My daughter just turned sixteen last week. And to make matters worse, she's got The Boyfriend. The first serious Boyfriend. This is a tough thing to deal with when you're a dad.
And it's not that I don't like the young man. And no, I'm not nervous that she's a 10th grader and he's a senior. Or that he drives a convertible Mustang. Or that he has a tattoo of a dragon on his back. I'm not against my daughter going out with boys. It's just that I've never had this experience before.
Now I know how the President feels. Particularly when it comes to the economy. Is President Obama anti-business? Writing as a small business owner and (hold on to your hats) a Republican I say: of course not. No more than I'm anti-Boyfriend.
The President's no dummy. He's smart enough to know the importance of this country's business community. Just like I'm smart enough to know that my daughter is growing up and The Boyfriend is a completely natural part of a teenager's life. He's smart enough to know that without a good economy his Presidency will be in jeopardy. I'm smart enough to know never to leave two teenagers of the opposite sex alone in the house for more than five minutes at a time. He's smart enough to realize that to have a good economy he needs to create an environment for businesses to grow, profit and hire more people. And I'm smart enough to not be fooled every time The Boyfriend calls me "Mr. Marks" and answers every question with "Yes sir."


President Obama is doing everything he feels he can to support the business community. And I'm doing everything I can to support my daughter's relationship with The Boyfriend. Unfortunately, we both don't really know what we're doing. I'm not anti-Boyfriend. I just have no boyfriend experience. The President's fault is not that he's anti-business. It's that he has had no experience running a business.
There is one difference between us though. He's had to take actions over the past couple of years. I still have a little time to figure things out. And I don't want to make the mistakes he's made.
Take taxes, for example. Tax rates under this administration are as low as they've been under President Bush and even lower than they were under Clinton, where rates were as much as 34 percent. And although the President last year threatened to raise taxes to pay for the deficit he caved in the end, and extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years. I know how the guy feels. I also caved when I told my daughter and The Boyfriend to be back by 11PM and I didn't yell when they strolled in 45 minutes late. An anti-Boyfriend dad would've put his foot down. And an anti-business President would have increased corporate taxes, levied more duties and raised tariffs to pay for the social programs that he enacted as part of 2009's trillion dollar stimulus. Neither of us did this. I like The Boyfriend. And I believe the President likes the business community. Neither of us wants to rock the boat.
But now the President has recently changed his rhetoric and is threatening tax increases in the next fiscal year to help pay down the deficit. "I refuse to renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich," he said recently. From the standpoint of a small business owner, he's not being irrational. He's looking for sources of revenue. Many business people I know do the same thing when faced with budget shortfalls or lower profits. We sometimes raise our prices and turn to our existing customers for more cash flow. Obama is not "anti-business" for considering this. He's just inexperienced.
That's because business owners always feel like their customers aren't paying enough. But we don't call them out in public. More importantly, if the President were running his own business (like I do) and handing over 40 percent of his profits to the federal, state and local authorities (like I am) in the form of taxes and other governmental "fees" he'd not only understand the frustration the business community feels when there's talk of more tax increases, but the significant obstacles it creates for us to grow our businesses, invest in our own infrastructure and... hire more people. The President's rhetoric isn't anti-business. It's just lack of business experience.
I think President Obama has tried to do his best to help the business community over the past couple of years. His 2010 Small Business Jobs Act extended and doubled the size of Small Business Administration loans, created a huge lending fund for small companies, provided more support for state lending, and offered more tax cuts for businesses. He supported the initial Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Fed's second round of Quantitative Easing to provide more liquidity to the economy. He brought together the CEOs of some of the country's largest and most well known companies to form an initiative to help startups get financing and grow. These are not the actions of an "anti-business" President.
They are the actions of a President who's never run a business before.
Making capital available is great. But in an economy that's currently growing at a 1.8 percent rate no one's really asking for financing. We're not expanding. We're not buying more equipment. We're not acquiring companies. We're not hiring people. We don't need more working capital to fund big purchases. Forming initiatives are nice. But small companies like mine never trust the intentions of the CEOs of big companies, no more than dads like me trust the intentions of eighteen year old boys when they're alone in the dark with our sixteen year old daughters. We don't care how nice they may appear. We know what's going on in the dark recesses of their minds. Oh...we know.
Many people I speak to on the right complain that the current "regulatory" environment "stifles" business. They complain about "big government" and the "takeover" of our country's healthcare system. They use these claims to justify their position that Obama is anti-business. I agree with their issues, but not their conclusion. The President's regulatory initiatives seriously concern me. But they have not been undertaken because he's against business. Unfortunately, it just appears that way.
Like healthcare. Can anyone really argue that healthcare reform is a bad thing? For years, we've all complained about rising healthcare costs and declining care. We hate the expense, burden and complexity of administering our healthcare plans. So the President says to us "Look, the government will deal with healthcare. We'll do the administration. And we'll fix your costs with a $2,000 per person penalty if you decide not to carry insurance. And by the way, you don't have to pay any penalty if you have less than fifty employees." These are not the actions of an anti-business President.
They are the actions of a President who doesn't know a whole lot about running a business. Which is why the business community is uneasy. No one really knows the true costs. No one did the reasonable return on investment spreadsheet. No one, not even the legislators, knows the details of the new legislation. No smart business person would have signed on to a plan, particularly one that's so significant, with so little information. It's like my daughter telling me she's going out with The Boyfriend and not telling me where, who else is going, when she's coming home and what the hell is she thinking wearing that short little skirt. Without an adequate explanation, no father I know would agree to that deal either.
The President is not anti-business because he wants to fund education, infrastructure and Medicare. He is not anti-business because he grew up as a social activist and is a Democrat. Or that he supports regulations to make the banking industry more accountable. If he had run a business, however, he'd know he couldn't fund all the things he wants to do because the money's not there. His bankers wouldn't allow him to run up enormous debt. And he wouldn't allow himself to call the very partners he needs to grow his business names like "fat cats" (as much they deserve to be called that and more) because that kind of rhetoric could potentially harm future profits. He lacks business experience.
And for the record, I am not anti-Boyfriend, either. I just lack Boyfriend experience. Really, I like the kid. Even when he's sticking his tongue in my little girl's ear and doesn't think I can see it. Oh, I see it mister. I see it.
Follow Gene Marks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/genemarks
secondly, lower taxes means more profit for the few, not more jobs... higher taxes means I invest the money in my business rather than have it taxed, which results in demand, I need to spend to build my business, which means I become a customer to someone else...
last, but probably most important, if 10% control 80% of the financial assets... the other 90% don't have much money to spend to create the demand that results in jobs...
how hard is that to understand?
I think it is very interesting that GE contributes to Obama's campaign, subsequently makes $5 Billion in profits and pays ZERO taxes, and it's okay for Obama to turn around and go after the small business owner who DARES to make the astronomical sum of $250k. Yeah, we NEED to GET THAT GUY! This is CORRUPTION with a CAPITAL C!
If you want to bring the middle class back and start taxing it, you need to bring the manufacturing base back. This is done through equalization measures called taxing imported goods.
China is screwing us big time and the government allows it because corporations are making big money and corporations own and control the government.
Big Business IS Big Government and Big Government IS Big Business.
Hello? Is anybody home? Knock, knock, knock.
When Big business and Big government are the same, it has a name:
It's called FASCISM and Obama is just as much a fascist as Bush ever was.
The best thing that could happen to business right now is more demand for their products. This is borne out by polls and surveys--business owners say, astutely, that they would much prefer higher sales to lower taxes. It makes all the sense in the world when you think about it--would you rather pay make $100k and pay nothing in taxes or make $1 million but get taxes at 36%? It's a total no-brainer.
But sales will only increase if purchasing power increases for middle class and poor people. That's just not going to happen so long as we have this kind of income inequality. Nobody likes paying taxes, so I can empathize with rich people who talk about 40% this and that, but it's time for the rich to stop winning every battle here.
I found it quite odd that the author said: "Making capital available is great. But in an economy that's currently growing at a 1.8 percent rate no one's really asking for financing. We're not expanding. We're not buying more equipment. We're not acquiring companies. We're not hiring people. We don't need more working capital to fund big purchases."...???... how could he possibly say this and in a round about way say taxes and regulation are the problem?
(Speaking as one who has run a business) If you were again faced with the choice of paying a 34% tax on your profits, or avoiding that tax by reinvesting your profits in your viable business, why would you choose to give the money to Uncle Sam instead of creating a larger profit-making enterprise?
In other words, while the idea that business owners are motivated by profit, and the more profit they earn, the more they invest in people and plant is "common sense," when you think about it it's counter-intuitive. Aren't you more inclined to take profits while taxes are low, and go buy that second summer home? I think economic statistics show that lower taxes do not result in more investment.
we need customers with money to spend, not lower taxes... lower taxes don't bring in customers...
Republicans seem to think that they should just turn over their daughters to the boyfriends without any supervision, regulation or concern.
So the time has come for the business community to stop seeing taxes as an "economic thermostat"....or as a "burden". Because they fact of the matter is that they are an investment in the LONG-term health of the business community in this country.
Just as not leaving your daughter alone in the house with her boyfriend is a similar (if likely unpopular) investment in your daughter's future.
Part of the reason why both the governemnt and the economy are in the mess that they are currently in, is because of the mindset by the business community that "all taxes are bad for business", and "all regulation hurts business".
Here's a better analogy.
As a parent, your job is to do those things for your daughter that will help her to grow up to be happy, healthy, and productive. As a parent your perspective on Life is broader and wiser than that of a 16 year-old girl who is feeling her first crush. As a result, what you know is in her best interests---IN THE LONG TERM---may clash with what she believes is in her best interests in teh short term.
The President is having the same problem with the business community. It is not that he is "inexperienced" or is "anti-business". He is doing what is in the LONG-term interests of the nation and the business community...but (like your daughter) he is dealing with a business community that for generations can only think in terms of the short term.
Your analogy: "I have read a great deal about medicine but to suggest that I know how to do brain surgery would be ludicrous." is what is ludicrous... more like you read a great deal about brain surgery and consulted with brain surgeons, then made the final decision based on their advice and directed them to perform what they advised...
The real problem is that all these politicians care more about their own side and winning than actually running this country well for the citizens that they are supposed to represent.
Great time to have somebody who's business-clueless in the White House.
The Koch brothers' political position isn't good for business, it's good for *their* business.