Taxing pensions blatantly immoral

Here's something the Obama administration can do to help those who are laid off in this horrible recession. Stop making folks pay outrageous taxes and hefty penalties for cashing out pension plans prior to retirement age. This is money layoff victims could use to live on. Forty percent of it shouldn't go to Uncle Sam just because workers got severed from their jobs through no fault of their own in the worst economic times since the Great Depression.

Savings and unemployment checks alone don't always cover the bills after an unexpected (and often undeserved) layoff. And by the way, those checks are also taxed. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. Anyone who thinks people who receive unemployment benefits aren't paying into the system, think again. I will pay far more in taxes in this year of unemployment than I ever did when I was working. Something is just not right about that.

Washington could save a lot of money spent on extending unemployment benefits if it would let people in dire predicaments keep the bulk of their pensions funds. It's bad enough that working-class folks won't have that money for their retirement years because of having to withdraw it now to weather this economic storm. But the fact that it's going to the IRS is downright immoral.

Gates putting his wealth to work

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, announced that he will donate $10 billion for the development of vaccines and their distribution in developing nations. It is the largest donation to date by his private charitable foundation. Gates is seemingly on a mission to give away all of his money to worthwhile causes. It's something that he's been doing for several years.

"Vaccines already save and improve millions of lives in developing countries," said Gates in a statement. "Innovation will make it possible to save more children than ever before."

Gates and his wife, Melinda, hope to provide vaccines for malaria and tuberculosis, ailments that have been mostly eradicated in America but still plague poorer countries.

These are folks with the resources to change the planet in significant ways. In a dog-eat-dog age of corporate greed and individual entitlement, they are a shining light.

There is still plenty of need for others to give back, too. There is no shortage of good causes. Even Bill Gates doesn't have enough money to solve all that is wrong with the earth and its inhabitants. But it is refreshing to see someone from the upper-corporate ranks doing so much good for virtually no personal gain or glory.

Turn down the anti-Obama volume

I have been listening to talk radio and reading what the pundits are saying in the newspapers since President Obama's State of the Union address earlier this week. I am not sure why so many of these folks seem so eager for Obama to fail. To my way of thinking, we all fail if any president continually stumbles. We elected Obama to succeed and should judge him on performance. So far, that performance has been below average in my opinion.

Critics have a right to question many of the president's decisions and cabinet choices. It's his first year and first years are rarely good for any president. I suspect many Obama appointees won't make it through the first term. I think some of his advisers have been a disaster. It appears Obama didn't select his people wisely. As any kind of executive or hiring manager, hiring is one of the most important tasks. You have to have the right people in order to get things done and to enhance the credibility of the administration. You also have to fire people who show a pattern of incompetence.

But more disturbing than the critiques and political rhetoric are the comments by some talk show hosts like Michael Savage, portraying Obama as an threat to this country, an enemy of America. I don't agree with a lot of what Obama has done (and not done) in his first year, but I don't feel he's intentionally working against Americans. I generally like Savage's radio show because he goes after both sides with equal gusto, unlike a Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. He's a native New Yorker who just seems to make a lot of sense to me, and does it in a way that is entertaining to someone who grew up with a father with a similar viewpoint and style. Still, I wish he'd pull back a bit on the bulls eye that he's place on Obama's back.

The danger in escalating the personal hatred on talk radio is that there are unstable people in this country who might get wound up and try to do something about Obama that could end in tragedy. I wish those who disagree with Obama would turn down the volume and just make their cases based on facts and not personal attacks. Of course, those same personal attacks occurred on the left when President Bush was in office, so maybe this is payback.

Lately, it seems we've lost our ability to debate the issues in a respectful manner. Not only does that raise anxieties, it also takes the focus off the things that need to be fixed. I understand the desire to be loud and get noticed in an increasingly competitive media, but I don't agree with inciting folks who can't process it.

McDonnell plays it moderately right

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, sworn in less than two weeks ago, gave the GOP response speech to President Obama's State of the Union address tonight. It's a tough gig and others have gone down in flames trying to provide a substantive opposing view. However, McDonnell's performance, while predictable, wasn't offensive or clumsy. He seemed moderate in his opinions and likable in his demeanor. Like during his campaign, he led his speech off by talking about jobs. A wise strategy that undoubtedly got him elected last November. However, McDonnell didn't reveal a lot of new ideas or details about how he plans to create those jobs.

At times McDonnell seems to be too packaged, but it looks like he might be on the fast track to national politics. He may even have a shot at the presidency if he gets people back to work in Virginia and reduces the state deficit.

As for Obama's address, the president continues to be a master of public speaking. Even when I disagree with Obama, I find him easy to listen to and think his heart is generally in the right place. I was glad to hear him place the focus for 2010 on jobs -- meaningful jobs, as he stated. However, I still can't help wonder why it took Obama a year to become more engaged in the quest to get people back to work or why he continues to take on a campaign-like tone of blaming the previous administration for much of what ails us. He's a smart guy. We elected him to do a job. It's time to stop the George Bush bashing and get on with the business of leading the country out of this economic mess.

Apple takes the next step with iPad

The Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, has done it again. His latest innovation, the iPad, appears to be a revolutionary device in the same way the company's Macintosh computers and iPod music players blazed new trails years ago. This isn't just an over-sized smart phone. This thing appears to have some serious possibilities that move us one step further away from clunky desktop and notebook computers. It has a screen you can actually see and a large virtual keyboard suitable for typing, yet it's still more portable than even the smallest notebook computers. Some complaints about the lack of certain features are already being raised, but with a device like this, I tend to see it as a start rather than a finished product. And it's a significant start that could evolve into various new products.

I can envision people being more likely to take this on a commuter train to read their morning newspaper than lugging along and cranking up a laptop. Is it more convenient than a paper news product? Well, that remains to be seen. Some folks will always prefer the feel of ink and disposable newsprint, I suppose. I will confess that paper and ink will always appeal to me. In some ways, newsprint is more high tech than anything invented to this point to replace it. Nothing loads faster and it has no annoying popups. But I am a realist and know that we can't keep cutting down trees forever. Nor can companies invest in massive printing presses and costly distribution methods.

If one thing could hurt the iPad, it's the cost. Starting at $499 and going up over $800, some will argue it doesn't do enough to justify such a purchase. People still want a real keyboard to type long documents on. They still want their smart phones to talk on and to easily carry in their pockets. I believe Apple will quickly need to update this device so that users can multitask on it. Still, with that said, there is nothing else on the market quite like the iPad. It makes the Kindle already look outdated.

Here's the link to video where Jobs describes the iPad. Along with his still getting it done in the technology field, I also applaud Jobs for wearing jeans to announce the launching of the iPad. Seeing him up there in a suit wouldn't have flown with most Apple groupies. Under Jobs, Apple has always marched to the beat of a different drummer. The jeans, like the iPad, are symbolic of that pioneering spirit.

More cheers for Men of a Certain Age

Last Monday's episode of Men of a Certain Age on TNT is worth a second look if you have an on-demand service or if you happened to record it. It's not up on the TNT web site yet.

Episode 7 is titled Fathers’ Fraternity. As you might figure, it centers on father-son relationships. But the show also touches on three forms of rejection -- obvious rejection based on misconceptions or prejudices (in this case, age discrimination), mysterious rejection where the victim doesn't quite understand why he's being turned down and begins questioning his own self worth, and justifiable rejection where one person is picked over another for logical reasons that are tied to abilities rather than emotions or clouded perceptions. My favorite scene is when the Ray Romano character goes to a large hardware store to speak to the general manager about why he rejected his elderly father for employment simply based on age. The manager explains that the work done in the store requires tasks like climbing ladders and expertise on computers, implying that it's work for younger people. Romano looks around and points to a young but obese employee and asks if the overweight worker is climbing any ladders. Meanwhile, Romano's father is roaming around the store, browsing at merchandise, unaware that his son is talking to the manager.

As that discussion continues near the service desk, a dispute occurs in another part of the store where a customer is trying to get an answer about a product from an inexperienced employee who obviously doesn't know the business very well but is trying to compensate by fruitlessly fumbling around on the store computer. The angry customer is about to leave when Romano's father, who owned a hardware store for many years prior to retiring, happens to overhear the discussion and comes to the aid of the customer.

The manager arrives on the scene with Romano and witnesses the exchange and the now-satisfied customer. Romano makes some funny wise crack to the manager about the kid with the computer, which practically made me stand up and cheer. And yes, the manager, now realizing older workers have a lot to offer, hired the retired hardware store owner.

As I have mentioned in a prior post, I like this show. It touches on a host of small and big topics meaningful to men my age. There's a lot of us, so a show like this is long overdue. But the dark-comedy/drama also should have value to women who try to understand us, younger people who will get to 50 one day and to seniors who have been there and done that.

Still, it's a fictional television show. In real life, would that store manager have hired the elderly retiree, regardless of how much knowledge he had about hardware? Do managers these days have the insight to understand why experience matters? Do companies, desperate to trim payroll in this recession, understand that their bottom lines ultimately aren't going to improve by ditching so much institutional knowledge or that there are many seasoned workers who can be had at bargain prices these days?

Technology is great. I truly enjoy the digital age, various new gadgets and such. I like working with younger, high-energy folks with fresh ideas from different cultures, genders, races and ethnic backgrounds. But I also understand that without men of a certain age (and older) being welcomed in the workplace, American society as a whole is diminished. Being unfairly rejected later in life has across-the-board consequences that rival many other societal problems.

Where will the "thresholders" go?

I learned a new term today. I discovered I am not simply a baby boomer. Folks my age are now being referred to as the "threshold generation" by career advisers. Watch the 25-minute video about the changing face of the workforce. (If that direct link to the clip doesn't work, you can go here and scroll down to the video). There is an interesting segment about folks in their 50s -- the threshold generation. These people make up an enormous segment of the population.

There is some good information in the video for job seekers. But I also think that the values, advice and good intentions of these experts aren't matching up with all of the current realities confronted by job hunters or how the recession has altered what employers are seeking. Until the mindset of employers changes and bottom lines improve, you can take all the Microsoft Office classes you want and "tweet" until you fingers fall off, and still remain unemployed or underemployed.

I am a big believer in all generations bringing value to the workplace. The best companies, in my opinion, have a wide range of ages all working together, learning from each other while growing the business. However, that is not how companies are viewing the workforce. I think it's a tragic mistake -- penny-wise, pound-foolish -- for companies to view older workers as fat that can be trimmed from the payroll. When I was young and breaking into the newspaper business, I truly enjoyed working with older editors who mentored me. I never would have learned as much as I did about journalism without their being in the newsroom. And to their credit, I think they appreciated my enthusiasm and energy. The companies that I worked for in the 80s and early 90s benefited from experienced employees mixing with young talent that could be cultivated. Those companies were family operated and seemed to be more likely to employ folks of all ages. Family-owned businesses, unfortunately, are disappearing.

A friend of mine who works for a major company that provides services to the Defense Department and Homeland Security watched some of his coworkers get their pink slips last week. The layoffs were mostly tied to pay rates. In general, the higher-paid people were let go. That was a real eye-opener. This isn't suppose to happen to the people who do the work that keep the country safe. That is allegedly an industry that is growing. It tells me that the recession is far from over and that once again older workers are being dismissed mostly because of their higher salaries, not because they can't learn PowerPoint. Many companies aren't even bothering to see if these higher-paid folks would be willing to take a salary reduction in order to keep their jobs. It's really quite ruthless and cold. I have to believe some bad karma is brewing. But more importantly, where are these "thresholders" going to go?