You have to be kidding me. Our government is now saying we need another stimulus plan? Why, because the first worked so well? This is a crazy idea that only shows how illogical our government is.

I understand that many people are feeling the strain of the downturn in economy -- we'll all see tougher times for the next several quarters. But this is not the time for the government to borrow on our behalf to try to stimulate the economy. Nor is it a time for the fear-mongering that will soon come saying that the economy will collapse if we don't bail everyone out of this downturn. That's why it's an economic downturn -- government can't fix economic cycles. The economy will recover. Another stimulus will just delay the inevitable failures that have to happen before the next boom.

The last stimulus was a flop, mainly because people did two things with their checks -- save or pay off debt Very few dollars were spent, and given the latest news in the economy, even fewer will be spent this time.

If the government wants to do some good, they can focus on cutting pork. If they feel compelled to do something else, they can try a different kind of stimulus package.

We all know that the roads and bridges of this country are in horrible shape. Congress can invest in our infrastructure and not waste all of the stimulus. The cost of a full overhaul of our infrastructure has been estimated at $1.6 trillion over five years. That used to sound like a lot of money to me. But given the big money we're spending now on bailing out all sorts of companies, why not the roads and bridges we drive on every day?

Think of the economic boom it would be to the country -- hardworking Americans would be employed and there would be a ton of money pouring into small construction firms and contractors. They would have steady jobs while we fixed a major problem that will soon cripple us.

Of course, we couldn't do every road, but even if it's small portion of the worst ones, we could keep money in the country by paying people who worked for it and would spend the money in America.

Congress needs to stop trying to fix the economy and let capitalism run it's course. But if they insist on trying to stimulate something, why not do something that could actually help our country?

This is the most exciting presidential campaign I can remember in my 39 years. The possibility of having an African-American man for President or a woman for Vice President speaks volumes for our great country. The USA is still truly the land of opportunity.

Both candidates came from modest means and are now poised to run our country. I think the Founding Fathers would be proud.

I consider myself an independent (I voted for Bush and I also voted for Spitzer. Ooops!). Call me a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat, I have always voted for the person, not the party. I agree with the Democrats that we should have heart and help people in need. Obviously, I am also a big fan of education. I am on the side of Republicans when it comes to the people making things happen -- not the big government.

Until about a month ago, I was seriously vacillating about whom to vote for. I feel as though Obama and McCain are both good men of integrity and values. I'd have a beer with both of them! This is refreshing because four years ago, I wasn't jazzed about either candidate. Kerry put me to sleep, and I wanted to give Bush grammar lessons.

Obama and McCain also both have impressive stories. Obama's rise from nowhere illustrates that the American Dream is still alive. McCain's impressive record serving America in war, politics, and as a POW makes him a true American hero in my book. I think they both have good intentions for America and good hearts.

But as a small business owner, Obama just lost my vote. His tax plan is an assault on all S Corporations and sole proprietorships (most small businesses have one of these structures). His plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will increase taxes on most small-business profits in America. This is money that could be reinvested for company growth or raises.

To understand my point, you have to understand how an S corporation works. If an S corporation makes a profit of $300,000, the owner gets taxed on $300,000 regardless of whether the owner takes all of that money out of the company. So let's say the profits were $300,000, and I only take $100,000 out of the company this year. I still get taxed on $300,000! Even though it looks like I personally made some major dough this year, that's only one-third true.

Currently S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent. Under Obama's plan, the rate would increase to almost 40 percent. And it might not stop there. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses pay a 50-plus percent tax rate. This would kill the entrepreneurial spirit in America, in my opinion.

Small businesses are one of the last unique competitive advantages America has. We are currently the back-bone of America. Take us out, and there goes the rest of what's left of our economy.

Obama describes the rich as if they are villains who need to return the money to "the people." I don't consider myself rich and of course I am not evil. I worked very hard starting my business and consider the opportunity for me to do so a part of the American dream. It wasn't handed to me. I came from modest middle class means and I have worked hard to create my success. My company, Next Step Publishing, now supports many families with a decent sized payroll.

I think it's a mistake to demonize "the rich" because often it's not a rich person, it's just a small business owner trying hard to make a go of it and support some families and communities along the way. We don't need another wrench thrown on our spokes.

Mr. Obama, tear down this tax hike. (Then, I'll consider voting for you.)

While my personal views make Barack Obama my clear choice, entrepreneurs should be skeptical of both presidential candidates. No matter what they say out on the stump, presidents -- and politicians in general -- are always going to be more influenced by big business, which has money to lobby and advocate for its interests. Unfortunately, the under-funded entrepreneurial voice will often be eclipsed by better financed interests.

In my arena, as CEO of an eco-friendly or green business, I feel that too much focus is put into narrow markets, particularly bio-fuels and wind and solar power. Don't get me wrong. I am all for more funding to these noble and necessary pursuits, but I fear that subsidies and other funding won't trickle down to the less "sexy" causes like production and packaging developments, re-use and reduce programs, and environmental education programs. Since funding subsidies for this type of development won't make headlines or push poll numbers, it is less likely to happen.

It appears, however, that Sen. Obama has expressed more interest and concern for entrepreneurs and small businesses over the last year. In a campaign speech in Iowa last December, he said, "As President, I will launch a new Social Investment Fund Network. It's time to get the grass roots, the foundations, the private sector, and the government at the table. We'll invest in ideas that work, leverage private sector dollars to encourage innovation, and expand successful programs to scale." This is
the type of "small cap" investing that will help a wider range of entrepreneurs.

Of course there is also Obama's now famous question to entrepreneurs on LinkedIn. He (more likely his staff) asked how the next president could help entrepreneurs. More than 1,500 people responded! It is this openness and willingness to listen that will make any president a better choice for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurial world is one of constantly changing needs, demands, and challenges. By definition we are on the front edge of business development, so the actions that benefit us now could be completely different in two years. If Obama truly is the candidate of change, he will be the clear choice for entrepreneurs come Election Day.

Disagree? By all means tell me why!

Much of the rhetoric we’re hearing in the media today talks about the huge gap between rich and poor. Politicians on both sides (including the presidential candidates) discuss this issue, but neither gets to the root of the problem. It’s true that the gap between the richest 10 percent of the country and the remaining 90 percent is growing, but from that point on, most politicians get it wrong.

The issue isn’t a matter of redistribution, nor is it about protecting current tax rates. (Please note that I’m a big fan of lowering taxes -- but that’s a separate issue.) The real issue at hand is that most Americans just don’t understand the rules of personal finance. They believe what they hear from friends or people selling them products. It comes down to a lack of financial education.

Schools are turning out students who are not fully prepared for the real world. They might know the basics of history, science, math, and English, but there is no real teaching of money in school. I majored in economics and accounting, so I know first hand how boring the topics can be. But I’m not talking about the heavy theory or detailed rules. I’m talking about simple personal finance -- the money issues that will come up for people in the real world.

Students do not learn about debt or savings, and when they break out on their own, they are left unarmed when sellers of credit come calling. To be clear, it’s not that people are dumb -- the sly and ingenious credit card companies make handling credit seem easy. But either way, the new consumers don’t see or know that taking on debt at a young age is killing their financial security. Saving at a young age is critical. Simple facts about personal finance are not taught and thus bright people are caught making financial mistakes.

Plans to redistribute wealth take money from those who know what they’re doing financially and give it to people who don’t know basic financial principles. The current subprime mortgage crisis is a perfect example of that. Hardworking taxpayers are paying to bail out banks and individuals who made negligent transactions. People who were financially ignorant were allowed to take big loans from equally ignorant (or in some cases, criminal) mortgage brokers. Greed from Wall Street made it worse. Had more people known about simple financial principles, this would not have happened, nor would we be arguing about how to pay for it.

Both the Obama and McCain campaigns are talking about ways to solve the problem, but neither understands the issue. It’s not a matter of fiscal theory or taxation. It’s all about education. I’m not a fan of big government, but this is one place the government can step in and help. If there were mandatory programs for graduation that included personal finance, our economy could be on the right track in a generation or two.

While neither candidate is doing much to solve the real issue here, I think that we as entrepreneurs can begin to fix this problem. Have a brown bag lunch with your staff (even better -- buy pizza to encourage more to come) and teach them about personal finance. If you’re not up to teaching the class, bring in an expert. Make sure the expert isn’t selling something or else you could be adding to the confusion.

If we start by educating our staffs, we can work to build a financially intelligent country and get back on track at the same time. Plus, isn’t this a great benefit to give to the people who make your company work? If you invest in their financial knowledge, I’m sure it will help your bottom line. (For more on this, read Jack Stack’s books.)

If any of you want to see an example of a lesson plan for such a class, send me an e-mail and I’ll happily forward the one I use to you.

This election has me tortured. I belong to a business group that consists of seven business owners. Because I'm the lone Democrat, I take a lot of grief. But at our latest meeting I had to confess, "I think I'm becoming a Republican."

Why? Well, McCain's social policies still make me sick, scared, and disgusted. And I still can't believe that STUPID Paris Hilton ad that he approved. But I also can't believe how naïve O'Bama is. His "tax the rich" routine is going to cost me big money -- money I don't have because I heavily re-invest in my company. He clearly doesn't understand how small businesses work.

Continue reading "Why Business Owners Vote Republican"

Politics is not my favorite subject, and it’s not my favorite activity. I get a little involved in local politics. I support a few local politicians. But on the national level I think the best scenario is real simple: a split government. That way nobody has control and nobody can enact too many laws. The Republicans have blown the last few years, and when one party does something not so good or doesn’t listen--as now, with the war--things swing the other way. That was obvious in the 2006 election when the Democrats took over both houses. There’s still some time before the 2008 election, but I think it’s very scary. I think it should be scary to all business people.

I’m not anti-Democrat, but when one party takes over both houses, things can get out of whack. Now, it looks as though the Democrats may have both houses and the presidency. That’s always scary to me but moreso when the Democrats do it.

Republican philosophy has been more that the people who run businesses can be expected to do the right thing and take care of their employees. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, but because of that underlying feeling, Republican views toward tax laws and business regulations are slanted in the favor of business people.

The Democrats, on the other hand, feel that business people can’t be trusted to do what’s right and that the government should be involved. Who knows who’s right? I certainly don’t. I like to think that business people will take care of their people -- we try to at CitiStorage -- but not everybody does. And that’s why I like split government.

If the Democrats do control Congress and the presidency, I feel the whole business climate is likely to change. Take taxes. A lot of the tax cuts sunset in 2010. I’m afraid that would stagnate growth. You know, years ago -- a lot of people don’t remember this -- the highest income tax rate was 80 percent. That disincentivizes entrepreneurs. They feel like they’re working for the government. The more money that’s in the pockets of business people, the more they spend building businesses and creating new jobs.

Since I’ve been old enough to vote, every four years, someone’s always said, This is the most important election ever. Maybe it’s a sign of age, but I’m about to tell you, this is going to be the most important election ever. So who am I going to vote for? I’m going to try to vote so there won’t be overwhelming control by one party. I’m not going to be voting for the person but for the idea of split government.

To read, Norm Brodsky's Ask Norm blog, click here.