Dear Senator Obama,

In my job, a large part of the tasks that I perform revolve around the hiring and promoting of executive staff. In essence, I have the task of measuring applicants and their pasts to determine future performance. Translated to your world, I tell the boards and owners who they should vote for, which one of the applicants that can best lead their company.

You should know that I am not one much for traditional thinking, your relatively low experience compared to your opponent is not in any way shape or form indicative of what you are capable of doing in office. Especially not since you and I agree that change is needed in the future presidency. Your 140+ days as a senator could actually be a strength in that regard.

But your recent track-record worries me. Albeit easy to call your opponents suspension of his campaign a political stunt. Your unwillingness to do the same has put me in the position of wondering whether you are actually interested in your own career over the well being and interests of those that elected you to represent them.

Leadership is Action, not Position
You are a United States Senator, one of the most powerful politicians in this country. As a senator, your responsibilities are to protect the interests of your voters. The people that placed their trust in you to represent them are expecting you to act. Not go about your own business and wait for others to call you. Not to place the job you already have aside so that you can spend time on getting a better job.

It has been said that your opponent is avoiding the debate because of failing polls. The other side of that coin is that it can be said you are pushing for it because your numbers are climbing. I understand that this is a golden opportunity for you to lock down voters for your candidacy, and that you have more to lose by not having this debate, this much is clear. But the country is facing a crisis, and your personal ambitions should not detract from the job that you have agreed to do already.

You have a job to do
As a United States Senator, you were hired because the people who voted for you believed that you could protect their interests. I am fairly certain that you didn’t win that election on the statement. “They’ll call me if they need me”. You were elected because you promised that you would be in the thick of things, fighting for them every step of the way. Waiting for a phone call simply wont cut it.

You have a job to do
The election rallies and debates are undoubtedly important. But the financial crisis is more important. “Call me if you need me” doesn’t cut it. I need to see the future President of the United States having the good sense to know that Your position as a senator demands that you roll up your sleeves and protect the interests of your voters. Not the interests of those that may vote for you in the future.

You have a job to do
The most important decisions of our time is being made in Washington, your opponent has shown that he considers completing the job he was hired to do as a Senator outweighs the importance of his personal ambitions to become President

Even if the impact that you can have is limited, even if you can only partake on the outskirts of the work on this bill, that minute input is still infinitely more important than your presidential campaign can ever be. Please show us that you understand this, and that partaking in this work to represent their interests is more important than your personal ambitions.

Don’t wait for that phone call, your voters deserve better from their Senator.

Stop worrying about the job you want
The people that have already placed their trust in you must outweigh the people that may vote for you in November. You owe it to them to be a Senator before you are a presidential Candidate. You owe them your promise of being their representative.

Show us that your opponent isn’t the only candidate that understands what leadership means. Prove that you understand leadership relies on your actions, not what the sign on your door says.

Show us your actions as a leader. We have all heard your talk about leadership. Stop waiting for that phone call and get off the campaign trail to do the work you have been hired to do.

Show us that the job you want but don’t have yet isn’t more important to you than the job you have already been hired to do. The people that elected you deserve better.

You have a job to do,
Show me that you are able to do that before you ask me to promote you to President.

Sincerely

Erik Johnels

The battle for the US Presidency is raging. Arguments in mainstream media are as wide ranging as they are mostly irrelevant to small business. In the end, the bailouts of major companies and the war in Iraq will affect small business owners much as they affect everyone. Unless you are in the lipstick or Bridge Building industries, most of the discussion housed on TV has been of little concern to you at all.

But there are issues that do make a difference to small business owners and hopefuls. Although they are not as interesting to the media as lipstick and who was for or against a bridge that was never built are.

Let’s make an effort to examine some of the policies presented, and determine what they are going to do for the ever important small business owner and their ability to create jobs.

Battle 1 - Startup Costs and Asset Management - Job Creation 101

1. Sen. Obama is proposing a Capital Gains tax cut to small and startup companies

Now, as nice as this may sound, it is largely irrelevant. Most small and startup companies don’t have capital gains to worry about. Asset ownership has never been one the major posts to startup businesses. And is really counter productive since it pertains to the liquidation (and thereby closing of business in many cases) For those that this affects, it is definitely nice. But it has little if any real impact on small and startup businesses and zero effect on the running and growing of a business.

CG taxes affect non-inventory assets and is assessed at the sale of the asset. So this tax is really only relevant at the liquidation of a company or parts of its assets. Most assets held by small businesses never appreciate they depreciate, so the tax is actually not creating much if anything for small businesses.

In essence, this law is beneficial for those that don’t want to run their business, but build and sell it to bigger entities. Dealing in the proprietary assets such as inventions and accompanying patents that can increase in value. But be aware, it will have a negative effect on those that want to sell it with a vested future interest. (Royalty payments are taxed as income not appreciated assets. The benefit only occurs to those who outright sell their patents and investments to a major company. It will also be beneficial to those that want to have small investment and speculation companies. But this will be of little interest to most small business hopefuls until the market stabilizes.

This law is counter productive to small businesses who are actually interested in keeping and growing their business as a going concern. Therefore it does little to nothing for job creation and business growth.

Small Business Ownership Grade: C-
Startup and Job Creation Grade: F

2. Sen. McCain is proposing First year Expensing of Capital Investments

This is an interesting position. Eliminating the multi year expensing of capital goods will improve the cash position of small businesses to quickly expand, especially businesses that are creating manufacturing jobs and are in need of machinery etc. before they can increase staff.

This proposal however does very little for businesses who run on intellectual capital. The expensing of an office desk chair and a computer is not what is stifling the small business growth.

This proposal will have a beneficial effect to those that are considering startups that require large investment, but not much for the shoestring startup in intellectual goods. Much of the small businesses today are using the internet to be competitive with big businesses just because they are able to run small initial investment companies that can outsource and utilize little capital for asset investment. So a large part of the startup will remain unaffected.

The applied job creation effect however will be more beneficial since the companies that do benefit from capital investments (mainly base manufacturing and goods production) are often the ones that hire staff in conjunction with the investment.

Small Business Ownership Grade: C+
Startup and Job Creation: B

Battle 1 Summary

McCain/Palin proposes the most beneficial ideas for startups and job creation. However, direct expensing will not do much for the shoestring startup and sole proprietor with small initial investment, its design is intended to build businesses that create jobs.

Obama/Biden proposes a solution that not only will not enable startups, but has no beneficial effect in job creation since it only pertains to liquidating assets. This does however post an interesting position for small property investors, providing that investment assets are included, which isn’t clearly stated by the proposition at this point.

Battle 1 goes to McCain/Palin with a B- average. Obama stands on a Failing D

Subscribe Now for Battle 2 - Staff and Production Costs

Sources:
McCain:http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/smallbusiness.htm
Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business