Go to Washington. Get rich.

One of the reasons I enjoy working in the media is the perks.  At a large outdoor concert we put on, members of the staff and clients were shielded from long lines and the general filth that the "regular" goers endured.  We were treated to a better class of faire and impressive access backstage and the performers.

It's all perfectly legal, but if I were a standard ticketholder, I might not have the same appreciation for such perks, especially as I'm being herded like cattle.

The Wall Street Journal reported numerous examples where members of Congress, their staff, friends and family were able to enrich themselves through insider trading.  This elite class of folks can come to Washington with only a few bucks, but leave with millions more.

Is that fair?  Is it true that Congress is exempt from insider trading rules imposed on us "regular" folk?

Ron Paul recently spoke on the issue after 60 Minutes did an expose on how Nancy Pelosi and others were getting rich from this kind of criminal activity.

How the media distracts us from real issues

I'm often insulted when I see in the media that the most important issues are brushed under the rug and petty bickering makes the headlines.

On MSNBC's Martin Bashir program Friday (Oct. 27), Democratic analyst Karen Finney said of the white Republican base, "They think [Cain is] a black man who knows his place."



A cohort of mine subsequently shared a link to a Weekly Standard web page featuring the exchange and remarked, "Left wing racism rears it's ugly head again. Disgusting!"

Putting aside for a moment his misuse of the contraction, my friend uses circular reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that the Democratic analyst is racist for accusing the white Republican base of holding a racist viewpoint.

This is also a classic example of feigning dismay in order to arouse the right-wing base and distract them from the truly important issues of the day, like the poor economy and the high unemployment.  Anyone that's paying attention should recognize that Finney was exhibiting GOPism and not left-wing racism.

Finney's remarks are reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's racial overtones when he made disparaging remarks about Philly quarterback Donovan McNabb:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Was Limbaugh the racist here?  Or was he accusing the media of using race as a criteria for their desire to see McNabb do well?  I don't often come to the big guy's defense, but in this case, his statement was not racist.

Now onto a lesson on the use of its and it's in American English writing.

Spotify

In this rant: Why I dislike Spotify.

It's spyware and malware and junkware all wrapped up in one cute package.  Plus it incessantly announces to which song certain friends are listening, further advancing the wholesale distribution of useless information.

Join me next time as I rail against multiple entities reposting the same information to dozens of walls.

Fundamental Restructuring of the Tax Code

Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman and Sarah Palin are all saying how they'd help businesses create new jobs by lowering or eliminating corporate taxes, which would shift more of the federal revenue burden on the individuals.  They all mention a fundamental restructuring of the tax code.  I agree.

But how is shifting the responsibility for generating government revenue to the individuals good for the American people?

I'm running for president and I have my own plan.  It comes in two easy steps.

Individual income tax came about within the last century and it's resulted in a power and wealth shift toward big business and an explosive growth of government.

The fact is, the earners in this country that have the biggest need and the most to gain from lowering the federal overhead, but are the ones with the least power to influence a change, which creates a fundamental (some say fatal) flaw in the system.

Money flows in a circular fashion, from manufacturers to individuals to retailers and back to manufacturers. Government taps its revenue from various spigots to varying degrees. But because of special interests and corporate lobbies, the demand for more federal revenue is exploding because more of the money flows back to them from the tax coffers (through subsidies, loophole exemptions & reductions and bailouts). So the only way to reduce the governments appetite for money is to give big business incentive to encourage a more efficient government. And they will under my plan.

Step 1.  End individual taxes.

Since all government tax money is coming from the same stream, we're simply proposing that the corporate spigots be the only ones turned on...essentially pushing the taps upstream.

Initially business will shoulder a larger tax burden because government is top heavy. But as the heat is felt in Washington, new policies will be proposed that will shrink the size and scope of government and thereby lowering the overall tax burden on society.

• End all taxes levied on individuals (not including capital gains from investments like stock, bonds, commodities, etc.)
• End all corporate taxes on foreign business.
• Uniformly tax all revenues derived from the US market without regard for the country of companies' headquarters.
• Fairly assess a sustainable road use tax on all commercial vehicles based on objective road wear studies.
• Insist on local community ownership of businesses where ever possible. This should not affect manufacturing, distribution, communications network backbone providers and the like.
• End federal drug laws.
• Criminally punish business owners for hiring illegal aliens and deceptive pricing and advertising practices.

Taxes include all money any government agency assesses on individuals, their purchases and property, including fuel, property & sales taxes, licensing & registration fees, telecommunications fees, etc.

Step 2.  Restore backed currency.

Rick Perry on the issues

Payroll taxes and partisan rhetoric

When a political party identifies itself as a champion against taxes, insisting on extending ten-year tax cuts that benefit rich folks indefinitely, then says it's OK to allow certain other tax cuts to expire (a payroll tax cut that would help low income earners), it becomes clear what the goal is.

The 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on employees that was temporarily reduced to 4.6% by Democrats is ending on schedule, thanks to Republicans, who want that particular tax to expire.

The tax cut only applies to the first $100,000 in earnings, meaning that a maximum of $2,000 will be gained by any earner.  That is to say, for millionaires it's not that significant of a cut to be concerned with.  Millionaires will forgive their Congress for such a petty loss.

But the gains for the federal coffers could be $120B.  So even if it is a tough chunk for earners to swallow, Republicans really have to show fiscal responsibility at this point in time.  They're running for the White House, afterall.

On the other hand, is this just a negotiating tactic?  For those of us that earn less than $100,000, are we going to have to give up something enormous just to gain back the 2% of the money we worked hard to earn?

Oh, the games people play with other people's money.

OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT:

I think what Warren Buffet is saying is that we-the-people have failed the nation in regulating the money flow into the hands of the power class, that it's time to start taxing capital gains and commerce in a meaningful way and stop penalizing the hard work of the earners in America.  It's time to shift the purse strings from the individuals to the revenue generators -- the power class -- in this country.

So from all American earners, I say we are sincerely sorry for our weaknesses.  We thought we could hold their feet to the fire, to keep the power class honest, but through some misguided choices on our part, we have failed America.

Please help us and our nation by taking the purse strings back.

PS -- we're also returning the currency to you.  It's a little dinged up, so you'll have to fix that, too.  Please don't be too mad at us.

Does the Iowa Straw Poll mean anything?

While most of the local media is focused on the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair, the national press is counting down the days before the year's largest republican fundraiser.

You might think, judging by the media frenzy surrounding this early presidential contest, the GOP gathering at Hilton Coliseum is a critical badge to earn in order to become a US president; candidates who don't participate are hurting themselves.

Not so fast, pundit breath.

Only once in thirty years has the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames predicted a presidential election, when in August of 1999, George W. Bush walked away with seemingly all the honors: Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa caucuses, other US primaries and the general election itself.

John McCain, who eventually won his party's nod in '08, earned only a tenth-place showing at the money gala.

Needless to say, as a measuring stick, it has little meaning.  Only Bush 41 & 43 have eventually gone on to win the presidency after an Ames Straw Poll win -- and not necessarily in the same campaign year.

Even the early caucus and primary referendums don't indicate a winner in the general, so it makes you wonder what the fuss is all about.

National media coverage aside, the Iowa Straw Poll is a pointless exercise in the big campaign, so it's no wonder GOP frontrunners like Mitt Romney would choose to skip this particular dance.  Besides, Romney has already achieved what other candidates would hope to gain from the event, so why risk potential landmines (like this video and this issue) along the Iowa trail?

Audio killed the video

I'm not going to talk about the Buggles here, and how their video was the first ever to hit MTV.  So if you thought that's what this article was about, move along, slick!

It surprises people when I explain how audio may be more important than the quality of their video.  But it's painfully obvious when we sit together and watch a barely discernable presentation.

Watching a poorly lit video, or even one with harsh backlighting, is doable if the audio is outstanding.

Try it some time.  Watch a few tutorial videos where the presenter obviously has some sort of headset where he or she is practically spitting into the mic.  You hear every bad breath sound and can practically smell what was for lunch.  Or one where the presenter is talking from across the room.  The viewer turns up the volume only to hear a toilet flushing in the background.

The thing about video with horrible audio is that you can look away or become distracted from the visual cues, but the crappy noises permeate the air.

One super-easy fix is to treat your camcorder like a mic.  Hold it close -- within 2-3 feet from your mouth.  I know it sounds counter productive, but you have to stop treating your consumer-grade gear like it's top-of-the-line TV news gear.  You probably don't have a shotgun mic or lav mic, right?

Believe me, ENG gear takes a lot of practice to tune and adjust -- and it really is quite expensive to own and maintain.  Photojournalists have to work in some of the most challenging situations.  And that is the key.  If you don't present a challenge to your cheap gear, you'll have much better luck.  Try to create ideal situations for your video shoots, where audio is clear and decisive.

One step back on this topic: shaky video is hard to handle too, but we've covered that topic thoroughly in previous posts.

The courageous among the 2012 GOP contenders

By some measures, the 2012 republican presidential line-up has been set, and but for the primaries have staked their claim on the White House.

Despite the media's bombardment of polling data, it's traditionally too early to tell who will lead the pack during the actual election year and some of today's shining stars are likely to be flushed after Iowa's Straw Pole next month.

This is my second season shooting (with a camcorder, mind you) interviews of right-leaning candidates at WHO Radio, arguably the most identifiable radio station in the largest population center of the first-in-the-nation state of Iowa. This is where the momentum begins for every President elected in modern times.

So it matters who shows up for the party. And while my list is growing almost by the day, a few high profile nomination seekers are conspicuously absent.

If history is the best predictor of the future, then establishing a good ground game here with a personable appearance on WHO's "Mickelson in the Morning" by this point in the season -- like John McCain did in 2008 and George W Bush did in 2000 -- is the key to the convention floor.

To date I've met Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Roy Moore, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and, as of yesterday, George Pataki. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have bypassed the show altogether. The foregone conclusion for the latter frontrunners is failure.

UPDATE -- (Aug. 11, 2011) Former Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared with Simon Conway at the Iowa State Fair Wednesday.

Sarah Palin has become the Lady Gaga of politics; a professional celebrity with decent fundraising appeal. She would only hurt her credibility by having an authentic conversation with the Midwest's influential GOP leadership listening.

Mitt Romney is still licking wounds received in the 2008 wringer and isn't even bothering bringing his marbles to Iowa this time. His political baggage is heavy and his slick persona is not well received.

Newt Gingrich is seen as someone whose only aim is to burnish his brand, and thereby bolstering negotiating position, for better consulting gigs.

Pataki in Iowa

Former New York Governor George Pataki has been spending some time in Iowa and some are wondering if he's running for President.  WHO Radio's Jan Mickelson is one of them.