Late Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs. Image credit: sarnau on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Two months before Apple Inc. co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer, he told his biographer Walter Isaacson: “I’m disappointed in Obama.” President Obama disregarded Jobs while he was alive—while using Jobs’ iconic image and entrepreneurial success story to further his political interests. Now that Jobs has passed away (and is unable to defend himself), Obama continues to rip off Jobs—using him as a false poster boy for his socialist economic agenda.

Jobs was a long-term Democrat. In practice, however, Jobs was a life-long capitalist—not a socialist like Obama. Isaacson writes in his best-selling book, Steve Jobs: “Communal economics were not for him.”

Obama largely ignored Apple and dismissed Jobs’ ideas while he was alive. However, during his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama made a point of inviting Jobs’ widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, to sit in the First Lady’s box (along with token guests like Warren Buffett’s secretary). Obama never mentioned or honored Powell (who Jobs adored and whose persistent love enabled his work) within his speech. Instead, Obama repeatedly attacked the capitalistic tools that Jobs utilized to achieve the American dream.

If Obama truly admired and respected Jobs, why didn’t he phone Jobs to congratulate him after he launched the iPad? Isaacson says the iPad was Jobs’ “pet project.” It was the culmination of Jobs’ life-long ideas, dreams and hard work and “it embodied everything he stood for.” When Jobs was just 26-years-old, he told a classroom of Stanford students about his vision to develop a book-sized computer. When Apple finally developed the multi-touch technology needed for a tablet, he decided to utilize it for the iPhone first because “Tablets appeal to rich guys with plenty of other PCs and devices already.” Upon its 2010 launch, 15 million iPads sold in just nine months and it is considered to be “the most successful consumer product launch in history.”

Image credit: "iPad with Dandilion" by JaredEarle on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Jobs “noted at dinner [on the night he publicly announced the iPad] that the president had not called him since taking office,” writes Isaacson. Obama delegated the apparently onerous task of congratulating Jobs on his historical entrepreneurial feat to his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. And Obama never made a personal visit to see Jobs in his home after he publicly announced his third and final medical leave from Apple in January of 2011; Larry Page, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton took care to pay respectful last visits.

The reason Obama initially met with Jobs was because Obama’s aids thought that the meeting “fit into [Obama’s] new emphasis on competitiveness.” Jobs initially didn’t want to meet. He felt that the President should have personally requested the meeting and he said: “I’m not going to get slotted in for a token meeting so that he can check off that he met with a CEO.” It took five days for his wife to convince him to go.

When they met for forty-five minutes at the Westin San Francisco Airport in the fall of 2010, Isaacson says Jobs advised Obama to reform education by busting up teachers unions. He also told the president that his anti-business regulations were forcing American companies to move manufacturing to China. He warned: “You’re headed for a one-term presidency.”

Jobs became passionate about trying to teach Obama how to reform his policies and foster American innovation; he set up a dinner for Obama to meet with tech CEOs. Interestingly, the president’s “shared sacrifice” staff co-opted Jobs’ menu and insisted that the dinner include an extravagant “cream pie tricked out with chocolate truffles … [because] the president liked cream pie,” writes Isaacson. (Clearly, the First Lady of Nutrition was not in attendance.)

Isaacson writes that Jobs offered job-creating advice to the President: ‘he stressed the need for more trained engineers and suggested that any foreign students who earned any engineering degree in the United States should be given a visa to stay in the country. Obama said that could be done only in the context of the “Dream Act.” … Jobs found this an annoying example of how politics can lead to paralysis. “The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can’t get done. It infuriates me, [Jobs later recalled.]”’

At the dinner, Jobs also explained to the president that the reason Apple employs hundreds of thousands of people in China is because Apple couldn’t find “30,000” qualified American engineers. Jobs (a college drop-out turned billionaire) insisted that four-year degrees were unnecessary to train the engineers he needed. While Obama did call Jobs afterward to further discuss training engineers, he didn’t take actions to follow through on their conversations in a way that satisfied Jobs before he died.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs showing the new Apple Macbook Air laptop series during his keynote address at Macworld 2008 in San Francisco. Image credit: TechShowNetwork on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Jobs initially tried to make Apple “all-American.” For example, early on, Jobs held a global contest for Apple’s general designer and he flew to Germany to review designer Hartmut Esslinger’s proposal. He loved Esslinger’s idea to design Apple’s products with a “California global” flair and create a “born-in-America gene for Apple’s DNA.” However, Isaacson says Jobs would only hire Esslinger “on the condition that he move to California.”

Apple has consistently tried to use American workers and facilities as much as possible, but it is no longer practical given the lack of skilled workers, excessive government regulations and the 35 percent corporate income tax rate.

Apple is only profitable and successful because it currently does business in China. Without China, there would be no Apple. Contrary to popular opinion, technology companies spend more on materials than on labor overseas. For instance, rare-earths are key components to iPods and iPads that can cost up to $130 per lb. The U.S. used to lead the world in mining rare-earths through a California mine called Molycorp. However, environmental regulations sent this mine into extinction and the U.S. lost her competitive technology advantage. Today, China produces roughly 97 percent of all rare-earths.

Jobs’ instincts were capitalistic. He was not a profiteer. Nor was he into sharing or redistributing; his goal was to transform the world by producing “insanely great” products that would allow the masses (not just rich people like Obama and Buffett) to access freedom-enhancing technology. As his wife told Isaacson, “…he cares deeply about empowering humankind, the advancement of humankind and putting the right tools in their hands.”

Steve Wozniak was Jobs’ friend and initial partner in building Apple. Wozniak was the shy engineering genius behind Apple’s initial technology. However, without Jobs’ capitalistic instinct, Wozniak’s ideas would never have created a single job (even for himself). Wozniak told Isaacson, “I designed the Apple I because I wanted to give it away for free to other people.” Isaacson writes: “If it had not been for Jobs, he [Wozniak] might still be handing out schematics of his [circuit] boards for free at the back of Homebrew [tech information swap] meetings. It was Jobs who turned his ingenious ideas into a budding business.”

2011 was Apple’s last year with Jobs at the helm and Apple even outdid big oil (Exxon Mobil) in per employee profits, reports The New York Times. Profits allow businesses like Apple to create jobs, offer valuable stocks to millions of individual investors and provide millions of Americans with cutting edge technology tools like iPhones, iPods, iPads and MacBooks at the lowest possible prices. Ultimately, profit is the most powerful tool whereby businesses improve society. 

In his 2012 State of the Union address, Obama promised to make things even harder for companies like Apple who are forced to do business in China, saying: “no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards [subsidizing the tax burden of smaller companies that only do business in America].”

Obama said his socialist plan of “shared sacrifice” would result in “an economy built to last” that supports “everyone who’s willing to work, and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.”

And Obama “solved” Apple’s engineer issue by telling taxpayers to subsidize their educations: “Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need…” Meanwhile, he bullied taxpayers to subsidize costly four-year college educations: “Extend the tuition tax credit … States also need to do their part [by increasing college tuition subsidies]. Higher education can’t be a luxury—it is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.”

Obama even bragged about how he’s going to crack down on piracy; I think he should start by walking the walk. Before daring to misrepresent and mooch off Jobs by mentioning his name in the same sentence as his anti-business agenda, Obama should read Isaacson’s biography. As Gov. Mitch Daniels diplomatically said in response to Obama’s speech: “…he must know in his heart that this is not true.”

President Ronald Reagan bestowed Jobs and Wozniak with America’s very first National Medal of Technology. In contrast, President Obama largely ignored Jobs’ success and advice during his lifetime and then invited Jobs’ widow to hear him attack the capitalistic system that allowed Jobs to succeed. Obama has rejected Jobs’ pro-business ideas like lowering the costs of doing business (taxes), reducing regulations and reforming education. If Jobs is looking down on earth, I’m sure he is still “disappointed in Obama.”

Key pages referenced from “Steve Jobs” by Walter Isaacson: 39, 61, 73, 107, 192-93, 490-491, 495, 496, 498, 538, 543-545.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: "Enjoy Capitalism" by Isaías Campbell on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The Beatles once rocked America with their cover version of “Money (That’s What I Want).” Today, I’ll rock you with my version. Capitalism don’t get everything it’s true. What it don’t get I can’t use. Now gimme capitalism (that’s what I want).

Anti-capitalist sentiment is creeping into American culture and we need to immediately halt this trend. Even Republican presidential nominees Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are plunging toward the vortex of need-based morality by aggressively attacking Mitt Romney—not for his socialist slips like RomneyCare—for his businesslike communication style and his record as co-founder of Bain Capital Ventures.

When Romney recently said: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” he inadvertently gave his rivals fuel to attack him as a profit-hungry job-killer.

Santorum preaches that Romney fosters social division by using the widely accepted term “middle class” instead the politically correct term “middle income.” Gingrich calls Romney a “looter.” And Perry quips that Romney is a “vulture” who pursued “get-rich schemes.”

Bain invested in a steel mill (GS Technologies) that eventually failed; layoffs ensued and Bain relied on help from the U.S Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to fulfill pension obligations. What Perry, Gingrich and Santorum fail to point out is that absurd union demands and government regulations (not warped capitalism) were largely responsible for the downfalls at GS.

It’s very dangerous to attack capitalism and capitalists for American job losses because, as economist Peter Schiff explained on Fox News, our own government played a major role in steamrolling corporations and contaminating the financial markets:

“This wasn’t created by the free market. All this excess leverage is there because of the government; it’s there because of the Fed. They did this; they infected us with this disease. The fact that all these companies are now dying … what they did is they provided Wells Fargo and all these companies with free money and let them go up and leverage it up. And it’s like, I use the analogy, if a kindergarten school teacher … passes out Pixy Stix and soda pop and then leaves the classroom and she comes back and the kindergarteners have wrecked the place, who do you blame?”

In 2009, economist Jim Grant pointed out the Fed’s role in ravaging America’s free market system. He said on CNBC’s Squawk Box that inflation: “is based principally upon the rate of money-printing. … Inflation is too much money. …  [And, with low interest rates, the Fed] has embarked on a vast experiment and moral hazard.”

The vulture comparison reflects Perry’s misunderstanding of both capitalism and vultures. Ron Paul points out that businesspeople routinely reorganize their companies in order to operate efficiently within the free market and, in the long run, reorganization can create jobs. In nature, vultures operate by eating and safely disposing of toxic carcasses. Vultures never intentionally infect healthy creatures with toxic waste and then feed off them (that’s closer to how the Communist Party of China operates, not vultures.)

The problem with painting rich businesspeople like Romney as evil is that money and capitalism are not evil. Rather, I contend that socialism is toxic. For, socialism is irrational; it denies man’s inherent right to own private property by using “need” as the standard for morality.

Socialism also leads to communism, as seen in the land of America’s Communist Sugar Daddy:

“In China, the government can force farmers to sell their land to developers, often at rock-bottom prices, to fuel a state-run real estate machine that disproportionately enriches the elites. But rural folk, who have rising expectations for a better life, are pushing back, as evidenced by a highly visible battle over a landgrab in the fishing village of Wukan, where a local leader recently died in police custody. This is just one of thousands of protests in China every year—about 60% of them related to land disputes, according to Ran Tao, a senior fellow at the Brookings-Tsinghua Center. … [China has] hundreds of millions living on less than $2 a day—and cheap land to exploit, particularly in the West, ” writes Rana Foroohar in TIME Magazine.

If you define morality on the basis of need, bullies rule society. Might makes right and politicians will seize land, power and wealth for themselves because they supposedly need it more than commoners who scrape by on $2 a day. When need is the standard of morality, you lose control over your livelihood. Any powerful bureaucrat can take your money or property and call himself “Robin Hood” but you can’t get mad or call the cops or take him to court because he’ll just say he “needs” your property more than you do.

Image credit: turbotoddi on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Conservative talking heads like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh often poke fun at President Obama’s penchant for running the country from the golf course. Yet, ironically, their snobbish treatment of independents is teeing Obama up for another four years of putt-putt presidency.

I respect all three of these pundits, particularly Rush Limbaugh who is a pioneer in his field. However, I’m concerned that their communication style of late is sidelining independent voters that the GOP presidential nominee will need to attract in order to defeat Obama, including Hispanics, gays, women, libertarians and young people.

If we want to win the general presidential election, we need a strategy for attracting new voters to the GOP’s “Big Tent.” Preaching to the choir is not a strategy. Burning bridges is not a strategy. And insulting our active duty military men and women by smearing the lone GOP candidate (Ron Paul) that they overwhelmingly donate their money to as “crazy,” “nutty,” and “half-witted” is downright feckless.

“As a libertarian, I don’t feel welcome in the GOP party,” a caller told syndicated talk radio host Jason Lewis earlier this month.

Why would an independent feel this way about the GOP? Well, listen to how our most influential pundits talk about the presidential candidate who holds his own in Republican primary polls and shares debate stages with political heavyweights like Mitt Romney:

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh made this comment: “I’m sorry, ah, but this Ron Paul is gonna to destroy this party … This is nuts on parade. They want the whole Republican party to be identified with the kookiness of Ron Paul.”

Sean Hannity

Meanwhile, Hannity’s frequent prodding sends the message that Republicans can’t trust libertarians. Hannity recently questioned Paul: “If you don’t win this nomination, and you’re doing very well here in Iowa, [will you] support the Republican nominee and not run third party?”

Paul answered: “Well, I’ll give the same answer I’ve given about 39 times now, that I have no intention of doing that. I plan to do my very best and see what happens … absolutely no plans and thoughts of doing it.”

Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, diplomatically censured Hannity for his prodding approach: “… he gets asked [that question] over and over again and I guess to him, I guess, he feels it’s a little insulting, and not from you in general but because he’s leading in the Republican primary and everybody’s saying ‘Oh are you gonna run as a third party?’ and he thinks that we have a shot of winning. … [The GOP and Ron Paul are] a lot on the same team; we may not agree on every issue.”

Rand Paul added: “I would reverse the question though and say to many of the other Republicans who I think aren’t being fair to him that they should want him in the party and they should want all of his followers in the party instead of saying ‘Oh we’re going to get so mad if he leaves the party.’”

To be fair, Hannity responded: “I’ve said I agree with your Dad on [cutting] the Fed. I support his plan to cut a trillion dollars.”

Rand persisted in pointing out how his father is attracting new voters to the GOP: “I would venture to say that he’s had the biggest crowds and he is offering something unique—that you can be a fiscal conservative and be a little bit more reasonable on foreign policy and less interventionistic—and that is different than anybody else is offering … it’s also attracting a lot of these young people.”

Image credit: ampers on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Glenn Beck

Like Hannity, Beck still vocally supports many of Paul’s ideas for fiscal reform. However, as Paul has surged in Republican primary polls as a strong contender for the GOP nomination, Beck has attacked Paul as someone who “can find a conspiracy in a glass of water” and “not a constitutionalist … but a progressive politician.” Beck even blasts his own callers who identify themselves as Paul supporters (some of whom fail to correctly articulate Paul’s views) with sophomoric attacks like: “You are a bigot” or “you’re crazy.”

Beck’s intolerance is likely causing him to lose more influence and credibility with independent voters. Over the years, Beck has developed a reputation for entertaining conspiracy theories, making loaded remarks like: “[President Obama] has a deep-seated hatred for white people” and he has received substantial criticism from conservative journalists (most notably Andrew Breitbart) for growing his media empire irresponsibly. Earlier this month, Breitbart tweeted: “Unfinished Biz 2011: @GlennBeck need[s] to apologize to those [he] dishonorably crossed.”

Beck, who relentlessly tells his audience “Do your own research” apparently doesn’t always do his own due diligence before ripping Paul: “If you can’t run a newsletter, you shouldn’t be given the keys to the United States of America.” Here, Beck was referring to off-color comments that were published in a newsletter under Paul’s name years ago.

Ben Swann of Fox 19 pointed out in Reality Check that President Obama and every major Republican presidential candidate have each been accused of being insensitive towards minorities. So, allegations of insensitivity like those leveled against Paul appear to come with the territory when one runs for president and are often petty tactics employed by opponents to destroy a candidate’s reputation.

Furthermore, International Business Times writer Hao Li maintains (after combing through Paul’s past) that Paul neither wrote nor reviewed these comments before someone else published them under his name. Without denying that Paul had too many pots on the stove at once, Li further determines that Paul’s character is whole and his track record toward Hispanics and African Americans is equitable.

Li’s research also shows why it’s non-strategic for talking heads like Beck to spend so much time nudging Paul and his followers out of the GOP. Paul emphasizes repealing “most of the federal law on drugs,” which Li says has “created a marginalized underclass in [America], mostly consisting of blacks and Hispanics.” So, by implying that Paul’s views aren’t welcome in the GOP’s “Big Tent,” Beck is merely nudging Hispanics toward Obama.

Indeed, former George W. Bush adviser Mark McKinnon tells TIME Magazine: “Every extra day of the Republican primary means more ugly messaging about immigration. And if Republicans don’t win back Hispanics, they will not win back the presidency.” TIME also connotes that Perry, Gingrich and Romney have each given Hispanics reasons to feel uncomfortable with trusting the GOP.

Fox News analyst Sarah Palin warned after the Iowa caucus: “The GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters after this because Ron Paul and his supporters understand that a lot of Americans are war-weary and we are broke and he has reached these constituencies who are very concerned about the solvency of the U.S and he has proposed solutions … so the GOP had better listen to what these Ron Paul supporters are saying, better work with them.”

I think talking heads like Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh should focus on dismantling President Obama’s socialist policies and his kinglike executive orders instead of slamming independents. Otherwise, they are teeing Obama up for a hole-in-one this November.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Alexander Hamilton statue. Image credit: "Wallstreet-10" by photog63 on Flickr via Creative Commons.

As children, we play “Follow the Leader.” As adults, we occasionally play “Follow the Playboy” because history shows us that imperfect men can lead.

Many pioneers in their field were brilliant men who made big mistakes. Alexander Hamilton—America’s founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury—had an affair with a married woman while he was married to the amiable mother of his eight children. King David—a biblical leader who received a special covenant from God—committed adultery with Bathsheba before he repented and passed his throne to Solomon. Tiger Woods—the Masters’ youngest winner and a 14-time major champion who inspired countless athletes for over three decades—lost Elin Nordegren through his adultery.

We view these three men (and many others) as leaders because of their contributions to society, distinct from their moral flaws. Despite weaknesses, each man used his unique talents to lead in his field. These men didn’t publicly flaunt their playboy lifestyles à la Hugh Hefner and their mistakes are therefore instructional rather than influential.

Everyone has his or her own vicious tendency such as anger, covetousness or sloth. And, everyone has distinctive talents. We all have the ability to control our impulses and lead in a particular sphere (such as public policy, religion, education, science or athletics) that channels our unique talents.

Let’s say someone has a bad habit of spouting off like a South Park character but he also possesses qualities like patience, high energy and creativity requisite for teaching young children. He can become an excellent role model for children if he focuses on exercising his talents and controlling his language in the classroom.

On a political level, if a presidential candidate has a reputation (real or perceived) for being a distracted playboy, we shouldn’t automatically assume that he wouldn’t control himself if he becomes president.

When asked about his past personal life, which is tainted with repeat infidelity, Newt Gingrich told Fox News: “I have reconciled and asked for forgiveness from God.” In the case of Gingrich, voters need to decide whether he means what he says. In the case of Herman Cain, voters need to weigh his alleged past behavior towards women against his overall and current record of behavior towards women.

Always take the mainstream media’s opinion with a grain of salt. In just twelve days, Politico published 157 negative articles about Cain’s alleged sexual improprieties. That’s over 13 slanderous stories a day based on hearsay and anonymous rumors. Rags like Politico often get the “playboy scoop” from sources with questionable motives and backgrounds such as: Little Miss Anonymous, Sharon Bialek and Karen Kraushaar.

When socialist journalists can’t refute a candidate’s political positions by using reason, they often cast him as a playboy because they know that Americans have a history of electing a president who at least appears to have a clean marital record. (Ronald Reagan is still the only divorced man to become president.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that Cain or Gingrich are playboys. I’m saying that we shouldn’t automatically dismiss candidates who may have acted like playboys in the past. Especially right now. Americans want a job-creator. Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo and so fiscal leaders—playboy or not—are “electable.” For example, a recent RealClearPolitics survey reveals that Congressman Ron Paul has the ability to beat President Obama.

Not every playboy has leadership potential. If a presidential candidate doesn’t overcome his bad habits before he enters the White House, he could distract and embarrass the country by behaving like a school boy—lying under oath and redefining “sexual relations” so as not to include staining blue dresses or teaching interns how to use cigar tubes as sex toys.

The Constitution gives the president the power of the sword (i.e. the power to enforce the laws) and a man without integrity can’t be trusted with a sword. Have you ever known a police officer to succeed in enforcing the law by making out with station house interns in his squad car?

Ultimately, a man with salacious tendencies can be a strong leader if he controls himself and channels his talents in a rational and responsible manner. We can confidently elect an alleged playboy to lead America’s boardroom if his leadership ability transcends his yen to yo-yo in the bedroom.

To bring Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Brad Pitt in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Image credit: Gerald_Oh on Flickr via Creative Commons.

What do Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, business tycoon Warren Buffett, Dallas Mavericks billionaire owner Mark Cuban, and movie star Brad Pitt have in common? Each man is a high profile capitalist asserting that American capitalism propagates greed while government redistribution of wealth produces justice.

It’s easy for Cuban, Schmidt, Buffett and Pitt to criticize capitalism after they’ve used it to achieve financial independence, fame and influence. Now that they’ve made it to the top they can criticize and dismantle capitalism without fearing significant negative impacts on their own lives.

To illustrate their hypocrisy, I’ll analyze Pitt’s viewpoints. Pitt thinks it’s greedy to pursue money through capitalism—but not to grab millions by making movies and posing for the cover of Sports Illustrated.

This month, Pitt told PARADE: “You know, we ***** about raising taxes. I think the argument is that it’s my money, I earned it, why do I have to pay for other people? I get very frustrated with that argument. I don’t mind paying taxes. I live in a country that gave me the opportunity to make money, and most people on this planet do not have that.”

Pitt blasts people who “***** about raising taxes” but he isn’t jumping to pay more taxes before other wealthy people do. Perhaps Pitt feels like he needs more recognition before he ponies up. After all, he’s adopted three children from around the world, supports Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts and creates Hollywood movies (by far the greatest service one can do for mankind).

Pitt laps his family in luxury and continuously pursues wealth for himself. He told PARADE that if he’s globetrotting with his kids and they are away from home “for a long time, we’ll fly their friends out so they can be together.” If he practiced what he preached, he’d be living a bare-bones lifestyle and giving all of his own surplus cash to the poor, not condemning people who are tired of paying soaring taxes into a broken system.

Brad Pitt. Image credit: Barbara.Doduk on Flickr Via Creative Commons.

While Pitt may have good intentions, I get the feeling that he doesn’t understand the purpose money or the value of capitalism. Capitalism isn’t dishonorable. Capitalism is noble and practical. For, a man must seek material riches “in so far as they are necessary for him to live in keeping with his condition of life,” says Aristotelian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing material wealth. As Aquinas points out, pursuing wealth could be part of your “condition” or vocation. For example, if you’re the founder and CEO of a company that creates jobs for hundreds of people, the honorable thing to do is to pursue greater (“excess”) profits so that you can hire more people and ensure the job security of your employees who currently depend on you.

Money is a necessary tool whereby humans achieve productivity. So, when the government unjustly appropriates money from wealthy entrepreneurs who need their wealth in order to invest, take risks, grow their companies and create jobs, the government is greedy—not the wealthy individuals. A greedy person—or institution—wastes and abuses money by pursuing excessive wealth for no productive reason.

Last week, Bill O’Reilly said: “It’s about efficiency and fairness. Why should I, or you, work hard everyday so some guy in a suit can have a $16 muffin? … I’ve paid my fair share for 35 years, Mr. President. And you and other politicians have squandered my labor. Squandered it. So until the feds and the states demand efficiency and cut the ****, I will oppose targeted tax increases.”

The government is not acting in the best interest of society by taxing rich people more. Instead, the government is sending the rich Americans overseas, along with the investments, jobs, security and happiness that they create.

In the President’s speech on reducing the deficit last week, he said that taxing the wealthiest Americans more to pay for excessive government spending is “fair” and “just the right the thing to do.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that the richest Americans “pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.” Additionally, “…the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level…”

Asking wealthy job creators to give the government more isn’t fair. It’s not tax reform. It’s greed. Government greed.

Pitt, Cuban, Schmidt and Buffett each used capitalism to attain financial independence. If they wish to pay more taxes, they are free to write a blank check to the IRS. But they should stop criticizing capitalism and free market policies because every American deserves a shot at attaining financial freedom and professional success—not just them.

Actress-comediennes Betty White and Lucille Ball. Image credit: Rakka on Flickr via Creative Commons.

What’s Cool

The late and beloved actress Lucille Ball once said: “I don’t know anything about luck. I’ve never banked on it and I’m afraid of people who do. Luck to me is something else: Hard work and realizing what is opportunity and what isn’t.”

Meanwhile actress Betty White, recently named America’s most trusted celebrity by a Reuters/Ipsos poll, is 89-years-old and still working. She offers some good advice for young people: “Be professional, respect your business, show up on time … I’m going to be 90 in January and here I am still working and having a wonderful time.”

Ball and White’s basic message about hard work, responsibility and professionalism is refreshing and inspirational at a time when so many celebrities (think Lindsay Lohan) flaunt irresponsibly and our government restricts wealthy job creators.

What’s Not

Lest anyone think that America should become more like Europe and adopt more socialist policies, watch this video of young people rioting in Manchester, England. At about 7:38 in the video, young people wearing hoodies and dark sunglasses explain why they felt entitled to smash store windows, set fire to small businesses and steal TVs, money, jewelry and clothes from local entrepreneurs.

One young man rationalizes his behavior by saying: “You’ll do anything to get more money, won’t ya?” (Well, almost anything. If it involves work, many UK youths aren’t interested.)

This week, two educational shows go head-to-head. One plays on your iPhone, the other doesn’t.

What’s Cool

Jason Lewis iPhone App screenshot. Image credit: Apple.

Libertarian-leaning conservative talk radio host Jason Lewis is now on the iPhone! I’ve listened to Jason for many years and just recently downloaded his new (and free) iPhone app. It’s my favorite way to listen. If you’re tired of politics and prefer straight facts, tune into Jason’s show. Also, check out Jason’s book, “Power Divided is Power Checked.”

What’s Not

President Felipe Calderón attends a global warming event. Image by CIFOR on Flickr via Creative Commons.

This September, PBS launches a new series featuring Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón. Time Magazine reports: “In an effort to boost Mexico’s weakened tourism industry … (Calderón) will bravely lead camera crews into caverns, up rivers and down sink-holes, often while wearing an Indiana Jones-style hat.”

As America’s economy flounders and Calderón fails to keep U.S. citizens and agents safe within Mexico, PBS is brazenly airing a show to bolster Mexico’s economy. HotAir exposed PBS’ excessive salaries and access to taxpayer funds here. If this is “public” broadcasting, what is the American public getting by subsidizing Calderón’s show?

Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones. Image credit: "In a Pub coloreada" by ibarguren on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Can you move like Jagger? I hope so because when Mick Jagger and Warren Buffett battle it out on taxes, rock and roll comes out on top.

What’s Cool

Larry King interviews Mick Jagger and he reveals that The Rolling Stones temporarily moved to France when England’s 90% tax rate on the upper income bracket became a barrier to success.

What’s Not

Warren Buffet says he thinks the rich should pay more in taxes. There are two problems with his argument: First, it’s hypocritical. Second, the rich will create jobs when we lower their taxes.

"Soldier Field, Home of the Chicago Bears" by Joshua Mellin on Flickr via Creative Commons.

When arch rivals like the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers go head-to-head, anything is fair game. Except cheating. Winning is the end-goal, but neither team will knowingly jeopardize its NFL standing.

There’s not a lot of love between the Bears and the Packs. This January, when the teams played each other in the NFC championship for the first time since 1941, we witnessed overblown name-calling and pompous chest-pounding.

Football fans live for match-ups that grant them the opportunity to Photoshop a bear eating a cheese wedge or a green-and-gold Pac-Man chasing down a bear to antagonize friends and coworkers rooting for the opposing side. Good-natured teasing and competition make these games fun. Sometimes it seems like anything goes, but, at the end of the day, cheating is off-limits.

What if—unbeknownst to Lovie Smith—one of the Bears’ sports doctors had accepted a bribe from someone deep within the Bears association to give the entire team performance-enhancing drugs (without the players’ knowledge) before the big game?

If this were leaked before the NFC Championship game, the NFL would have jumped in. Probes would have been ordered. Smith would have looked like a cheater at worst and incompetent at best. To make matters worse, what if the Packers took advantage of the Bears’ public relations predicament and went to the press with claims that the Bears won the 1985 Super Bowl by doping up? The Packers would instantly hurt the Bears’ reputation by casting doubt on their ethical standards.

Clearly, this never happened. No Bears sports doctor accepted doping bribes and the Packers didn’t slander the Bears. However, something very similar to my “what-if” scenario is happening right now to one of the most successful entrepreneurs and job-creators in the world, namely Rupert Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch. Image credit: FoxAllAccess.

Murdoch’s competitors are playing dirty. Instead of upping their game and trying to improve their journalistic standards, they are lowering themselves to the level of slanderous cheaters in a brazen attempt to knock Murdoch and his company News Corp. down.

Murdoch owns media companies all over the world and employs 53,000 people. His now inoperative British tabloid News of the World comprised less than one percent of his company’s holdings.

Allegedly, at least one employee within News of the World betrayed Murdoch and Murdoch’s key executives, including one employee who allegedly hacked into a missing 13-year-old girl’s cell phone and erased messages, thereby leading her parents to believe she was still alive.

Murdoch apologized profusely to the girl’s family and the public. He shut down News of the World. He refused to allow his other companies, such as Fox News, to downplay the scandal. His top tabloid executives stepped down. He dropped his $12 billion bid for British Sky Broadcasting. He submitted himself to questioning before Britain’s Parliament.

Cover page of the News of the World's final edition. Image credit: NevilleHobson on Flickr via Creative Commons.

For this honorable behavior, his rivals in the media and politics have slandered his good name and chipped away at his job-creating ability.

Most people don’t have time to watch Murdoch and his key executives defend News Corp. in three-hour-long parliamentary committee meetings. Most busy people simply scan headlines and leading paragraphs of stories written by Murdoch’s competitors like the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, TIME Magazine and the Huffington Post. Sadly, these competitors paint Murdoch as a corporate cheater without sufficient evidence. Here are some key examples:

FBI Probe: U.S. politicians impulsively lent credibility to media allegations that Murdoch’s British outlets hacked phones of 9/11 victims. Their panic sparked an FBI probe. No substantive evidence backs up these horrendous allegations. If legitimate, these claims are oddly a decade late.

Source Inflation: TIME Magazine’s July 25 issue plasters Murdoch’s face on the cover under the headline “SCANDAL!” TIME cites several “anonymous” (and therefore non-credible) “public figures” with juicy examples of News of the World’s allegedly unethical behavior.

Besides anonymous celebrities, TIME cites Hugh Grant for this feature cover story. Yes, that pretty boy who needs a 20^th Century Fox film script (think Nine Months) to sound witty.

TIME reports how Grant secretly records one former News of the World journalist stating that 20 percent of Scotland Yard takes bribes from tabloids. TIME implies that Grant caught an omniscient ex-Murdoch journalist on tape who somehow knows the exact percentage of underhanded dealings between journalists and law enforcement officials (impossible) and that Murdoch controls all British tabloid journalists (false).

Murdoch invests in high-quality journalism. Before acquiring The Wall Street Journal, he stated: “This is the greatest newspaper in America, one of the greatest in the world. It has great journalists which deserve, I think, a much wider audience.”

The evidence shows Murdoch plays to win the ethical way. His competitors in the media should follow the NFL’s lead: Teasing is fine, but slander and defamation are forms of classless cheating.

If you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.

Image credit: "Fires ... Pink Anyone?" by AceFrenzy on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Imagine this: It’s the Fourth of July. You are a notorious pyro and your frightened neighbor lady sways you into reading my column on her flashy new iPad to temporarily distract you from setting up your annual fireworks display. As you read this, she is “accidentally” dropping her garden hose, running full blast, on the pile of fireworks you’ve been stashing up all year.

Yes, by now, your fireworks are wet garbage. Don’t panic. Keep reading. Trust me, she’s not as sneaky as she thinks. I’ll tell you how to ignite your neighborhood with a show like it has never seen before. You won’t even need to make an emergency run to the tent down the street selling fireworks.

People like your neighbor lady who fear fireworks on the Fourth of July generally dread noise, uncertainty and risk. So, let’s beat them at their own game. Tell Little Miss Scaredy Pants and the rest of your neighbors that you are hosting a can’t-miss Fourth of July celebration tonight featuring a “live” performance by pop star Katy Perry in your backyard.

Image credit: "katy perry- warped" by kimberly marie lawson on Flickr via Creative Commons.

What your neighbors don’t know is that you will be “performing” alongside Perry at your BBQ this evening. Since you only have a few hours to prepare, I’ll help you practice rocking out to selections from Perry’s hit single Firework. Crank up the volume. Here we go:

KATY

Do you ever feel like a plastic bag
Drifting through the wind
Wanting to start again…

Do you know that there’s still a chance for you
Cause there’s a spark in you

YOU

There are people in every neighborhood across America—including yours—who are struggling. A man who lost his job. A woman who is underemployed. A teenager who can’t find summer work. Families who have skipped their traditional week-long summer vacations. Homeowners who are ravaged by foreclosures, floods and tornadoes.

This month, consumer confidence fell to its lowest level since November of last year. When people are sad, depressed and angry, the last thing they feel like doing is celebrating. So, tonight, commemorate our adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 by inspiring your friends and neighbors to embrace freedom and become “fireworks.”

KATY

You just gotta ignite the light
And let it shine
Just own the night
Like the Fourth of July

YOU

This Independence Day, when your friends and neighbors come over for a BBQ, resolve to be a sounding board for those who are feeling down about their financial situations.

If they’re a jobless young person facing a 24 percent teen unemployment rate, ask them to consider starting their own seasonal business. They could use their talents to start a lawn-care, house-cleaning or technology business this summer. When the school year starts, they could focus on marketing and building up a clientele so that their business will be running full-force by next summer.

If they’re an unemployed or underemployed adult, ask them open-ended questions about their talents and dreams. Ask them to consider taking the entrepreneurial leap—while still looking for traditional corporate jobs and taking interviews. They have nothing to lose, except maybe sleep.

If there are ravaged homes within or nearby your neighborhood, enlist your neighbors to join you in doing something nice to help the homeowners. Bring food, supplies, flowers, toys—whatever help or joy you can think of.

KATY

Baby you’re a firework
Come on let your colors burst
Make ‘em go “Oh, oh, oh!”
You’re gonna leave ‘em all in awe-awe-awe

YOU

In a sense, fireworks represent taking risks, facing danger and fearlessly speaking out. Encourage your friends and neighbors to take Katy Perry’s advice and become fireworks.

The economic downturn is impacting everyone. The only way we can crawl out of this ditch is if we hoist each other up, not push each other down. Together, we need to advocate for pro-business policies, lower taxes and government spending cuts. We must revive the economy so that honest, hard-working Americans are no longer cornered into relying on the government for assistance when they lose their jobs, homes and savings—or are simply unable to find enough work—and not for lack of trying.

If we work together to revitalize the free market system in America, entrepreneurs will take risks, companies will create jobs, unemployment levels will plunge and Americans will once again be able to proudly create their own financial security. In a free market, ordinary people can help each other out infinitely more than the government.

Now, go invite your neighbor lady to your BBQ tonight. Just be sure she leaves her garden hose at home because there’s a rumor that Katy Perry’s sound crew will be delivering a truckload of fireworks to your house around 8:00 p.m. Be ready!

Katy Perry's band. Image credit: "Katy Perry" by Michael @ NW Lens on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Please note: This lighthearted column does not represent Katy Perry, nor is it endorsed by her.

If you would like to book Katie Kieffer to speak at your professional event or college campus, please follow this link to inquire about booking a speech.