Obama, GOP freshmen win in jet engine budget fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — Determined to reduce deficits, impatient House Republican freshmen made common cause with President Barack Obama on Wednesday, scoring their biggest victory to date in a vote to cancel $450 million for an alternative engine for the Pentagon’s next-generation warplane.

“Right here, right now was a surefire way to reduce spending,” declared Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida, a second-term lawmaker whose summons to cut money from the F-35 fighter jet was answered by 47 Republican newcomers…

Strictly by the numbers, the vote was a bipartisan one, with 110 Republicans and 123 Democrats supporting cancellation of the funds, while 68 Democrats and 130 Republicans wanted to leave them in place. But that breakdown obscured the change wrought by the voters last fall. A similar vote in May ended in defeat for opponents of the alternative engine.”

Let’s review. The alternate engine is a defense pork barrel project that will not die because it is supported by legislators determined to bring home the bacon to their respective district or state. It was opposed by Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as both of the their Secretaries of Defense as unneeded and a waste of taxpayer money. Nevertheless, Congress continued to allocate billions on an engine the military did not want or need.

Last May, with a Democratic President and large Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House, this project continued to be funded, passing in Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives by a vote of 231-193.

Last week, in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner supporting the continued funding of the unneeded engine, it was finally defeated. Credit to President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates for reaching out to Republican legislators and the new crop of Tea Party supported freshmen Republican representatives who stood up to their own leadership.

Of course, this is still not over. The Democratic controlled Senate may yet restore the funding. Having demonstrated my difficulty identifying Senator party affiliation in a previous post, I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out where the problem in the Senate may lie:

Postscript: Some of you may remember Justin, who used to be a regular contributor here. He had some things to say about this very issue shortly after the election.

From his post:

“If Republicans are serious about tightening our belts, cutting the budget deficit and the overall deficit, then programs like this need to be shelved. Tea Partiers, I’m looking at you. Want to prove you’re more than just a marketing gimmick? Take a stand on issues like this.”

From his comments:

“If it is revealed that a wide swath of GOPers don’t agree with his assessment, I will write a post about that. Trust me, I would GLADLY write a post about that.”

I am considering offering him an opportunity to follow up with a guest post.

Do know that without the health care legislation…this wouldn’t have happened.

From Politico:

“While many health plans already abide by the standards outlined in the new law, our community is committed to implementing the new standards in May 2010 to ensure that individuals and families will have greater peace of mind when purchasing coverage on their own,” AHIP president and chief executive Karen Ignagni said in a letter to top House Democrats.

The decision to end rescission, as the practice is known, was made during a Tuesday afternoon conference call of chief executives organized by their trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and represents the industry’s latest attempt to build political good will after the bruising health care fight.

The decision came on the same day that WellPoint, under fire for reports that it had targeted breast cancer patients for rescission, announced it would end the practice by Saturday. On Wednesday, UnitedHealth also announced it had eliminated the practice.

For more on this unethical practice, see here, here and here.

Whilst walking the dog this rainy evening, I happened upon an illuminated, inflatable lawn ornament of the Halloween variety.

These decorations are an easy, relatively inexpensive way to acknowledge the holiday. They require little or no thought beyond which one to buy and where to buy it. The set-up is easy, so is the clean up and off-season storage.

Easy is good.

The unfortunate trade-off is that most inflatables are hollow caricatures of tradition and a lousy representation of the individuals upon whose lawn they are displayed.

I took three classes in college with a professor who made every class read George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.

The essay warrants contemplation. The criticisms he makes of modern writing can be made of most modern pursuits. Holiday decorating for example.

He writes:

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. [...] If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don’t have to hunt about for the words; you also don’t have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious.

When you use ready-made decorations, you don’t have to untangle lights, build scarecrows or hang bats from trees. Just “gum together” a ghost and pumpkin that’s “already set in order by someone else” and you’re good to go. The result is cute, maybe. Mostly it’s uninspired and unremarkable.

The trouble with such thoughtlessness, Orwell writes, is that it feeds on itself:

[...] an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

It is rather the same thing that is happening to all arenas of our life. The more we choose to rely on the convenience of prefabricated expressions (of thought, holidays or anything else), the less effort we put into all aspects of our lives, and the more we become generic caricatures of ourselves.

Look at what passes for political discourse these days. The majority of people are vehemently arguing about which inflatable lawn ornament is better for the country – your goofy-grinned liberal scarecrow or my fat conservative, Disney witch.

The good news is that the condition is reversible – without taking a BB gun to the neighbors yard:

One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase [...] into the dustbin, where it belongs.

I suppose that means I’ll go outside and make a scarecrow.

After the release of a study that showed somebody is 23 times more likely to get into an accident, Dems in Congress are working on legislation that would make it illegal across the country.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON — States would be required to ban driving while texting or face the loss of highway funds under legislation being pushed by a group of Democratic senators.

Aimed at reducing driver distraction and highway deaths and injuries, the proposal follows a series of studies showing the dangers of drivers taking their eyes off the road to operate the handheld electronic devices.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal.

“The federal government ought to pass a law banning this dangerous and growing practice to protect the millions of Americans on our nation’s roads. It is a matter of public safety,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who was to unveil the legislation Wednesday along with Democrats Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Here’s more about that study…

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers took their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.

Listen, nanny stateism or not, this is legislation that needs to be passed. Those of us who’ve texted while driving know how ridiculously dangerous it is and we’ve all thought, “Man, if something had jumped out in front of me…”

The upside of a federal mandate? I smell a business plan…

I’ve already seen many scoff at Obama’s pledge to go line by line through the budget, but aren’t those the same people who are calling for less government spending?

It would be heartening to see the following moves applauded instead of ridiculed, especially since all we hear from the right wing these days is how wasteful Washington is.

Here are some of the savings already found…

—The Department of Veterans Affairs has cancelled or delayed 26 conferences, saving nearly $17.8 million. The department will be using less expensive alternatives, like video conferencing.

—The U.S. Department of Agriculture is working to combine 1,500 employees from seven office locations into a single facility in 2011, saving $62 million over a 15-year lease term.

—The Department of Homeland Security estimates that it can save up to $52 million over five years just by purchasing office supplies in bulk.

Yes, I know that the big money programs are what most of the debate is over, but reform in that arena is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort.

So let’s celebrate those things we can change immediately as a sign that things are progressing towards a reality where we all want them to go, yes?

Republican Dick Lugar proposed normalizing relations a few days ago, and now we’re seeing some movement. And even though Obama has said that he’s opposed to normalization, I can’t help but think this is a first step towards that.

Let’s hope.

From Wash Post:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama plans to lift longstanding U.S. restrictions on Cuba, a senior administration official said, allowing Cuban-Americans to visit families there as often as they like and to send them unlimited funds.

The gesture, which could herald more openness with the Castro regime, will fulfill a campaign promise and follows more modest action in Congress this year to loosen travel rules.

The president has authority to loosen the restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba on his own. The new rules will affect an estimated 1.5 million Americans who have family members in Cuba. Other Americans are allowed to travel to Cuba but only if they qualify through certain cultural, educational and other programs.

So why lift the embargo?

Well, for one, we have trade relationships with countries who have done things far more questionable than Cuba. Also, the embargo has simply worn out any usefulness that it once had.

Still, it’s always been a political hot button issue, so people have stayed away from it. My guess is that Obama will too for the time being, but if he gets reelected in 2012, he’ll probably feel emboldened to lift the ban. And with Republicans like Lugar behind him, it makes doing that a lot easier.

Could it come sooner rather than later?

More as it develops…

Just found a comment left by the Transportation Security Administration in the post I wrote yesterday about that situation in St. Louis where a Ron Paul supporter was held and questioned because he had $4,700 in cash on him (which is roughly represented in the picture above).

From Evolution of Security:

At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.

Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.

A few things…

1. I applaud the TSA for reaching out like this and responding so quickly. And the fact that they said some of the employees were acting inappropriately is a MASSIVE shift from what we’ve seen the past several years.
2. I still would like to see what law requires passengers to answer questions about why they have cash on them. Because the officers on the tape never answered the question and this blog post doesn’t either.
3. Why would $4,700 in a metal box constitute criminal activity? I can understand if this guy was hiding it the lining of a suitcase or in his underwear, but from I’ve heard of the story, it was your basic lockbox.

So yes, there are still some questions to be answered and I still think the TSA needs to think about revising some of their policies, lest they receive an inordinate amount of backlash for incidents that never needed to happen in the first place.

If nothing else it’s a welcome example of personal wealth responsibility and not wasting tax payer’s money on seemingly frivolous things.

From NY Mag:

New presidents are allotted $100,000 to overhaul the White House residence and the Oval Office, and the Obamas hired Hollywood decorator Michael S. Smith (known, per his site, for mixing “Old World classicism with very contemporary settings”). But the First Couple isn’t spending that money. They “are not using public funds or accepting donations of goods for redecorating their private quarters,” says Camille Johnston, director of communications for the First Lady.

Nor is the couple, who reported $4.2 million in household income in 2007 tax returns, using money from the White House Historical Association, a privately funded foundation that paid for a $74,000 set of china shortly before Laura Bush left town.

No doubt this gesture will go unnoticed, but at least you know about it. :-)

Here’s some change we can believe in:

President Barack Obama plans to change how government contracts are awarded and who can earn them, a move his aides say would save taxpayers about $40 billion a year by making the process more competitive.

Obama is to sign a presidential memo Wednesday that changes government contracting procedures, an administration official said on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the decision before it was announced.

Obama’s directive would order Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to work with Cabinet and agency officials to draft new contracting rules by the end of September. Those new rules, officials said, would make it more difficult for contractors to bilk taxpayers and make some half-trillion dollars in federal contracts each year more accessible to independent contractors.

Without details, it’s hard to critique the plan. But I like the spirit of the idea. Anything that makes the government contract system less corrupt and costly is a good thing. Maybe the free market has some use after all.

I like the idea in theory, but I always thought that Governors replaced Senators because it’s too costly to have special elections and somebody needs to serve in the interim.

Still, this seems like the type of amendment that could easily garner bi-partisan support.

From Political Wire:

The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end.

In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people.

I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute.

So maybe there will be some silver linings in the Blagojevich and Kennedy messes after all.

By now you’ve probably heard about the dinner Obama attended that featured the stalwarts of the right-wing media glitterati, but you hadn’t heard about what actually went down.

Kudlow doesn’t really spill the beans on the content, but perhaps what’s more revealing is the mood…which could bode well for Obama’s ability to reach across the aisle.

Retyped from Drudge Report so it’s not all in CAPS!!!!:

CNBC’s Melissa Francis: I have to ask Larry, I’m dying to hear about it, you had dinner last night with President-Elect Barack Obama. What was the tone like? Was he trying to win over the conservatives? Is that what it was?

There were about ten of you there, right?

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: This was an off-the-record dinner and I’m going to keep it off the record in terms of deep content, but Peggy Noonan was there, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, Bill Kristol, myself, Charles Krauthammer, some others. Nine or ten of us. I don’t think he’s trying to win us over, but he’s trying to connect with us an engage with us to his great credit. This was a very cordial dinner.

Francis: He is charming, right?

Kudlow: He is charming, he is terribly smart, bright, well-informed, he has a great sense of humor. At the beginning when he walked into the living room, you know, we’re all waiting –

Francis: Where were you?

Kudlow: This is at George Will’s house…he comes in and he came up to me, I had never met him before. I think he may have watched ‘Kudlow and Company’ periodically. Somebody game him a column I had written defending his business investment tax cuts. He liked that a lot. I said, ‘You know, sir, since Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, attacked him I knew I must be on to something good.’ He laughed a lot. I said ‘You took my best people from the program. You took Austan Goolsbee.’ He laughed and said they’re good men. I said, ‘But Mr. President, [...] why did you leave us Robert Reich,’ who I adore, and he laughed and said ‘I want somebody fighting for me, Larry.’

Interesting thing. This is just generally speaking, he is so well-informed, and he loves to deal with both sides of an issues, and I’m not going to divulge what was said there and I’m not going to go into any of the specifics, but he enjoys the back and forth, and he is not, you know, tough, mean, insulting, snarling, none of that stuff. And we weren’t either.

This was a good conservative group and we just had a great back and forth, and he wants to keep the dialogue going with conservatives. I would say I am honored to be at that dinner. I was honored to meet him. He is a very impressive man, and I wish him all the luck in the world because we’ve got some issues to deal with.

Francis: What did you eat?

Kudlow: I can’t remember. I was so focused on him. I was sitting across from him –

Francis: You probably didn’t eat. Maybe you didn’t touch anything.

Kudlow: The food was excellent. I probably didn’t eat a whole lot. It was all very interesting, and he’s a good man, and we will see how he does. That’s all I can say. We wish him the best.

So will this help? I think so, but only if he continues to do it. This needs to be an ongoing thing.

And sure, he won’t win over the really hardcore partisans, but if Obama can genuinely engage folks like Kudlow he’s well on his way to reshaping the overall mood of the country. Because let’s not fool ourselves…the media has an influence (especially the pundit class) and if the right-wingers are more deferential to Obama because they honestly think he’s trying to find common ground that will begin to ripple throughout the country.

We shall see…

The announcement will come tomorrow, and the job description is all about reform:

1. Go through the federal budget line by line and cut the fat.
2. Hold agencies accountable.
3. Restore fiscal discipline.

In case you don’t remember, Obama outlined this as part of his reform agenda during the campaign…

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will create a focused team within the White House that will work with agency leaders and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to improve results and outcomes for federal government programs while eliminating waste and inefficiency. This unit, a SWAT team, will be composed of top-performing and highly-trained government professionals and be headed by a new Chief Performance Officer (CPO) who will report directly to the president. The CPO will work with federal agencies to set tough performance targets and hold managers responsible for progress. The president will meet regularly with cabinet officers to review the progress their agencies are making toward meeting performance improvement targets.

And the idea is winning praise from those who served in the OMB:

Robert Shea, former OMB associate director for administration and government performance, said he believes OMB has developed a strong foundation on which the Obama administration can build, but that establishing a CPO position in the White House might help overcome the challenges the agency faces in integrating performance initiatives with the programs they’re designed to improve.

“Having a chief performance officer in the White House reporting to the president gives you an opportunity to make the people responsible for achieving the president’s priorities pay more attention to the importance of management in achieving those goals,” said Shea, now a director with the global public sector of consultant firm Grant Thornton LLP.

Obviously this isn’t a cure-all, but I’d hope that we can all agree that this is a welcome step from a Democrat. Because this represent exactly the type of change he was talking about all throughout the campaign.

No pardon.

Here’s some background on the initial pardon…

Toussie pleaded guilty to charges in two separate cases. In one, he admitted in 2001 that he had made false statements to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, pleading guilty to a count of falsifying loan documents that illegally qualified about 100 home buyers for the HUD-backed mortgages.

He and his father, Robert Toussie, were also at the center of an investigation into whether Suffolk County drastically overpaid for a land purchase, sparking lawsuits and an overhaul of the county’s land acquisition program.

Isaac Toussie pleaded guilty in that case, which involved the county’s purchase of the Chandler estate in Mount Sinai for $5 million in 2000. He admitted he had a friend send the county a letter that falsely inflated the property’s value.

In 2003, Toussie was sentenced to 5 months in prison and 5 months of home detention and fined $10,000.

But I have to wonder…why the pardon in the first place? It couldn’t have anything to do with that $28,500 he donated to the Republican National Committee this year, would it?

In any event, glad to see the pardon was pulled.

On its face, the Warren pick seems like a slap in the face to the progressive gay movement, and I can understand why this group would be incensed. Here you have the first African-American President inviting one of the most high profile supporters of Prop 8 to speak at the inauguration.

And it’s not like Warren needs the spotlight.

However, Democrats should remember the platform Obama ran on during the primaries: unity and change.

And so we have to ask ourselves, what’s the most logical, pragmatic way to make that happen?

Is it…

1. Keep on playing the same old politics, invite people who only agree with you to the table and expect different results?

OR


2. Make sincere gestures to groups like the evangelicals via Warren so we can collectively start focusing on worldwide issues like poverty, global warming and the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

And, by the way, Warren is catching grief for this too…so that tells me that both men have something to lose and that shouldn’t be ignored. Because this is the kind of change we can believe in and while I’m absolutely, 100% opposed to Warren’s views on Prop 8, I can still appreciate the work he’s done to change opinions in the evangelical community about the issues I mentioned above.

Let’s hope more progressives do too and cut Obama some slack. Or hell, don’t cut him any slack. Either way, he’ll continue to make decisions that will probably anger the left and make the middle and center right happy. And that’s not necessarily the worst thing in a centrist country.

They said they would, and so here are the Qs and the As.

From Change.gov:

Q: “Will you lift the ban on Stem Cell research in your first 100 days in office?” James_M, Nashville, TN

A: President-elect Obama is a strong supporter of Federal funding for responsible stem cell research and he has pledged to reverse President Bush’s restrictions.

Q: “What will you do to establish transparency and safeguards against waste with the rest of the Wall Street bailout money?” Diane, New Jersey

A: President-elect Barack Obama does not believe an economic crisis is an excuse for wasteful and unnecessary spending. As our economic team works with congressional leadership to put together a plan, we will put in place reforms to ensure that your money in invested well. We will also bring Americans back into government by amending executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. In addition all appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies will be required to conduct the significant business of the agency in public so that every citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

Q: “What will you do to promote science and mathematics education to Elementary and Middle School students?” JasonWyatt, Raleigh, NC

A: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will put children first by investing in early childhood education, making sure our schools are adequately funded and led by high-quality teachers, and reforming No Child Left Behind. They will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. They will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels.

Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?” S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

Q: “What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?” Kari, Seattle

A: President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances.That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice.

Is there anything surprising in here? No. But it’s a good start on the way towards a more transparent form of government enabled by social tools. And anything that brings the Presidency into the 21st Century is alright by me.

Japan Airline’s President and CEO Haruka Nishimatsu is the model by which all other CEOs should be measured.

Take a look…

Juxtapose these actions with the nonsense we heard about yesterday from Merrill Lynch’s completely out-of-touch CEO who wanted a $10M bonus for selling the company to Bank Of America before it failed.

Here’s more background on Nishimatsu…

JAL was going through some very tough times in 2007 when Nishimatsu was appointed CEO. Jobs were cut. People were asked to take early retirement. As he commented “The employees who took early retirement are the same age as me. I thought I should share the pain with them. So I changed my salary.”

An inspiring example and one I hope CEOs of struggling companies take note of.

It wasn’t just talk.

He promised and he’s delivering…

Transition chairman John Podesta wrote a memo to the transition staff outlining the initiative, dubbed the “Seat at the Table” policy.

Any documents produced from meetings between the transition team and outside organizations will be posted on www.change.gov. The idea is for Americans to offer comments and suggestions. “The American people deserve a ‘seat at the table,’” Podesta wrote, according to a document obtained by Washington Wire.

Staffers are required to post all policy documents and “written policy recommendations” as well the date and time of the meetings. “This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials,” Podesta wrote. Transition members have to notify the organizations of the policy before the meeting.

Here’s more…

Long story short, no more surprises. We’ll know what’s coming down the road so we can debate the merits, find common ground and move forward quickly.

This will be the model from here on out, and regardless of what you think about Obama’s policy, we can all be thankful for this level of transparency.

When I hear stories like this, I wonder why it doesn’t happen more often. And furthermore, why do companies look at employees like they’re commodities instead of human beings who deserve to share the wealth for their hard work?

Regardless, this is a great story and one we can all be thankful for.

From MSNBC:

CHICAGO – Dave Tiderman wondered if the decimal point was in the wrong place when he opened his $35,000 company bonus. Jose Rojas saw his $10,000 check and thought, “That can’t be right.”

Valentin Dima watched co-workers breaking down in tears over their bonus checks and didn’t trust his emotions. He drove home first, then opened his envelope: $33,000. [...]

A total of $6.6 million is being shared by just 230 employees of Waukegan-based Peer Bearing Co., with facilities in England and the United States. Amounts varied and were based on years of service. [...]

With $100 million in sales last year, Peer recently was acquired by a Swedish company for an undisclosed amount. Danny Spungen, whose grandfather founded the company in 1941, said it was a unanimous family decision to thank employees with the bonuses.

Laurence and Florence Spungen and their four children decided on a bonus formula a year before the sale closed to SKF Group, “a gamble that we would come out OK as well,” Danny Spungen said.

Somehow, I bet the family came out just fine. :-)

By the way, this is the card they sent out…

Seeing employees as family? What a concept!

In any event, very cool stuff.

10:40 a.m. ET to be exact.

We all know the names by now.

Gen. Jim Jones for National Security Adviser. Robert Gates for Defense Secretary. And Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

CNN has the other names…

Also, two sources close to the transition said Obama will nominate Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security secretary and Eric Holder as Attorney General.

No surprises from the No Drama Obama team, and I have to think that this new “leaky” administration is the right way to go. Sure, on the campaign trail Obama’s team was all about strategy, so they kept their cards close to their chests, but it’s a different ball game now so the rules needed to change.

One thing’s for sure…Hillary Clinton will have no problem fitting in.

I wonder what Joe The Plumber would have to say about this kind of wealth redistribution…

According to a new survey by Prince & Assoc., more than 80% of multimillionaires who had extra-marital lovers planned to cut back on their gifts and allowances. Still, only 12% of the multimillionaire cheaters said they plan to give up on their lovers altogether for financial reasons.

The survey–a subset of a larger wealth study–polled 191 individuals with a minimum net worth of $20 million who said they had lovers of at least a year or more (this to screen out the one-night stands, etc.). About two thirds of the respondents were men and one third women. All were married and all had personal control over their finances, meaning the women and men surveyed were the primary wealth holders in their homes.

Another interesting stat…cheating men are more likely to cut back on their gifts than cheating women…

Fully 82% of men in the study said they planned to lower the allowances to their mistresses, while more than three quarters planned to provide fewer gifts, less expensive gifts and fewer perks, like jet rides, resort vacations and top restaurant meals.

Women were far more generous to their paramours in the face of financial crises. Less than 20% planned to lower allowances, gifts and perks, while more than half planned to raise them.

This certainly puts a new spin on trickle down economics.