Taking our tax dollars for a ride with Santa

On paper there is separation of state and religion in the US. In reality the state policies are strongly influenced by the views of the major religion (example, abortion and gay rights). Come November/ December evidence of state support for religion emerges as different local governments spend tax dollars in putting up Christmas wreaths, decorations and lights.

Today, after being in Chicago for 11 years I chanced upon an interesting way to take our tax dollars for a ride... with Santa. Yes, I am talking about the Chicago Transit Authority's annual Santa trains. I had seen posters for the same previous years but never did I imagine that it would be such a big affair. The entire train was decked with lights - inside and out. Gone are the usual advertisements, replaced by corny jokes about Christmas. Even the seat covers were different - not the usual blue but the Christmas green and red with Santa/ trees and elves. The driver mentioned that it was the 18th year that the CTA was doing this and no other metropolitan transport authority does anything like this. Now, that is a dead give away on the merits of this promotion. If the idea has not caught on in 18 years it is a really bad idea. I am sure CTA authorities will spin this as a service that brings immeasurable joy to its riders. I am sure its riders (including me) will agree that we will be more joyful if the transport authority was in green, fares are not increased every year (how do they manage to remain in red even after increasing fares every year? they are not the only ones... usps is in the same position) the cars were clean, tracks were upgraded and the trains ran on time. It should not take 40 minutes to travel about 6 miles during rush hour. The suburban rail service, Metra, does 36 miles in that time.

Enjoy the photos of our tax dollars going on a ride with Santa.








BTW, my wife who took the regular train coming behind the holiday service somehow ended up ahead of me.

NOIMBY...No Olympics In My Backyard

I hope and pray that Chicago does not win the 2016 bid. The city should spend its money and resources on making it better and balancing the budget rather than creating a legacy for its mayor and line the pockets of officials and businessmen of the city and crook county.

Separated

The New Year got off to a rough start for me. I returned from a month long vacation (half of it was unpaid and the rest was all the vacation days that I had shored up for this trip to India) to work to find that I have no work. My boss (the CTO) of the company told me that due to financial difficulties the company was going through another round of layoffs. Since they had decided to stop all IT initiatives they did not need someone to define and manage IT initiatives.

So, here I am looking for a new job. A recruiter that I talked to mentioned that I should not use "eliminated" or "layoff" as they have negative connotations. Instead, he suggested, I should use "separated." Well, "separated" it is even though it does not change the reality. Someone else told me that averaging 2 yrs at a job does not sit well. True. I would not hire someone who changes jobs every two years. And, in the first 8 years of my work I was a sucker for the newest technology. I changed jobs every two years to work on the latest thing. In the last 10 years it has been the economy and the companies who have been prompting my job changes. One company that I worked for kept laying off people every 3 months that I finally quit after being there for 6 rounds of layoffs; the other decided consulting was not for them; the next two failed (one of them managed to sell themselves before it went under)

Someone once asked me - "How long can a 'start-up' call itself a 'start-up'?" I had no answer for that one. My former employer has been in business for 3 years and is down by $35MM. In B-school they said investors look for 3x3 or 5x5 returns (i.e. 3x returns in 3 years etc...) I bet this is not what they had in mind. Anyway, what do you call a 'start-up' that is in this state? Wind-down.

Back to the job hunt.

Durbin's "windfall profit tax" is a lot of hot air

Senior Senator Dick Durbin of IL has proposed something called a "windfall profit tax" to cap the profits of oil companies and help ease the burden on the public reeling under the pressure of high gas prices. Now, what constitutes as "windfall profit"? Who will define that? And, why restrict it to just oil companies? Why not apply this to all companies? It would be interesting to see how this will apply to software companies after all the incremental cost of a software product is close to zero.

Why can't the good senator and his likes think of things that make sense and are within their control like improving the public transportation infrastructure (rather than giving free rides to senior citizens and the homeless) or increasing the fuel efficiency requirements on vehicles. Heck, all those require time, effort and will not have the same effect on the public as "windfall profit tax". We all need someone to be the "bad guy" and it is easy to paint the oil companies (and, in other occasions, the Chinese companies) as the "bad guys."

I guess it is guys like Senator Durbin who make sure that Chicago's legacy as "the windy city" lives on. Got to love him for that.

Chicago's olympic folly?!

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Olympics budget rises to £9.3bn

Yes, the mayor wants it - really badly. The politicians want it. So, do the business. Most people think it would be "cool". But, is it worth it? I don't think so. I am pretty certain that if Chicago gets it the people can expect their taxes to go up, construction to be pain for years, the temporary stadium to become permanent and the city to be in deep red for years.

So, why do these people who want the Olympics in Chicago want it? I think for the mayor it is to satisfy his ego afterall he runs Chicago pretty much the way Jayalalitha a.k.a "amma" (mother) or "puratchi thalaivi" (revolutionary leader) used to run Tamilnadu. For the politicians it is way to win elections - olympics will create construction and jobs related to that. For the business, construction is a great way to make money off the city and its people.

None of the recent Olympics effort have been anywhere close to the original budget. London is running at about 3 times its initial, Beijing is even higher (but they are closer to end line). So, if the city is expected to have $500million reserve on the original budget how much will it have to shell out if it actually lands it.

As far as I know none of the cities that have hosted the Olympics in recent times have made any money off it. Montreal recently paid off the last installment on the amount borrowed. Chicago is expected to make about $5billion, roughly 5 days worth of local economy if the budgetted numbers are going to be right.

I love Chicago and I hope the city does not get to host the Olympics.