When a President takes office, it’s imperative that he shift from campaigning to governing.  He must lead the whole nation, supporters and opposition alike.  He must adjust to the political and economic realities of the day, not bask in the utopia assumed during the election cycle.   Despite the quip to Senator McCain, Obama is the one who needs to acknowledge that the campaign is over and that the task before him is to govern.  The economy presents genuine constraints.  Americans are out of work, their wealth has been diminished and our national debts continue to mount.  Obama presses on, recommending a budget with a record deficit, new taxes and expansion of government programs.  The evolving political climate presents constraints too, which Obama must react to, not bulldoze through.  Average Americans are by every objective measure against sweeping healthcare reform.  Obama presses on.  Why?  The only conclusion one can draw is that Obama is committed to pursuing an agenda regardless of whether it’s still politically or economically feasible or desirable.  This is what you do when you’re trying to win, not trying to govern.

The country is in desperate need of a President who lives in reality, who is in touch with the lives and will of average Americans.  We do not need a President who assumes we’re ignorant if we disagree with him.  We do not need a President who is paternalistic, but one who is respectful.   Mr. President, the campaign debates, speeches and rallies are behind us.  This is 2010, not 2008, and the election is over.  Some of your ideas, which resonated with many on the campaign trail, are not tenable today.  When will you recognize this, adjust and truly govern?

I keep a list of features I'd put into an alarm clock and have been committed to either finding a suitable product or working on manufacturing it myself.  It may not be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but there's something valuable to gain by offering the standout version of a product that everyone uses and would be willing to replace if a substantially better option existed.

Well, I've got news.  I've purchased a product that comes close to meeting my expectations.  It's not perfect, but it's close enough to warrant a recommendation for a product line that I've only castigated in the past.

The American Innovative Neverlate Executive Alarm Clock has a lot going for it.  Here's a summary of the features that I think set it apart:

• Snooze duration is customizable
• There's a descending snooze option, which reduces the snooze time each time you hit snooze until it won't let you snooze anymore.
• The alarm volume is separate from the radio/sleep volume.
• The alarm duration is customizable.
• The clock illumination can be turned off, not just lowered (helpful if you like your bedroom to be as dark as possible)
• There are three alarm settings, which can be used in any combination: every day and two seven day alarms.
• There's a nap feature, which lets you set a quick alarm without changing your regular alarm.  Default duration is 20 min, but you can quickly adjust up/down from there.
• The snooze button is also a review button.  Hit it and you'll see when the next alarm is set to go off.  If you want to adjust the next alarm, you can easily do so when reviewing without changing your regular alarm.
• The alarm (beep, radio or media source through axillary jack) can be set to escalate in volume.
• You can easily skip the next alarm if you wake up before it goes off
• When you set the alarm, you begin adjusting from 7 am instead of 12 am.  The rotary dial is also quicker than the tradition button hold-down.
• It's small - 5" square
• Has a USB charging port (useful if you want to charge your phone on your nightstand)
• Includes radio station presets

So what's the best option?

Democrats continue to perpetuate an economic fallacy that supports their argument for wealth redistribution.  Put simply, they believe that the wealthy will only share their wealth with the lower and middle classes if forced to do so.  Therefore, the government must force them to share their wealth by taxing them more (through progressive business, income and inheritance taxes).  The government takes the tax money from the wealthy and redistributes it to the lower and middle classes through a combination of means including reduced taxes, government assistance and government jobs (whether directly or via contract).  This is wealth redistribution at work. 

Through observation, though not firsthand experience, I've found that the wealthy (let's just use Obama's threshold of $250k or more in income) have three options as to what they can do with their cash.  They're the same options all of us have: spend, give or save.  If the wealthy spend their money, even on private jets and outlandish third or forth homes, they create or maintain jobs for lower and middle income Americans (e.g. aircraft machinists and mechanics; framers and lawn care companies).  If they give it away, they redistribute wealth directly and voluntarily.  In either case, the wealthy put money into the hands of lower and middle classes but through means that are much more direct, efficient and productive, and have a greater multiplier effect, than comparable government spending or assistance.

Now let's tackle the slightly more difficult situation of when the wealthy save rather than spend or gift.  If they save, they either pump it into investments or stuff it into pillow cases.  If they invest, they create and maintain jobs for lower and middle income Americans by helping companies grow by providing access to additional capital (e.g. a start-up hires a sales team or a public company decides to open new stores).  Even if some of the wealthy only invest and never spend or gift during their lifetimes, at end of life they either leave their money to their family or give it away.  If they leave it to their family, second generations of wealthy people have proven very adept at spending all of their inheritance very quickly.  Problem solved.  If they gift it, while the benefit was admittedly postponed during their lifetime, assuming decent investment returns the impact may be even greater.

So, out of all of this we're left with one justification for the government forcing wealth redistribution via the tax system: a gripping fear that the wealthy will just hoard their cash in pillow cases and it will never get spent, gifted or invested because it gets lost or destroyed.  Seems ridiculous doesn't it?  Why not just make the system fair for everyone and let the spending, gifting and investing flow through the system naturally?  If you're scared of the pillow case scenario and believe it justifies wealth redistribution, I'd love to hear from you.