Harvey on marketing an accounting firm and life

Posted on December 26, 2010 by William Brighenti

Harvey and the Barefoot Accountant

On average it takes seven years to build a public accounting practice.  As many of you can testify, it’s not easy obtaining clients, even though we are bombarded hourly with emails from marketers promising and guaranteeing instantaneous success.

Many of us spend thousands of dollars for a website, containing “twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph … explaining what each one was….”  Some of us even install flash videos on our websites in an attempt to make them more dynamic and alive.  Of course, there are the usual blurbs cataloguing our credentials and areas of expertise, in an attempt to distinguish us from the billion of other CPAs out there.  And we add a few gadgets, like tax calculators, or a few tax tips to fill up the dozen or a half dozen pages on our site.

The best advice I can offer anyone desiring to establish an accounting practice is what I acquired from my friend, “Harvey”.  Harvey befriended me years ago:  in fact, to be a little more precise, 31 years, 23 days, 17 hours, and 9 minutes ago.  I had just returned home after working 12 hours non-stop at an accounting sweatshop on Lewis Street in downtown Hartford, Connecticut, when at my doorstep I was greeted by a 6′ 3.5″ pooka named Harvey.  That evening Harvey and I sauntered down to Charlie’s and had a very long conversation about accounting, accounting firms, and life in general.  While we were downing beers one right after another (one gets very thirsty talking to Harvey about life), I recounted to Harvey about my treatment at this particular accounting firm sweatshop, bemoaning the inhumane treatment  by my superiors.  Harvey listened very attentively, and eventually after several hours, and many beers (when you are with Harvey, you lose count), offered the following advice about life in general.  I recount it now to all of you.  Perhaps you may find it of some use.  Here is what Harvey told me.

Years ago my mother used to say to me, she’d say, “In this world, Harvey, you must be” – she always called me Harvey – “In this world, Harvey, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.” Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.

Although I recall these words precisely as I quoted them above, it took me several decades to absorb the essence of their meaning to life in general and to the marketing of my accounting practice today.  I have discovered that just by being “oh so pleasant” to individuals calling me about accounting, QuickBooks, taxes, or whatever, that I have had some success in building an accounting practice.  I discovered that I didn’t need a very expensive office on the 26th floor in downtown Hartford, nor an expensive website featuring flash videos and the like, nor any trappings of success.  Nor did I require an Einstein command of taxes and GAAP.  There are plenty of Einsteins around; and they usually work for individuals who are not Einsteins, but who know how to acquire clients.

I hope Harvey’s advice works for you as it did for me.  Harvey wishes you a Happy New Year.  We are about to stroll down to Charlie’s right now.  You are welcome to join us.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is it still gauche for CPAs to cry?

Posted on December 19, 2010 by William Brighenti

John Boehner crying over youIt’s a question that may need to be addressed, since the Majority Whip, John Boehner, weeped on television recently, and it was regarded by some to be an effective way to move voters.  Maybe if CPAs start bawling, we can move some of our clients to pay us.

Many feel that crying is not an effective social tool to influence others behavior.  I cry all the time to my wife, but she simply ignores me.  Although some were sincerely moved by Boehners’ tears, others scoffed, seeing it as a sign of weakness.  I wondered if he was crying because of guilt over all of his policies and votes?  Who knows.

Personally, I have found it to be very effective in public accounting to sniffle, if not bawl.  Watery eyed, runny-nose wailing shows you are repentant for your latest screw up to your boss.  Furthermore, no partner wants to be sued for causing emotional trauma or psychological damage to an employee, even if you really screwed up on a tax client, losing him or her as a client for the firm for evermore.  Heck, it always worked for me!

It is my opinion that there’s a double standard about crying.  I suspect that female CPAs should never cry.  They might be regarded as weak, a no-no in feministic circles.  Male CPAs, on the other hand, perhaps should do a lot more crying.  They are likely to be seen as less mean and more sensitive, like an Alan Alda, whom women seem to love.  So female clients might really get off on you bawling.  And if an attractive female client takes you in her arms and cradles you to her bosom in an attempt to console you, feel free to heave away and enjoy the moment.

I personally have found it to be an effective ruse in a bar room brawl, especially when I was on the losing end of the fisticuffs, which, unfortunately, was always the case.  I must confess, however, that at times those tears were real, after having my nose broken three times from such fracases.

But, what the heck, I’m a free spirit.  Go ahead and sniffle.  Then risk a wimper.  After which, try sobbing, gradually working up to a good cry and a bawl.  And if your clients are still unmoved, you might want to even indulge in a panic attack.  But play it safe and bring a paper bag, just in case.

Everyone loves entertainment.  And CPAs too often do not register a pulse.  So some of your clients might welcome a little drama from you, while others might appreciate a little humor at your expense.  And if it brings in business, cry and laugh all the way to the bank.  If you wish, I’ll even hire out as a professional weeper for your firm.  All I need to do is watch Bette Davis in “Dark Victory” and the faucets turn on for at least an hour or so.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

With the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, certain military maneuvers take on a whole new meaning.

Posted on December 19, 2010 by William Brighenti

rear guardLike 75% of the people in our country, I’m for gays serving openly in the military or in any capacity, having all of the same equal rights and privileges as others.  I sincerely respect their life style and all of their constitutional rights.  And I do not think that their open service will lessen the effectiveness of the military or endanger national security at all. 

As you all know, the military has been the one area where there has an obvious barrier to equal access for gays for decades, if not centuries.  I recall when many fellow students were protesting the Vietnam war, that a few individuals were even prepared to declare that they were gay in order to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam.  Thank, God, I got a high draft number, otherwise, I might have had to kiss the sergeant at the draft board.

Incidentally, I was the only student in the entire history of UCONN to flunk out of its ROTC program.  I’m kind of proud of that distinction.  I never wanted to go over to Vietnam and kill Vietnamese soldiers fighting for their political beliefs, and burn down houses and villages and kill women and children in the heat of battle.

With the recent repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, allowing gays now to serve openly in the military, one might wonder if there is a need now to refine its parlance.  Might the repeal now prompt, for the sake of decorum, a major revision of the language used in military manuals to describe the soldiers’ field maneuvers and positions?

Can you imagine officers and sergeants leading men into life-and-death battles, bellowing out orders or positions such as, “advance from the rear”, or “rear attack”, or “attack the rear”, or “tail end of the formation”, or “protect the rear” or “take the rear”?  Do you think that such phrases now might take on a whole new connotation in the military? 

In the heat of battle, will our soldiers’ vigilance for enemies ahead of them be distracted by concerns over their “rear guard”?  Will there now be a refrain from  references to a derriere in any military action or position, especially when bayonets are fixed? 

In a recent survey nearly 60% of marines and soldiers in combat arms units predicted problems would arise.  Can it be that they fear a problem might “arise” while sharing a “fox hole” with a gay soldier?  But wouldn’t a straight soldier feel a wee bit more comfortable knowing if his comrade were gay or not, rather than wondering all night while cuddled together in that fox hole, trying to stay warm, dry, and safe?

In any event, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” will probably have no effect on the repeated use of the “F” word by lowly, mistreated soldiers to describe the much wished-for fate of a detested sargeant or officer, except for the added opportunity now to provide a specific subject, previously lacking, for the desired action to be performed upon the sargeant or officer in the predicate of that vulgar, trite imperative sentence. 

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Senate Sends Tax Bill to House

Posted on December 15, 2010 by William Brighenti

Senate Sends Tax Bill to House

 December 15, 2010

The Senate on Wednesday approved a tax deal between the White House and congressional Republicans. The vote was 81 to 19. Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against the $858 billion package. He supported parts of the bill to continue tax cuts for the middle class and extend unemployment benefits. He opposed giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, which he said will deepen deficits and grow the gap between the rich and the rest of America. Sanders proposed an amendment that he told colleagues would have let Bush-era tax breaks for the top 2 percent expire on schedule and make other significant changes. The Sanders Amendment received 43 votes, an impressive result for a  proposal resisted by the White House and Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle.

“We made an impressive showing for a stronger and fairer proposal that would create more jobs, lower the debt, and do more for Social Security than the deal brokered by the White House and congressional Republicans,” Sanders said. “The fact that we got 43 votes in opposing the president and Republican leadership indicates great discontent with the course we are embarking on.”

The amendment would have struck an estate tax proposal to exempt all but the richest estates. Sanders suggested returning to estate tax rates in effect in 2009 for two years. He would have exempted the first $3.5 million of an estate from taxation and imposed a 45 percent estate tax rate on the value of estates above $3.5 million.

The Sanders amendment would have replaced the payroll tax holiday with a one year extension of the Make Work Pay Credit — a proposal that will provide more tax relief to those who need it most while not threatening the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.

Sanders’ amendment also would have provided a $250 payment to some 58 million senior citizens, veterans and persons with disabilities.  Unless Congress acts, senior citizens will be going without a cost of living increase for a second year in a row at a time when the prices they pay for prescription drug and health care are soaring.  

Sanders led Senate opposition to the bill, which he critiqued in a marathon 8 ½ hour floor speech on Friday.

cartoon

Print this Page E-mail this Page
Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is Bernie Sanders a modern-day Robin Hood? A letter from Bernie….

Posted on December 15, 2010 by William Brighenti


Dear William:
 
I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for contacting my office regarding the recent tax deal struck between President Obama and the Republican leadership. Frankly, the response from Vermonters and Americans all across the country – like you – was far beyond anything we could have imagined. As of this writing, we received a total of more than 10,000 phone calls and 9,324 e-mails. More than 98 percent of the responses were in opposition.
 
In my view, this huge outpouring of concern was not just about this harmful bill. It went deeper than that. It was a cry from the middle class who are deeply worried about the future of our country and where this agreement, and similar type bills, will lead us in the years to come.
 
At a time when we have a $13.7 trillion national debt and the most unfair distribution of income in the industrialized world, why are we giving huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires? Is there no end to their greed? And does anyone really believe that this will only be a two-year agreement with no future extensions?
 
Why should we be significantly lowering rates on the estate tax when it applies only to the very, very richest people in this country, the top 0.3 percent?  The richest 1 percent already owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.  Isn’t that enough?
 
With the American people deeply worried about the future of Social Security, why are we diverting $112 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to provide a ‘payroll tax holiday?’ Why is a Democratic president adopting this position, which has long been held by Republicans who want to eventually destroy Social Security by choking off its funds? With the Republicans coming to power in the House in a few weeks, why should anyone not think that this ‘one-year’ diversion will be made long-term or permanent? According to one major senior citizen organization, this action could be the beginning of the end for Social Security – the most successful anti-poverty program in the history of the United States.
 
It goes without saying that we must extend unemployment benefits for the millions of working families who, in the midst of this terrible recession, are about to see them expire. But why is this considered a ‘concession’ when for the last four decades Democrats and Republicans have always worked together and agreed that benefits must be continued when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2 percent.  This is not a ‘concession’ on the part of the Republicans. This is a continuation of long-held, bipartisan policy.
 
In conclusion, I believe that we could have reached and should reach a better agreement that represents the interests of middle class and working families of our country. 
 
Let’s keep working together.

Sincerely,
BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

IRS is on its way to see who’s been naughty and nice….

Posted on December 15, 2010 by William Brighenti

You better watch out, you better not cry,

You better not pout, I’m telling you why,

The IRS is coming to town.

He’s making a list, and checking it twice, Gonna find out who’s naughty and nice,

The IRS is coming to town.

He sees you when you are cheating, he knows when forms are fake,

He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!

I do hope my clients this year have been good.  Last year, many of them were…bad.  In fact, some of them were very, very bad.

The IRS Santa this year promises to be meaner and less forgiving, with all of the new internal revenue agents and officers hired over the past year.  The agency needs to justify the additional expense of the newly hired agents’ salaries and benefits.  And these eager agents and officers are eager to prove their worth, retain their jobs, and be rewarded.  So beware, comrades…better think twice who’s been naughty.  After reading Circular 230, I’m concerned; so should you.

The obvious signs of naughty clients include the following, and a whole lot more:

  1. Clients submitting trial balances or just P&Ls.  Better get those bank statements and see if cash ties into the bank statements.
  2. Commingling of personal charges and transactions in the business. 
    1. Watch those meals and entertainment charges.
    2. Double check those auto expense charges.
    3. Beware of personal telephone charges.
    4. Scrutinize those nondescript office expenses, etc.
  3. Large deposits occurring in January, that may have been constructively received in December.
  4. Oh, God, the list is endless.  This elf is tired already; and probably suffering from low elf-esteem.  (Boo, but old bloggers never die, they just get de-pressed.)

Oh, well, time to renew my errors and omission insurance, and revise that ten-page engagement letter for my tax clients.  Perhaps it’s time to have all the letters notarized and witnessed.  And call my attorney, too….

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Isn’t it more fiscally conservative to reduce debt?

Posted on December 13, 2010 by William Brighenti

Choice: Incur debt or pay more taxes

It is conservative to minimize debt and control spending.  I am conservative in this sense.

But isn’t amassing $15 trillion of national debt not conservative?  I am for a balanced budget amendment.  I am for reducing spending:  get me a machete and I’ll cut the United States budget so we would have no deficit.

I was against spending trillions of dollars after 9/11 attacking Iraq, looking for fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and invading Afghanistan, still looking for Osama Been Forgotten.  I am a fiscal conservative and do not believe in building prisons in Iraq where there are no prisoners, and making Haliburton wealthy.

But I am also opposed to our government paying unmarried women $734/month for each illegitimate child.  I witnessed an unmarried woman with seven children under 18 years of age receiving ~$7,000/month in welfare.  This particular woman was not married, and had 8 children by several different men, and never held a job.  Is this being responsible?  Should our government “reward” such behavior?  No wonder our government is in hock for trillions!

I have also witnessed the warehousing of unfortunate souls, incapable of caring for themselves because of mental illnesses and drug problems, costing Medicaid $235/day for each resident.  In Connecticut, these large nursing home syndicates are receiving billions of dollars every year from taxpayers.  It makes me want to open a warehouse and call it a nursing home.

Also I oppose the unlimited power of bureaucrats.  In many cities municipal employees receive enviable salaries as well as enviable medical and retirement benefits, without any threat of losing their jobs.  I recall a union for firemen having a municipal employment contract requiring the city (a small city by definition) to fund the salaries of ~158 firemen, even though there were only ~139 employed firemen, resulting in lots of overtime, around two to three million dollars in overtime compensation each year.  The city was restricted from laying off these excess firemen; if it went to arbitration, the union would win.  Similarly, so it was with this city’s police department employees’ union.  Furthermore, the medical benefits were costing the city ~$20,000 for each employee with a family.  And the retirement plan was a defined benefit plan, to boot.

Also in this same small city, the median salaries of teachers was ~$80,000/year, even though they worked ~183 days per year, and accumulated a generous amount of vacation/comp time.  The superintendent earned ~$155,000/year; and she had a number of assistant superintendents earning ~$130,000/year.  And then there were the principals earning ~$110,000/year to ~$120,000/year, and assistant principals earning ~$100,000/year.  No wonder property taxes in municipalities are skyrocketing.   In this city’s budget, education alone consumed nearly 70% of the municipal budget.  Some special education classes had only a few students, if not just one solitary student, often due to the unfunded mandates of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program.

Our government is on a drunken spending spree.  It refuses to control spending.  So the question is, until the populace gets angry and united enough to demand a balanced budget, do we keep increasing our national debt by extending tax cuts that do not balance our budget, or do we pay enough in taxes to avoid further debt?  Do we as a nation risk going into receivership?  Do we risk having our dollar being further devalued?  What’s worse:  paying more in taxes or having a dollar worth a pittance of what it once was?  And what is more conservative?  Risking insolvency or avoiding deficits?

I advocate controlling spending; however, that will never happen in this country, short of a revolution.  Why would our government exercise fiscal responsibility when the average person in our country is financially irresponsible?  The average citizen spends more than they earn.  So why would they expect or demand restraint on the part of government?

I believe that it is more fiscally conservative to avoid further debt than to extend unrealistic tax cuts.

I was once a registered Republican.  But after witnessing all of the recent Republican Presidents lacking the courage to lead by presenting a balanced budget, I registered as an independent voter.  I am tired of irresponsible Presidents and Congresspeople.

If only a balanced budget or a line-item veto amendment could be implemented…but it will never happen in the forseeable future.  And neither will control over spending, until we are forced into receivership…get real!  So our choice for the time being is the following:  more debt vs. more taxes.  Haven’t we all been taught that less debt is more conservative?

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Meaning of Christmas

Posted on December 12, 2010 by William Brighenti

The Bishop's Wife: Bishop's Sermon on the Meaning of ChristmasThe meaning of Christmas to me is summed up concisely and nicely in the sermon given by the bishop at the end of the 1947 classic movie, “The Bishop’s Wife.”  Since I am an accountant, I am forced to reduce the sermon to a mathematical algorithm….What can I say?  I am a CPA and this is what we do all day, even on Christmas Day?

Mea culpa.  But here it is, Einsteins:

Peace on Earth = Loving Kindness + Warm Hearts + Stretched Out Hand of Tolerance

But despite its simplicity and precision, an algorithm doesn’t capture the moving poetry of the sermon.  So I include it below for the appreciation of all of those who hate mathematics and accounting and who have a real life.  Better yet, just click on the video provided above and watch and listen to David Niven recite the sermon:

Tonight I want to tell you the story of an empty stocking.

Once upon a midnight clear, there was a child’s cry, a blazing star hung over a stable, and wise men came with birthday gifts. We haven’t forgotten that night down the centuries. We celebrate it with stars on Christmas trees, with the sound of bells, and with gifts.

But especially with gifts. You give me a book, I give you a tie. Aunt Martha has always wanted an orange squeezer and Uncle Henry can do with a new pipe. For we forget nobody, adult or child. All the stockings are filled, all that is, except one. And we have even forgotten to hang it up. The stocking for the child born in a manger. Its his birthday we’re celebrating. Don’t let us ever forget that.

Let us ask ourselves what He would wish for most. And then, let each put in his share, loving kindness, warm hearts, and a stretched out hand of tolerance. All the shinning gifts that make peace on earth. 

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Bernie Sanders, like Jefferson Smith, goes to Washington, looking out for the other fella, fighting for lost causes….

Posted on December 11, 2010 by William Brighenti

I love the line of Jefferson Smith from “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”:  “I wouldn’t give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn’t have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a little looking out for the other fella, too.”   Yesterday Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, looked out for the middle class, the other fella, and fought the good fight for a lost cause, a decent income and quality of life for the middle class in America.

In his eight hour filibuster, Bernie argues that (4) banks control the financial capital of our nation.  And because they are so big, they are too big to fail, meaning if they continue to fail in the future, we will have to bail them out once again.

He speaks out against NAFTA, citing CEOs of major corporations intending to transfer their entire operations to China, denigrating the aptitude and capability of the American worker.  He cites that cheap labor of 11.5 cents an hour in India has resulted in the transfer of the textile industry to that country.

He concludes that Obama’s tax deal will not create jobs here in our country.  He quotes endless CEOs stating that they will continue to transfer more jobs overseas because of the low wages and the better training, education, and attitudes of workers there.  Further, he argues, that the rich are loaded with money, and they and the (4) big financial institutions will not invest in businesses here in the US.

Yes, this is drama and high theatre.  This is the stuff of a Frank Capra movie, of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”,  of Jefferson Smith taking on the Taylors and their political machine, including senators like Joseph Paine.

What will become of this filibuster?  Nothing.  The powers of our nation have already determined the fate of the tax bill:  a few add-ons for ethanol and the like to appease the opposing Congressional Democrats so that they can substantiate to their constituents their vote for the tax bill.  Obama brought in his big gun, Bill Clinton, the advocate of NAFTA, to rally the troops today.  A tax bill giving the 2% their tax cuts will pass next week, if not on Monday.  Sanders’ all day filibuster sadly is all for nothing.  Too few are listening; too few care.

The middle class, spawned out of the Roosevelt era, will soon cease to be.  There will just be the 5% owning 95% of the wealth, and then the 95% owning very little, if anything.  Soon the minimum wage of $7.50/hour may be abolished.  Soon people will be searching for jobs for $5/hour.  I have been approached by several graduating students begging to work for me for free.  I was approached by a brilliant young lady, who passed the CPA exam on her first sitting, willing to work part-time for me for free in order to obtain her certification.  And I saw an ad run by a graduate of an MBA program willing to work for free.

I agree with Bernie:  that the tax cuts for the rich will not increase jobs in this country.  Why?  These tax cuts are in place now and have been before and during the rise in our unemployment.  Jobs will continue to go to Asia because of the Malthusian economics at play:  people are willing to work for so much less than our minimum wage.  Investors here, including the rich and the (4) big banks, will continue to invest in Asia and India, since the return on their monies is so much better there.  Once this tax deal is finalized, I, too, feel that you will hear more talk about the minimum wage being lowered or abolished along with social security, medicare, and the like.  I fear that we may be returning to the years of America before FDR, the Taylor and Potter years, when a middle class did not exist, where a majority of Americans rented rather than owned a home, where the vast majority could not afford to go to college, where many desperately sought work, even jobs offering a pittance for wages.  Don’t believe me?  Look around:  it has already begun.

And what will happen to our fees?  Will they fall?  They certainly won’t increase.  Look at the P&Ls of your clients this year.  It’s happening already. 

It’s simple economics, fostered by the politics in Washington.

I guess this is just another lost cause, Bernie Sanders.  Do you remember Jefferson Smith’s culminating words in the Senate chamber before he collapsed?  “Lost causes” are “the only causes worth fighting for.  And you fight for them once, for the only reason any man ever fights for them; because of just one plain simple rule: ‘Love thy neighbor.’… And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other. Yes, you even die for them.”

Yesterday, you alone in America fought the good fight for a lost cause, Bernie.  I thank you.

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is Obama Another Neville Chamberlain?

Posted on December 10, 2010 by William Brighenti

Is President Obama another Neville ChamberlainFor those of you unfamiliar with the history of World War II, Neville Chamberlain was the prime minister of Great Britain just prior to the advent of World War II.  He is most remembered for his “Munich Agreement”, in which he deeded over Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany with Germany’s promise that it would not pursue further aggression.  Of course, this was making a deal with the devil; Adolf Hitler was Satan incarnate, for certain.  Consequently, his name has become the emodiment of appeasement and naivete, if not utter stupidity and idiocy.  You cannot make a deal with the devil.  Shown here in the picture to the right is Neville Chamberlin upon his return from Munich in 1938 after meeting with Adolf Hitler with the scrap of paper that was to “ensure peace in our time”; the paper was signed by Hitler.

Is President Obama another Neville Chamberlain?The question now is whether Barack Obama is another Neville Chamberlain.  Obama is supporting the tax cuts for the rich, claiming that unless we agree to these demands by the Republicans, our economy may dip back into recession, as Chamberlain asserted that unless England and Europe gave Nazi Germany Czechoslovakia, that a war with Germany might occur.  Whether you are for the tax cuts or against the tax cuts, the majority of Americans were surprised, if not flabbergasted, by Obama’s immediate capitulation to Republican demands for inclusion of the rich in the tax cuts, including a very generous exemption from estate taxes: under the plan, as much as $10 million may be exempt from any estate tax, with the estate tax rate on any excess being reduced from 55% to 35%!

Certainly, Barack Obama is no Winston Churchill.  Perhaps he restricts his fighting to the basketball court, where he recently incurred an injury requiring 18 stitches, because he certainly did not fight the good fight before conceding to the Republican demands, merely accepting in return a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits for 2 million Americans, a reduction in payroll taxes, and an extension of a grab bag of tax credits for college tuition and other items.  Like Chamberlain, who only received Hilter’s signature on a scrap of paper promising never to go to war again with England, Obama got very little in return for his big giveaways to the rich and privileged.

A recent CBS poll found 70% of Americans were not in favor of these tax cuts for the rich—resulting in huge deficits of $700 billion dollars—when our national debt is already $14 trillion.  Many feel that no tax cuts would have been preferable to this agreement, since no deal would spare us from an additional $980 billion of debt.

Obama is justifying these tax cuts through a fear tactic, trying to scare the bejeezus out of everyone:  unless we give the rich these tax cuts, our country may lapse back into another recession.  Dear President Obama, for your information, we are still in this recession in terms of unemployment:  my next job interview is in Peking, thanks to NAFTA.  And in 2012, we will still be in this recession in terms of unemployment.  Jobs have been going overseas for years now, and with the further consolidations of mega-size corporations, layoffs will continue.  Of course, we all know by now that the unemployment numbers may not reflect the worsening labor market since, after a certain period of time, the long-term unemployed are no longer included in the calculation of the current rate of unemployment.  That great mouthpiece of Republican ideology, former President Ronald Reagan, redefined unemployment to deliberately understate figures by excluding those “not actively searching for jobs.”

After hearing the endorsement of these tax cuts for the rich by Harvard’s Larry Summers, and his prediction of another recession if they are not enacted, I suspect that President Obama may still be listening to the counsel of his former Economic Advisor.  What do you expect from an educator of America’s elite class?  An endorsement of a government of the unprivileged, by the unprivileged, and for the unprivileged?  Is anyone surprised to hear Summers’ talking points uttered by Obama, knowing that Summers advised Obama on his economic policies in his first two years as President?  Does Paul Winchell and Knucklehead Smiff ring a bell?

If appeasement best characterizes Obama’s approach to negotiations with the Republicans over tax cuts for the rich, can you imagine the results of his negotiations with the Iranians and North Korea over nuclear weapons?

To paraphrase one of the greatest Yankees of all time, Yogi Berra:  deja vu Neville Chamberlain all over again?

William Brighenti, Certified Public Accountant, Certified QuickBooks ProAdvisor

Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment