to carry him farther than it has in a race in which many RNC members would prefer to elect one of their colleagues on the committee.

And though he's consistently reaffirmed his commitment to conservative social positions, his association with the moderate Republican Leadership Council has some RNC members uneasy.

"I don't think there's any question that he is personally pro-life. I think the only question is how he views the role of social conservatives within the party," said James Bopp Jr., the influential social conservative who serves as national committeeman for Indiana.

But despite these hiccups, Steele seems destined to make it to the finish line with the clout to make it through multiple ballots. And if he can edge out Anuzis on the first vote he could give Duncan a run for his money.

Katon Dawson - Running a little behind his fellow challengers, but still mounting an energetic and serious campaign, is South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson. With a better win-loss record than Anuzis and a closer rapport with RNC members than Steele or Blackwell, Dawson could ride a wave of conservative and Southern support into the late stages of balloting - particularly if the Blackwell-Benkiser gambit falls flat.

The Palmetto State Republican is billing his campaign as a vehicle for outside-the-Beltway competence and emphasizing the need to return control over the RNC to successful state-level leaders - a message that's certainly in tune with the mood on the committee.

Dawson's major obstacle is, in a word, Southernness. At a moment when some are labeling the GOP a regional party, Dawson may not look (and sound) like the change the GOP needs. And his critics are only too eager to hype up a damaging story that Dawson belonged to an all-white country club as recently as last summer.

Ken Blackwell - The former Cincinnati mayor and Ohio secretary of state entered the RNC campaign late - on Dec. 5 - and has lagged behind the other contenders. While his candidacy hasn't exactly caught fire, it got a potentially significant boost this week in the shape of his partnership with Benkiser, who could help Blackwell appeal to the significant social conservative bloc on the committee.

Blackwell has also moved forward with a series of moves that appear designed to capture the RNC's fiscal conservative vote, receiving the endorsements of publisher Steve Forbes and Club for Growth head Pat Toomey. Endorsements don't necessarily pack much of a punch in an internal election like this one, but every little bit helps.

Like Steele, however, Blackwell's not a member of the RNC and he still faces skepticism about both his qualifications and his viability. The Ohioan still has some catching up to do in this race and a running mate alone won't do the trick.

"He's a very plausible candidate," said one member of the RNC, who cautioned: "He's neither fish nor fowl. He's not a figure with national prominence and he's not a figure with experience keeping the trains running on time."

Chip Saltsman - A former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party and campaign manager to Mike Huckabee, Saltsman has more to gain than any other candidate from a protracted, multi-ballot knife fight for the chairmanship. The 40-year-old has been running a vigorous race against more established candidates, though he's had to distance himself from the Huckabee campaign in a race where no one wants to support a stalking horse for 2012.

Saltsman knows he's an underdog, but as a student of GOP politics he also knows that once an RNC race gets past the first or second ballot, all bets are off. If Saltsman can become a second- or third-choice candidate for a significant number of RNC members, and survive the first ballot, he could try and follow the Jim Nicholson path to victory. Yet even if he is unsuccessful, he's established himself as a name to be taken very seriously in years to come.