Benz Speaks! How much is a billion?

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it's releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ...
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ..

Interesting number...
what does it mean?
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528

Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
Or... if you are a family of four...
your family gets $2,066,012.

Politicians and Bureaucrats, wherever you are

Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax Luxury Tax Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax (Truckers) Sales Taxes Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt...

We had the largest middle class in the world...

and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?

Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to press '1' for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened????

Race Cards and Speech Codes

By Patrick J Buchanan

"Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

So said Bill Clinton in New Hampshire of Obama's claim to have been a constant opponent of the war. Clinton cited Obama's voting record, which was the same as Hillary's in his early Senate years.

Yet, for this, the ex-president, designated by Toni Morrison as "our first black president," was charged with playing the race card.Clinton spent days explaining the "fairy tale" remark.Came then the morning of the South Carolina primary, where Barack was rolling up a smashing victory. Bill volunteered: "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign, and Sen. Obama's running a good campaign."That broke it. Bill Clinton was openly "playing the race card."Now, undoubtedly, Clinton was trying to belittle, to diminish the importance of the South Carolina vote for Obama. But why is it racist to say what Clinton was implying: That, in a Southern state where a huge share of the Democratic vote is African-American, a strong black presidential candidate can be expected to do well?Political history proves this. What is racist about saying it?Aware of the truism, every political analyst was looking closely at the racial breakdown of the South Carolina vote.Last week came Hillary's turn. After her victory in Indiana and loss in North Carolina, which pundits said rang down the curtain on her presidential bid, she advanced an argument candidates have used since primary elections began. "I can win -- and my opponent can't."The argument was made against Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan.In an interview with USA TODAY, Hillary argued that the coalition she has put together would be stronger against John McCain than the coalition Barack has cobbled together.She began by relating an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," said Hillary. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."This shot Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post into low orbit."As a rationale for why Democratic Party super-delegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry ..."Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say ... that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."But Hillary was saying no such thing. Describing her coalition, she was implying that Obama's coalition -- a George McGovern-Jesse Jackson combine embracing 90 percent of African-Americans, plus liberals, students and cause people -- has less chance of beating McCain than does she and her more Middle American coalition.Democrats, not liberal Democrats, are the swing votes who decide presidential races. Here Hillary beats Obama three to two or two to one, North and South.Has she no right to make this argument? Can Brother Robinson explain exactly how Hillary can describe her Ohio-Pennsylvania coalition without using the dread word "white"?Some of the reaction to the Clintons, whose once-universal support among African-Americans has crashed, is due to the immense stake black Americans have come to invest in the Obama candidacy. But some of this is something else, something more sinister.Bill and Hillary Clinton are not playing a race card. Rather, the liberal media and some black journalists with sentimental, emotional or ideological investments in Obama are playing the intimidation card.They are setting limits around what may and may not be said about Obama. They are seeking to censor robust adversarial speech where Barack is concerned, by branding as racists "playing the race card" any who make Barack run the same paces as anyone else.The Clintons are today victims of a double standard that has long been employed against conservatives.Even African-Americans critical of Obama are feeling the lash. In Saturday's Washington Post article, "Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama," reporter Darryl Fears writes, "Standing in the path of Obama's campaign has been dangerous" for prominent blacks.Bill and Hillary have lost luster and sustained damage to their reputations because, in the Democrats' universe, such smears stick. The question for Republicans is whether they will let themselves be intimidated, as they too often are, from using legitimate political weapons to defend what they still have.It is thus a sign of trouble ahead that John McCain declared the Rev. Wright off limits and berated the North Carolina GOP for bringing him up. Let your adversaries circumscribe the content of your campaign, and you usually end up losing your campaign.

Will the Right Sit It Out?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

April 29, 2008

If John McCain wins the presidency, his comeback -- after the bankrupt debacle his campaign had become in the summer of 2007 with his backing of the amnesty bill -- will be the stuff of legend.

And as nominee, he is entitled to conduct his own campaign and be cut slack by a party whose brand name is now Enron.

That said, McCain seems to have decided to win by love-bombing the Big Media and putting miles between himself and the base.

Consider his "Forgotten Places" tour of last week.

It began in Selma, Ala., where McCain went to Edmund Pettis Bridge to hail John Lewis and the marchers night-sticked and hosed down by the Alabama State Troopers on the Montgomery march for voting rights.

Now that was a seminal movement in the fight for civil rights.

But this is not 1965. Today, John Lewis is a big dog in the "No-Whites-Need-Apply!" Black Caucus. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is sermonizing White America. The Rev. Al Sharpton is trying to shut down the Big Apple. And the fight for equal rights is being led by Ward Connerly.

With no help from McCain, Connerly is trying to put on five state ballots a Civil Rights Initiative that declares white men are also equal and not to be denied their civil rights because of the color of their skin.

And where does McCain stand?

From Selma, McCain went to the Gee's Bend Quilters Collective, where black ladies make the famous blankets. The stop could not but call to mind the hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs in the Carolinas and Georgia lost after NAFTA and Most-Favored Nation for China, both of which McCain enthusiastically supported.

McCain's next stop was Inez, Ky., where LBJ declared war on poverty. But LBJ's war was a politically motivated scheme to shift wealth and power to government, which led to a pathological dependency among America's poor, his own abdication and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign against Big Government that ushered in the Conservative Decade.

McCain then went to New Orleans to backhand Bush for failing to act swiftly to rescue the victims of Katrina.

But the real failure of New Orleans was of the corrupt and incompetent regime of Mayor Ray Nagin and the men of New Orleans, who left 30,000 women and children stranded in a sea of stagnant water.

No doubt Bush hit the snooze button, but why the piling on?

Then McCain headed up to Youngstown, Ohio, to tell the folks their jobs are never coming back and NAFTA was a sweet deal.

But why, when America's mini-mills and steel mills are among the most efficient on earth -- in terms of man hours needed to produce a ton of steel -- aren't those jobs coming back?

Answer: It is due to the free-trade policies of Bush and McCain, which permit trade rivals to impose value-added taxes of 15 percent to 20 percent on steel imports from the United States while rebating those taxes on steel exports to the United States. We are getting it in the neck coming and going.

An America First trade and tax policy could have U.S. steel mills rising again, while those in Japan, China, Russia and Brazil would be shutting down as uncompetitive in the U.S. market.

But we no longer put America first.

The U.S. government burns its incense at the altar of the Global Economy. The losers are those guys in Youngstown McCain was lecturing on the beauty of NAFTA. And the winners are the CEOs who pull down seven-, eight- and even nine-figure annual packages selling out their country for the corporation.

Does McCain think $6 trillion in trade deficits since NAFTA, a dollar rotting away and 3.5 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush was all inevitable? Does he think we can do nothing to stop the deindustrialization of a country that used to produce 96 percent of all it consumed?

Why should those guys in Youngstown vote for McCain?

So the feds can teach them how to shovel snow?

Even Hillary, whose husband did NAFTA with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole's help, now gets it.

Then McCain took a time out to denounce the North Carolina GOP for ads tying the Rev. Wright to Obama, and the pair to two Democratic congressional candidates. To their credit, the North Carolinians told McCain where to get off and are running the ads.

What does a McCain victory mean for conservatives?

Probably a veto on tax hikes and perhaps a fifth justice like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or John Roberts, to turn two pair into a full house. Fifty years after Warren, it could be game, set, match for the right.

But McCain may also mean more Middle East wars, more bellicosity, more manufacturing jobs lost, malingering in the culture wars, and more illegal aliens and amnesty.

In Pennsylvania, thousands of Republicans re-registered to vote Democratic, and 27 percent of the GOP votes went to Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. McCain may just stretch this rubber band so far it snaps back in his face.

The American Patriot - Then and Now

Ozymandias / Hillarymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear:`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! 'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,The lone and level sands stretch far away.
- - Percy Bysshe Shelley


I met a pollster from an antique land, Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand, one in Texas...., one near Canton, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose brow, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The electorate that mocked them, and the press that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Hillarymandias, Look on my resume and campaign fundraising, ye fellow Democrats, and despair! Nothing else remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Heh.
- - Tom Maguire
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/02/hillarymandias.html

NH Optical Vote Scan Machines Violate Federal Law

by Bob Schulz

With an interest in defending the individual's constitutionally guaranteed Right to have and to know that his vote is being accurately counted, We The People Foundation determined the 2008 New Hampshire Primary recount offered an excellent, real-world opportunity to independently assess the statistical performance of optical scan, electronic vote counting machines relative to hand counting of ballots.

WTP has just completed its analysis of the data. Our principal findings are as follows.
Of the 347, 905 total ballots processed during the recount 305,207 (87.7%) came from towns and cities that use machines to count the votes, and 42,619 (12.3%) came from towns that use People to count the votes.

New Hampshire's vote counting machines violate federal accuracy standards. New Hampshire's machines experienced an error rate approximately 163 times greater than the error rate allowed under federal Election Law.

The probability that an individual's vote was accurately counted during the Primary was much greater if his vote was counted by hand than by machine.

Statewide, taking into consideration all the ballots that were included in the recount, the number of machine counts that were in error by more than 2 votes was 9.81 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 2 votes. The number of machine counts that were in error by more than 1 vote was 3.37 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 1 vote.

We identified 38 instances of apparent fraud where votes were being hand counted.
We were not able to determine if intentional or unintentional error was behind the more substantial discrepancies in machine counts. Nor were we able to determine the impact of the 21 machines that failed on Primary Day, or if other machine failures occurred but were not reported to the Secretary of State's office.

In brief, the analysis data supports the conclusion that not only are machine counts of votes much more likely to result in error, but the machine errors are of a significantly larger magnitude and variance than those observed for hand counting.

When the much higher frequency of machine-counted errors is coupled with the statistically disturbing magnitude of the machine errors, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the use of optical scan machines to count votes has robbed many citizens of New Hampshire of their Right to Vote and their Right to have their Vote counted accurately.Our analysis of the state's data and election practices suggest that there are numerous steps that the government of New Hampshire can take to bolster the integrity of its election process - whether votes are counted by hand or by machine. Although hand-counting of votes is clearly not yet a perfected art, in keeping alive the practice of hand-counting, New Hampshire has served its citizens well. Beyond this, the state should not subject its People to further enduring electronic voting machines that grossly fail to meet even the minimal accuracy standards mandated by federal law.We hope our analysis has provided some much needed light onto a matter that substantially affects the future of freedom in New Hampshire - and our entire Republic.

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/NH-Recount/NH-RecountRpt-Feb-2008.htm

Who is business betting on in 2008

By Nina Easton,

Fortune Washington bureau chief
June 26 2007: 6:28 PM EDT
(Fortune Magazine) -- One of Hillary Clinton's most important courtships began early last year, around a formal dinner table at Georgetown's Four Seasons Hotel. Her targets were Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and his wife, Christy. Mack was already active politically - but on behalf of Clinton's political opponents. A Bush "Ranger," he had raised at least $200,000 for the President's reelection bid and was one of the most prominent business names on GOP donor lists. At one time his name had circulated as a potential Bush Treasury Secretary.
But these are strangely fluid political times, with long-held alliances shifting under the weight of an unpopular President, an unpopular war and no obvious White House heir on either side.
Morgan Stanley (Charts, Fortune 500) chief administrative officer Thomas Nides, a former Clinton trade official and one of the Democratic Party's more astute strategists, understood the possibilities better than most. That's why he had invited the Macks to a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate reelection at his Washington home - and then completed the evening by taking the trio to dinner at the Four Seasons.

The subject of a Clinton presidential bid never came up that night - except in Nides's whirling brain. He knew that the prospect of persuading his Republican boss to support a Clinton presidential bid was a long shot.

But he also appreciated the importance of trying. Adding such a prominent GOP executive to the Clinton roster would counteract business fears that the former First Lady is a big-government, big-spending, big-taxing liberal. "It would say to the business community, 'It's safe to swim here,'" Nides recalled.

The conversation that night ranged widely, but always returned to one subject: health-care reform. John Mack chairs the board of trustees at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. Christy Mack, the daughter of a doctor, helped found the Bravewell Collaborative to promote health care that treats "the whole person, not just the disease."

Hillary Clinton was on familiar territory - and managed to charm the couple not only with her "intelligence and educated responses," as Christy Mack recalls, but also with her one-on-one charisma. "You have these preconceived ideas about people you see in the public eye," says Christy. "But we were extremely impressed with her ability to connect with every single person. She was an amazing listener, with tremendous warmth."

The relationship could have ended there - a New York Senator engaging her local constituents. But early this year Clinton upped the ante with a phone call to the Morgan Stanley CEO, asking him to support her presidential bid. When he demurred, she asked for a meeting. Once again - this time over coffee - John and Christy Mack found themselves enticed. When Mack returned to his office, he told Nides he was ready to commit. "John, you can wait, you don't have to commit yet," Nides responded. "No," Mack replied, "early support is better support." Days later Mack picked up the phone and sealed the deal. Clinton, Nides recalls, "put the time in."

Multiply that effort many times over, and you can understand why the safe to swim signs are sprouting up all over Clinton Inc. Yet she is not the only Democrat to achieve surprising success in a realm traditionally taken for granted by Republicans. Her leading Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, has made forays into Wall Street and Hollywood to nab business support. He, too, has found admirers among top Republicans, most notably John Canning Jr., CEO of Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn.

For their part, top GOP candidates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney have lined up a small army of pinstriped pitchmen. But what's different this time is that CEOs are up for grabs on both sides. A Fortune survey of where business leaders are lining up in the 2008 race, based on dozens of interviews with top executives, reveals a concerted push by Democratic candidates to secure the blessing of big business while they continue to take their swipes at corporate America on behalf of the little guy.

Even at this early stage of the primary race, the business endorsements of Clinton alone rival - in size, scope and prestige the list of CEOs publicly supporting the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the 2004 general election.

The more than 150 top executives who have raised money for Clinton represent such brand names as Anheuser-Busch (Charts, Fortune 500), Comcast (Charts), Estée Lauder, Palm (Charts), Sun Microsystems (Charts, Fortune 500) and Qualcomm (Charts, Fortune 500).

Venture capitalist James D. Robinson III, the former CEO of American Express and a longtime Republican, told Fortune he now supports Clinton for President, citing her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level, which is critical for going forward."

A difficult war tests loyalties among business leaders, just as it does among other voters, who increasingly identify themselves as Democrats. But Iraq is only one factor behind this year's wide-open race for business support. With the scandals of the early part of the decade behind them, corporate leaders are once again emerging as opinion leaders - not only speaking out on such issues as health care, taxes and the environment, but calling for government action.

"This has been an important period for businesses of all sizes," Clinton told Fortune. "They really can't control health-care costs." And Clinton's Senate tenure has been a significant antidote to her controversial stint as a First Lady proposing health-care reform, which critics decried as an attempt to nationalize medicine. "There has been a real opportunity to know me and work with me," she says, "and to develop personal friendships."

Not to be discounted is that corporate America likes to bet on winners. Coming on the heels of the Democratic takeover of Congress, the party has a real shot at winning the White House. For Republican candidates, a sour political environment is only the beginning of the battle.
With several strong candidates and no clear front-runner, a business community that largely united behind George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 is now more fractured, with most major Bush donors still sitting on the sidelines. "Even in 2000, Bush was the presumptive nominee," notes longtime GOP fundraiser and Thayer Capital chairman Fred Malek. "Signing up with Bush was a no-brainer."

Business leaders can provide added heft to a candidate's fundraising efforts - the major candidates are expected to raise a record $1.4 billion in this race - but they also help a candidate's image branding. Democrat John Edwards, who offers sharp-edged populism, is a tougher sell to business. But Clinton and Obama view CEO support as a key part of their crossover appeal.

A roster of business endorsements "says to voters that you'll be strong on the economy," says Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe. Most of the top-tier candidates - Republican and Democrat - have made pilgrimages to the Business Roundtable's offices in Washington to pitch some 60 CEOs at a time.

Longtime Republican Harry Sloan, chief of MGM Studios, told Fortune he had been approached by Obama and Clinton, as well as supporters of second-tier candidates Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden. But he's sticking with McCain, whom he calls "the most principled political leader of our generation."

Still, Sloan notes that McCain is a more difficult sell than in his 2000 run, when he even drew admirers from liberal-dominated Hollywood. Those days are over. "Because of the Iraq war and John's position on the war right now, the same people aren't prepared to fully support him," says Sloan. "And many haven't given money for that reason."

Despite Democratic inroads into the business community, the three top declared GOP candidates have long careers that give them connections to name-brand players. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney has used his deep roots in business to enlist the likes of Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller, as well as Staples founder Tom Sternberg.

In Silicon Valley he counts on eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Next Solutions CEO Doug Wilson, while onetime colleagues like Bain & Co. founder William Bain, his former boss, stand by their man. "It's the strength of his leadership ability, his get-it-done attitude," says Marriott CEO Bill Marriott.

Giuliani's Wall Street support isn't as broad as that of fellow New Yorker Clinton, but he has culled important business support in Texas and elsewhere. Billionaire hedge fund manager T. Boone Pickens has raised nearly $1 million for the candidate. "In New York he cleaned up the city, ran Mafia convictions, then [handled] 9/11," Pickens says. Giuliani also has the support of Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, billionaire investor Sid Bass, and superstar activist Carl Icahn.

McCain has won the backing of FedEx chief Fred Smith, Cisco CEO John Chambers, New York Stock Exchange chief John Thain, and Boston Scientific's Pete Nicholas. In contrast to the grass-roots conservative voters McCain is trying to woo in his primary battle, top executives applaud the Senator's willingness to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform.

This year's scramble for the business seal of approval can make it hard for candidates to pin down a loyal commitment. Blackstone Group CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Amgen CEO Kevin Sharer have written checks to McCain - and to Romney. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg has donated to John McCain - but also to Clinton. Among Democrats, too, looks can be deceiving. Much attention was lavished on hedge funder Paul Tudor Jones's splashy May 19 fundraiser for Obama at his waterfront mansion in Greenwich, Conn. Less noticed was the $2,300 check he wrote to Giuliani just two months earlier.

David Geffen invited presidential prospect Michael Bloomberg to his Beverly Hills home June 19 for an intimate dinner - but he's formally supporting Obama. "I'd say 75 percent of the donor community in Hollywood has given to multiple candidates," says Andy Spahn, longtime political advisor to top entertainment figures. "For these people $2,300 [the legal cap on donations] is not a stretch."

Regardless of their personal feelings, many CEOs avoid publicly aligning themselves with a candidate, concerned about offending boards, employees and customers.

"If you're a consumer products company and you get your head up too high, you're going to alienate some customers," notes Malek. "Even if you produce industrial products - there are customers who are Democratic and customers who are Republican."

But FedEx CEO Smith insists that his personal support for McCain aligns with his company's interest in reducing America's dependence on foreign oil and maintaining a robust free-trade stance. "Those would be two of the issues that loom very large in this election that would be directly on point with FedEx's business interests," he told Fortune. Likewise, supporters of Democratic candidates say their companies would benefit from federal action to reform the health-care system.

When I told a leading GOP fundraiser the news that John Mack had thrown his weight behind Clinton, she was stunned. "You're kidding me, right?" (Actually she expressed the sentiment more graphically.) Says GOP veteran Malek, a McCain supporter: "It concerns me that any solid-thinking top businessperson would go the Democratic route, given the party's liberal ideology."

Clinton's critics say a close reading of her Senate record should give business leaders pause. The Chamber of Commerce estimated that she voted with that group's position 45.8 percent of the time; for the National Association of Manufacturers, it was 16 percent in the last Congress. Still, notes a conservative investment banker, "I don't think Hillary Clinton scares people the way she did in the '90s." And that gives her an opening with former opponents.

Jeffrey Volk, global head of Citigroup's agency and trust business, was with his wife and freshman daughter at Tulane University when Hurricane Katrina struck. (Like others interviewed for this story, Volk stressed that his political views are personal and not his firm's.) The family was stranded in a hotel room, fearful - like others - as power faltered, water levels rose and chaos engulfed New Orleans. His many efforts to reach Washington officials ended in a black hole of automated voicemail.

That was when this lifelong Republican called his home-state Senator's office. The Clinton staffer who took his case wasn't able to produce an airlift for stranded New Yorkers and others, as Volk requested, but he did call the family several times a day to check on them. "When I was in harm's way, her office was there to help me and my family," Volk says.

When he returned to New York, Volk made it a point to meet Clinton at a small event at the home of a mutual friend in White Plains. He went there simply to thank her, but at the end of a two-hour policy discussion, Volk - who once helped Ronald Reagan craft an economic platform - had decided he wanted to support her.

What converted him: "Her knowledge of issues, the tradeoffs you have to make for a pragmatic policy, her grasp of details on subjects ranging from fiscal policy to taxes and trade."

But Clinton doesn't always go over with business executives - especially outside Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Obama Democrats insist that Clinton remains a polarizing figure, which gives their candidate - with his "let's all get along" theme book - his own opening in the business community.

Obama's inclusive style is often an easier sell to corporate leaders looking for someone with whom they can do business. Obama supporters say that while Clinton is relying on establishment Democratic players, they've tapped into a new pool of business leaders who weren't politically active before now. "That pool of people is vastly larger" than the usual suspects, says Boston Provident partner Orin Kramer, a leading Democratic figure in New Jersey.

Wall Street in particular began leaning Democratic in the 2006 congressional election, making it a ripe target for Obama and Clinton. Their GOP foes are bemused by the trend. "A lot of hedge fund managers and others who are younger don't remember when you had bad tax policy and how powerful the negative effects can be on the economy," says investor James Higgins, co-founder of the conservative Monday Meeting in Manhattan.

Indeed, on tax policy especially, most business leaders are out of sync with Democrats, who want to limit the Bush tax cuts, penalize companies that build plants overseas, and increase taxes on private equity and tax funds. Asked about this, Clinton's GOP business supporters say they have other priorities. Volk wants to see the federal budget balanced. Robinson wants healthcare and education policies that will improve America's competitiveness. Hillary Clinton says simply, "It's important not to have a tax discussion separate from [deciding] what are our goals."

For Clinton, there is an underlying tension between the candidate who can do business with business - and the candidate who must curry support from the party's left wing to win the nomination.

At a speech before grass-roots activists in Washington on June 20, she was booed by antiwar activists but applauded when she took corporate America to task. Deriding the country's "highest concentration of wealth ... since 1929," she declared,"Let's start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare! Enough with the golden parachutes! And enough with the tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We have to make sure there is not a single benefit they would get for doing that."
Five hours later she was on the phone with Fortune - and her tone was far more measured. Asked how she could balance an appeal to business with that sharp rhetoric, the Senator answered, "To me it's about getting back into balance. It's the search for that balance that's appealing to a lot of business leaders. They know I'm trying to figure out how we can have shared prosperity." As any CEO can tell you, it ain't as easy as it sounds.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Through persistence and patience, Clinton has assembled what is probably the broadest CEO support among the candidates, ranging from Wall Street to Hollywood.

John Mack CEO, Morgan Stanley Winning over the longtime Republican sent a signal about Clinton's clout on Wall Street.

Sheryl Sandberg VP, global online sales, Google "I was always hoping she'd run for President. She's uniquely qualified."

Steve Rattner Managing principal, Quadrangle Group "I've been a longtime supporter of the Clintons. I knew I'd end up in her camp."

Steven Spielberg Co-founder, DreamWorks The mogul co-hosted a fundraiser at the home of News Corp. president Peter Chernin.

Haim Saban CEO, Saban Capital Group "I endorsed Hillary before Hillary decided to endorse herself. I'm on a mission."

James D. Robinson III General partner, RRE Ventures The former AmEx CEO likes her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level."

Rudolph Giuliani

The former New York City mayor has built a team of fundraisers he has known since early in his career, but his support on Wall Street suffers a bit from lingering feelings that he was overzealous as a prosecutor.

Carl Icahn Billionaire investor and activist "Republicans have to pick the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Rudy is the one."

T. Boone Pickens Founder, BP Capital hedge fund "Every time they rang the bell, the guy was there. He finished every fight."

Paul Singer Founder, Elliott Assoc. hedge fund "I believe the mayor is the strongest and most conservative candidate in the race."

Bill Simon Venture capitalist "When you're the mayor of New York, you do have a foreign policy."

James Turley CEO, Ernst & Young Besides creating a business alliance with Giuliani in 2002, Turley is a fundraiser.

Randy Levine President, New York Yankees "He did an outstanding job during and after 9/11. Overtime he's become a great leader."

Barack Obama

The Illinois Senator has a solid base of business support in Chicago but has also fared well with Hollywood media moguls and has aggressively moved into Clinton's turf among East Coast financiers.

Oprah Winfrey Founder, Harpo Productions Her endorsement of Obama was the first ever forthe billionaire media powerhouse.

Penny Pritzker Chairman, Classic Residence by Hyatt "I've watched him dialogue with CEOs. Heads are nodding, people are excited."

David Geffen Co-founder, DreamWorks He endorsed Obama - but first took a public swipe at his old friends, the Clintons.

Jeffrey Katzenberg Co-founder, DreamWorks "His sense of right and wrong, what's just and fair, is what's needed for these times."

James S. Crown President, Henry Crown & Co. The investor says his family, one of Chicago's wealthiest, "is solidly behind" the candidate.

Orin Kramer General partner, Boston Provident "We're tapping into people in business who haven't been involved in the process."

Mitt Romney

Romney has accumulated an impressive business lineup just by courting the "low-hanging fruit," as Bill Marriott puts it, of friends and associates from private equity, Boston, and the Mormon community.
Bill Marriott CEO, Marriott International Tapping his deep Rolodex in the hotel industry. "People like what he did with Massachusetts."

David Neeleman Founder and former CEO, JetBlue Trying to bring Mitt into the middle ground. "I think he's moderate in a lot of ways."

Bill Bain Founder, Bain & Co. Über-consultant and longtime mentor. "Mitt understands why companies decide to invest."

Meg Whitman CEO, eBay Serves as campaign chair. "Democrat or Republican, he would hire the right people."

Wayne Huizenga Owner, Miami Dolphins Courted by Rudy, but likes Mitt's "conservative principles, like smaller government."

Bill Harrison Former CEO, J.P. Morgan Chase Hosts Greenwich, Conn., and New York City events. "Mitt connects unbelievably well with people."

John Edwards

As a former trial lawyer campaigning on a pro-union platform, Edwards is not the go-to guy for big business. Yet he has important allies, including many at a hedge fund where he once consulted.

James Sinegal Co-founder and CEO, Costco stores The lifelong Democrat threw his support behind Edwards after hearing his plans on health care.

Wesley Edens CEO, Fortress Investment Group About 100 of the secretive financier's employees have donated to Edwards's campaign.

Leo Hindery Chairman, InterMed Advisors Edwards has made the former cable-TV magnate his senior economic advisor.

Howard Schultz Chairman, Starbucks The coffee mogul hosted a fundraiser at his Seattle home for about 150 potential donors.

Andy Rappaport Venture capitalist, August Capital "I believe that if the 2004 ticket had been reversed, John Kerry would be Vice President today."

Jason Flom CEO, Capitol Music Group Flom has sought support for Edwards within the music industry by hosting fundraisers.

John McCain

The Senator from Arizona has gone head-to-head with the Senator from New York to win Wall Street support. A key ally is Lew Eisenberg, former chief of the Port Authority and powerful Bush fundraiser.

Fred Smith Founder and CEO, FedEx "He does what he thinks is right, The most current example is the immigration issue."

James B.Lee Jr. Chairman, J.P. Morgan Chase Investment Bank This captain of Wal I Street is a national co-chair of the campaign.

David Pottruck CEO, Red Eagle Ventures "He's not afraid to do the hard things. He has the character and the energy and commitment."

James Chambers CEO, Cisco Systems "He understands the value that technology contributes to economic prosperity."

John Thain CEO, NYSE Euronext Another campaign co-chair, he's working with Lee to make inroads on Clinton's turf.

Harry Sloan CEO, MGM movie studio "I made the decision to support him before there were any other candidates."

Full disclosure: Writer Nina Easton's husband is a consultant to the McCain campaign.

Reporter associates: Telis Demos, Joan L. Levinstein, Jenny Mero and Christopher Tkaczyk
From the July 9, 2007 issue



Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/index.htm

Sign of the Times

Sign on the back of a septic tank cleaning service truck!!

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

Recently, I took the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" sponsored by Advocates For Self-Government. The results are listed below:

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political group that agrees with you most is...
.
LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.

Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.

10,566,016
.
THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.

(Results are renewed after each submission.)

How People Have Scored

Centrist 33.64 %

Right (Conservative) 8.88 %

Libertarian 32.77 %

Left (Liberal) 16.82 %

Statist (Big Government) 7.89 %
......................................................................

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters,
but tend to support significant government control of the economy.
They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help
the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business.
Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties
and free expression, support government action to promote equality,
and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Centrists espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control
of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue,
they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes
support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on
keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and
emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while
endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional
family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military,
oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy,
and endorse strong law enforcement.

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the
economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether
economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in
today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support
high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose
diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.
......................................................................

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

An interview with Hugh Downs

Hugh Downs on libertarianism: "The basic
philosophy, I find attractive and needed."

Hugh Downs is one of America's most respected and honored television personalities. He began his extraordinary TV career in 1956 as an announcer on Sid Caesar's Hour. After stints on The Tonight Show and The Today Show, he spent 21 years as co-host of the popular ABC news magazine 20/20 (1978-1999). On 20/20, he frequently shared a stage with self-professed libertarian correspondent John Stossel. Since his retirement from network television in 1999, Downs has taught journalism, edited a book, and lectured around the country.

To the freedom movement, Downs is known as perhaps the highest-profile media figure to praise libertarian ideas. In 1997, he famously said, "All the really good ideas belong to the libertarians." In 1998, he said, "From a historical perspective, all Americans are libertarians." Although Downs does not describe himself as a libertarian, he has also editorialized against the War on Drugs and in favor of the Second Amendment.

Downs spoke at the Advocates for Self-Government's 20th Anniversary Celebration in Atlanta, Georgia (October 14-16, 2005). In addition to a lunchtime speech, Downs dropped in to listen to two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne speak on "The Seduction of Force." (The two had communicated during Browne's 2000 presidential campaign, but had not previously met.)

On Saturday, October 15, 2005, Downs sat down for an interview with Bill Winter, the Advocates' director of communications. The two talked about the appeal of libertarianism, the proper role of government, decriminalizing marijuana, the war in Iraq, and how to spread libertarian ideas.

Bill Winter: How did you first hear about libertarian ideas?Hugh Downs: I don't remember where I first heard about it. But I do remember feeling that there were threads of that thought in what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up this nation. And that kind of appealed to me.After I had done 20/20 for a while, we had the chance to gain John Stossel on the program, and that was very interesting to watch [him]. Philosophically he's a libertarian. And that interested me, too.The way the nation has evolved now, from the government's standpoint, there's a real need for that kind of philosophy to come back into it. I can't say that I am in agreement with everything that is said -- possibly because in some cases I don't understand fully what [libertarians] are saying -- but still, the basic philosophy I find attractive and needed.

BW: Let me follow up on that. What are the areas of libertarianism you find most appealing?

HD: Well, the sovereignty of the individual is extremely important. And I grieve for the type of person who may be so baffled or battered that he wants to surrender his sovereignty to some guru or some government.[There was a newspaper in] Phoenix -- I live in that area -- where this guy had written in and said he thought the public knows too much. And he said, "I don't want to know everything. I trust my government and I trust they have all the necessary knowledge, and they'll do the right thing." And I said, that's the most alarming thing I've read for quite a while. Mostly because the writer is not unique. And we've got people like that, and that's a great danger.

BW: There's something almost un-American about what he wrote.

HD: I think there is. You're absolutely right. You know what it reminded me of? After the Soviet Union really began to seriously come apart, there was a big flood of people who came to New York and became cab drivers, for some reason or other. I was in a cab with this guy whose English was pretty fair, and he was complaining about America. Because he said, "You know, you have to go get yourself a job; the government doesn't tell you where you're going to work." And then he said, "And then there's these newspapers; they've got differing views, and you're not told which view is correct."Now, that was the result of 70 years of Communist oppression. But he thought he would have been more comfortable going back into Russia. Because people don't understand liberty if they've had two or three generations of not having it. Even though, if the oppression is bad enough, they can thirst for relief -- and people came from Europe to the New World to gain that benefit.But I hate to see that creeping back. That kind of desire to give up your sovereignty

.BW: So, individual sovereignty, you find very appealing. What area of libertarianism are you most doubtful about?

HD: Listening to Harry Browne, who is a man I respect enormously, things popped into my head when he mentioned something about the government not doing anything worthwhile -- which is just about right! I've always felt that there's a role for government, and there is some role for a federal government.If you adopt the view that I've always practiced -- that the government is us -- and there is a community of people who have gotten together and have agreed on certain forms of behavior, and agreed that people who tend to break that (once the agreement is there) have got to be dealt with. There's got to be some kind of a system of justice.So there is a role for government, and I can't quite adopt a view that no government at all would result in anything but anarchy.To the extent that government suffers corruption, then, yes, the libertarian ideas are right. But I've always thought there was a role for the federal government even in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]. You know, before ballooning, hot-air ballooning did not come under the jurisdiction of the FAA. And the result was a lot of people got killed because they didn't have the rules you have [today]. When the FAA was functioning properly, it was a force for good, and it represented an example of where the government did do something good. And you have to keep an eye on it, because it can become corrupt over time.But I can't abandon the idea that a government of some sort is almost a necessity for civilization.

BW: Let me clear up a possible misconception. Most libertarians would call themselves "minarchists," which means they believe in a minimum government. Some libertarians call themselves "constitutionalists," and they believe in the kind of small government this country originally had, at the time of the Founding Fathers. There are a small percentage of libertarians who might call themselves anarchists. Most libertarians would argue we want to return government to the ideas the Founding Fathers had, which was a much more limited government, obviously, than we have today. But it doesn't get rid of it completely. I agree: there are certainly legitimate things the government must do. Then the debate is, how many of those things are there, and how do you keep [government] from getting even bigger than that? Which I think is the central question of all politics: What is the legitimate role of government?

HD: It's possible that some of the libertarians you mentioned, in the different categories, may have an idea that I would love to see: That people are responsible enough to live together amicably, without a government that sees to it that they do obey the rules agree upon by the community.It might be naive to think that. Knowing human nature, as I think I do, it wouldn't work.

BW: How would you describe yourself politically?

HD: I think about what was said by Will Rogers, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."I've never aligned myself with any party affiliation. I've voted for the person who ran for office. I was born into a kind of Republican family. But by the time I was 18 I didn't go along with that too much. And as a result, I tend to vote a little more in the Democratic way.But I think, kind of, a pox on both of their houses lately. And I think that's one of the things that led me to examine libertarianism a little more closely.

BW: What would you say is the greatest threat to liberty in America today?

HD: Voter apathy. Complacency. The fact that an almost rogue administration can make the inroads in our liberty like this one has done, with things like the Patriot Act. That's extremely alarming to me. And I'm alarmed that my industry -- mass media -- isn't doing its job, and alerting people to what really is going on. And that's, to my mind, the biggest threat to liberties in our country.

BW: One of my questions was going to be: Do you think the media is doing a good job alerting us to the dangers? And you've already answered that. Why aren't they? Why isn't the media doing a better job of alerting us about the dangers of the Patriot Act, and the lies involving the war in Iraq, and the rise of religious fundamentalism?

HD: There is no simple answer to that; there are several things. One is journalistic fashion. One is ratings and commercial aspects of [media]. Another is the ownership of media -- enormous conglomerates who are pretty set in what they want said and what they want the public to hear. All these factors, I think, conspire to a certain extent in making journalism less than it has been. And less than it ought to be.

BW: In one of your radio commentaries, you spoke out against the War on Drugs and explicitly called for the decriminalization of marijuana. Why did you come to that conclusion? And what kind of response did you get to that commentary?

HD: First of all, I am against smoking marijuana, because I don't think anybody ought to draw leaf smoke into their lungs. That's bad. And marijuana smoking might be almost as bad as regular cigarette smoking. So I'm against it.But I'm always amused at the drug warriors who, for some reason, have gotten mired in something very ancillary that got started in 1935, when [Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger] gave enough cannabis to a dog to kill it, and tried to prove a point that way.And [some] people say, "Well, it's a gateway. Eighty percent of hard drug users started on marijuana." That's a nonsense statement! A hundred percent of hard drug users started on milk. What is the connection? It's just not there.So I did feel that if we could get [drugs] under the law, it would be much better. Imagine a teenage ghetto kid who said, "I don't want to do drugs at all, I want to do alcohol." You know, the easiest thing for him to find is crack cocaine on any street corner. But where would he find a bootlegger? He couldn't. He'd have to go into a liquor store or a bar, and they wouldn't serve him. Because those things are under the law. As soon as you outlaw it, you lose control of it.

BW: What kind of reaction did you get to that commentary? I seem to recall hearing later that you said, "The hammer came down."

HD: Well, yeah. And not from the public so much. A preponderance of the public agreed with me, but the network--. That was ABC Radio, and they were very concerned about that.

BW: One of the arguments against even talking about decriminalizing drugs is that you're condoning their use. If you say, for example, the war on marijuana causes more problems than it solves, it's not uncommon for the Drug Czar to say, "Ah-hah! You're encouraging kids to smoke marijuana!" Did you get any of that reaction?

HD: Yes, I did. I got some. And some from viewers. Although, I repeat, it wasn't like the whole public rose up against what I had [to say]. There was a lot more sympathy out there than I expected. That didn't mean that the powers-that-be weren't upset by it.

BW: Another issue that libertarians are very concerned about is the war in Iraq. In your speech at lunch, you seemed to suggest very strongly that you were opposed to that as well. Why?

HD: I can't imagine how anybody could be in favor of it. It was so patently wrong. People who later said, "We were duped..." You know, they said, "We were duped, we were taken in, and now we know." And I said, "Who is the we? I wasn't taken in by that!" That was nonsense from the beginning.Same with the Vietnam War. Even John Kerry, he said, "I finally came to realize that it was wrong." I may be lucky, but I realized how wrong that was at the very beginning. The French got out [of Vietnam] at Dien Bien Phu in 1954; why didn't we have the sense to follow that kind of wisdom? It was another example of a terribly misguided action on the part of government.

BW: If you were the president right now, what would you do about our presence in Iraq?

HD: I'll tell you why I would bring the troops home. There are several options -- all of them bad. And when you look at the option of bringing the troops home right away, you got to admit it's a terrible option -- there would be an awful, immediate increase in bloodshed. But I examined the other options, one by one, and they are all worse. And if we insist on staying there, that's the worse thing we can do. So, I think, yeah, it's going to be awful, but I'd like to bring them home.

BW: You've made your living as a communicator. How do you think libertarians could do a better job of trying to communicate our ideas to the American public, so more people are willing to listen to them and embrace them?

HD: You know, I've wondered. I can't say I've pondered that, but your asking me triggers this thought.I've wondered if there would be a way for libertarians to establish a libertarian radio station, to start with. And have the whole thing where people would tune in and then say, "Hey, yeah, that's right." And then more people would tune in. I think it could even be supported by the commercial system that supports progressive talk radio now.It might be a way to get a third stream going that would offset what's wrong now in mass media, with the big corporate ownership, and so forth.

BW: Actually, the good news is that the libertarian movement is already heading in that direction. There are some very, very popular libertarian talk show hosts around the country. But they do tend to be, sort of, one-by-one, as opposed to a block of talk show hosts, with a libertarian following a libertarian following a libertarian.Now, going back to my original question -- how to communicate these ideas -- I'm actually thinking more on a one-on-one basis. You mentioned this fellow who wrote the letter to the editor, who thinks Americans know too much, and he trusts his government to take care of him. Which is scary! That letter-writer seems afraid of liberty. And I think that's one of libertarians' biggest challenges. How do we overcome the fear that people have of liberty? How do we reassure them that a free market and private charity and voluntary cooperation can work as good or better than most government programs? How do we overcome that fear factor?

HD: Eloquence is one answer, and I just heard it in listening to Harry's speech.You might persuade some people, but that's a very deep-seated thing. A person so lacking in having his act together that he is ready to surrender his sovereignty to some government, God help us, I don't know whether you could have the time to convince that person.But if [libertarian ideas are] hovering in the air, more and more people will begin to say, "Hey, yeah, maybe that's it." You will never persuade the guy who wrote that letter--

BW: We've written him off already!

HD: [Laughs.] It'd be nice to cut down the number of that kind of people who think that.

BW: Let me end with a lighthearted question. When you were on 20/20, you got to see all the reports that John Stossel -- one of our favorite libertarian correspondents -- used to file. Did you agree with everything he said, or did you sometimes think, "He's going too far!"

HD: I never thought he's going too far. I admired what he did. I loved his style! He was interviewing this prisoner one time who had gone to the law library in the prison, and he sued the prison system because they had supplied him with chunky peanut butter -- and he wanted the smooth.And I remember John said, "So what? You're a criminal!"[Laughs.] It was a beautiful moment.

Welcome Note

Welcome to A Case of the Benz !

Here you will find the rantings and ravings of yours truly. The topics covered will the items that interest ME. Don't expect "fair and balanced" coverage, because you won't get it. You may get headaches, heartburn, high blood pressure and / or shortness of breath. You will get honest, straightforward news and views according to ME!

"We" (the editorial we) are politically incorrect - 24/7/365.
We are non-partisan. We abuse everybody in some way, shape or form.

Allen Benz
a-benz
A Case of the Benz