Economic Policy from a Conservative Entrepreneur

Do lower taxes mean higher incomes? Do higher taxes mean more federal revenue?  I just finished reading several debates about the economics of "Republican" politics.  The first debate tore asunder Bush's campaign promise of 2000 that said that lower taxes will result in higher incomes in 2000.  After I got done reading Mr. Cates arguments, which were well-supported and showed, without a doubt really, that lower taxes did not translate into higher incomes, I thought, well, why would they?  Just because GW promised this during a campaign does not mean that American conservatives were persuaded by this argument or even that they cared.  What conservatives believe has little to do with increases in income.  We believe that our government should spend what they take in (which, I believe, had they done would have left us in a better financial position today) and that increased taxes will not make everyone happier.  In fact, we're convinced that increasing taxes is going to result in increases in spending and with that spending, wasting.  And if we follow all of this to its logical conclusion, given that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that between 2000 and 2008, this country's inhabitant's income did not increase, but decreased significantly, it should then be posited that raising taxes will increase incomes significantly (OK, maybe not significantly, but it always sounds so erudite to say "significantly"). 

OK, I don't have any big studies that I want to go and track down, after all, this is a blog that I do in my spare time and since I do not take unemployment or AFDC or food stamps (as I probably could), I need my spare time to work on my consulting projects.  ANYway, lets look at the opposite of the disproven political promise by our dyslexic president: More taxes will lead to higher incomes.  OK, OK, maybe the "opposite" isn't what the author of the debate would support either, but lets have a little fun with it. 

Let's say that we tax me and my family 60% of our income.  Well, would that be after the deductions for our house, 2% of medical expenses over and above the total of our itemized deductions, and any other things that I can dredge up out of the tax code?  Oh, and I suppose I'd better go back and figure out how many of the things on that fun K-1 schedule I get to take off any income I would be claiming; there are all sorts of mysterious deductions there.  I'm not sure what all of them are, but I remember some of the more reasonable ones like charitable donations and something called 179 recapture.  Oh, but that was an add-in, never mind, it's all becoming a muddle and I'm getting further and further from my point.  Well, no, I've arrived at my point!  Yes, there it is.  Our tax code so completely screws with our AGI, how can we possibly truly understand what policies are effective?  I can tell you absolutely that I don't want a flat tax, but that's only because I love all my deductions!  What kind of terrible tax rate would I have if I didn't have my deductions!

I guess I just made a great argument for a reasonable flat tax, sigh.  Let's pull it together folks, remember that campaign slogans do not make good tax policy and we must fight to put our economy back in the game by simplifying our tax code, spending less than we take in in revenue and stop outsourcing jobs to countries that do not allow their people the same freedoms that we have.

Well-Defined Rolls in Leadership

Though I've not done any serious research on the subject of roll definition as it affects leadership, I have read many books and articles in which the authors expound on the benefits of defining rolls in management and the affect of this definition on a manager's performance. I suggest that roll definition is vital to a leader's success as much as to the success of the generic "manager," and I'm sure there are numerous academic articles to back this up. My experience in observing the outcome of poor roll definition comes from my own work on a team where my roll was unclear and poorly defined and where the outcome of the project was important to the executive suite. I don't like to place blame elsewhere; in fact, I usually pick my own work apart ruthlessly. But in preparing for projects that will be scrutinized at the highest levels, managers must take great care to examine the power they have been given to achieve those objectives. Managers may believe that they have been given the power to achieve certain things when, in fact, they have not.

I encountered my first problems, in my example, when the "staff member," a worker bee who was basically running the whole show, came to me to regarding verbiage to use in marketing materials that, by definition, were counter to the (also poorly) defined mission.  Another manager who obviously thought the project was under her jurisdiction had given her these instrutions. It was clear after this encounter that the other manager had the support of the executive suite, but what was I doing there? Was I just another "staff" member who would coordinate with current staff? If so, it was an egregious misuse of my skills. I was not as alert as I should have been at that point to the problems that this would cause me. With a manager of my caliber caught between the manager with real power and a belligerent staff member, I should have seen that I was the perfect patsy. The power manager didn't have to blame, and therefore alienate, the worker bee, she had me there to take the heat! In this case, I should have kept my opinions to myself, done only as I was told and exited the scene as gracefully as possible. Instead, I believed that I could "help" the project by floating my ideas with the mistaken notion that they would be taken seriously. To this day, there is no evidence, beyond my own brutal self-evaluation, to suggest that I did not perform well on the project. I did request a review of my performance from the executive suite which I never received. Well, live and learn folks, that's what it's all about. But why concern myself with that now? Who cares?

I do. Not only do I care that I was put into an impossible situation doomed to failure, but I also care because there is a job now available, for which I am uniquely qualified and may not get because there were some "concerns" about my performance on the aforementioned project of doom. The manager who would like to hire me for this position understands that I am probably the best person for this job, but I fear that I did not play the political game well enough to protect myself at a time when I should have recognized the trap. Naturally, it is important to learn from this experience, and I will; but I feel a sense of loss and I have written this blog to offer support to those good managers who now find themselves in positions of responsibility with no concordant power. My advice? Play the game. Do what is absolutely necessary and no more, offer no opinions other than those that agree with the top rung and extricate yourself as soon as you possibly can! The worker bee will be blamed for any problems (though I am sure that you will still present an excellent target which means it would benefit you to help the worker bee succeed), the power manager will get any acclaim, and you will escape, if not unscathed, at least without the hint of the "dark side"clinging to your good name. And if ever you have to work for the one who put you in this position to begin with? Forget the past, make sure your roll is well-defined (with the necessary concordant power), and believe, as I do, that if given a chance, you will succeed and be recognized in due time.

I don't think executives plan to torture those they hire in these types of situations; in fact, they're probably the victims of circumstance themselves, but there is much you can do to repair those relationships (and your good name) by believing in and achieving your own success.