You're walking around blind without a cane, pal. A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to write this and not have it come across as whining because it concerns my personal bonus, or lack thereof. I decided to share this because it's just another micro example of how American business doesn't always operate in good faith towards the people it employs.

I'm a believer in incentive (bonus) programs not just for managers but for years I've been pushing the company to adopt some sort of profit sharing plan for staff. If they're structured correctly and tied to performance I believe they provide the company with engaged, satisfied staff.

The incentive program I participate is pretty standard. Basically I'm given a numerical rating on a quarterly basis. This rating is a combination of employee and customer satisfaction and performance against budget. If my numerical rating is mid to low against those factors then I don't qualify for a bonus.

If I'm an dick of a boss and have a bunch of employees leave then I won't qualify for a bonus. If I have really unhappy staff and that's reflected on employee feedback surveys then I won't qualify for a bonus. If I lose customers or customers are unhappy with our product or service then I won't qualify for a bonus. If I don't beat the company's top and bottom line financial goals for my book of business then I really, really won't qualify for a bonus.

On paper it's a pretty good plan. You can see how managing to that plan forces me to be a better manager and not take anything, or anyone for granted.

In 2007 the company tweaked the plan. Apparently corporate didn't like the unexpected allocations for bonuses that would pop up (they don't like financial surprises) so they decided to take money out of your book of business to set aside for any bonuses you may qualify for. A line titled "performance sharing" appeared on my profit and loss statements and a dollar amount based on a percentage my salary was set aside from my total revenue each month on this line.

This had it's obvious downside for managers. The financial goals for an incentive now became that much harder as your numerical rating was figured after all of those line items, including "performance sharing" were subtracted from your overall revenue. They were slyly making it harder to score a bonus.

In 2008 they tweaked the plan again. This time they indexed manager's numerical ratings against their region. This means you could have a great quarter but not see a penny if the other managers in the region were boneheads who didn't know how to run their businesses. Their excuse was that this would encourage "teamwork" but that idea is laughable. I have nothing to contribute to accounts in Seattle or San Francisco in terms of personnel and vice versa.

This had the desired effect of putting bonuses out of reach of even the best performing managers, myself included. My feeling was something akin to "Whatever. I'm lucky to have this job. At least the site financials will look even better."

Yet, they continued to take "performance sharing" dollars out of my account like clockwork. I had assumed that they would just pay that unused chunk of bonus cash back into the account at the end of the year when they closed the books. I kept checking my financials for this big block of cash, now totalling over $7000 to show up. Of course it never did.

This week I had a conversation with my manager and asked him where this money went. He flew into a rant. Apparently we've already identified and complained about this with corporate and were met with the hand. Apparently that "performance sharing" is meant for somebody else to share and is not to be questioned.

To sum up: the company takes money out of my book of business to cover a potential cash incentive for me, the very act of taking this money out makes it harder for me to achieve that incentive so they don't have to pay it, when I fail to achieve the incentive they keep that money without an explanation rather put it back into my business.

Why, it's almost like they're stealing it.

Ever wonder why fund managers can't beat the S&P 500? 'Cause they're sheep, and sheep get slaughtered.

I can't wish you a happy Friday today. Sorry.

The $700 billion deal has hit a roadblock with the House Republican caucus with the support of John McCain.

In all honesty I have no idea whether the plan was necessary or not. I'm not an economist or a Wall Street financier, nor do I have a Palinesque mutant ability to learn things via proximity and osmosis.

My progressive side tells me the deal was crap. Congressional Democrats - who on paper would be the ones that should have been dictating this process rather than the White House - appeared to have been rolled again with only token nods to accountability.

But the one thing I'm certain is that I don't even have to like this plan to be furious that John McCain injected Presidential politics into this process. In doing so he has signaled more clearly than ever that his ambition is more important than the future of this country.

The President gave a "the sky is falling" speech this week. Washington Mutual collapsed last night. The market is going to tank today. I resent that McCain is playing games with my future. He is not more important than the millions of Americans he's screwing over here.

When I vote for Obama next month (vote by mail) I'm going to be doing it for all sorts of reasons including the oblique push towards "hope." I'm not ashamed to say there will be a part of me that will be considering that vote a giant middle finger towards McCain, his party and everything they represent.

Screw them.

It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses.

There are some things the government should be doing and there are some things that are better left to the free market.

Utilities are one of those sectors that should almost always be run by the government.

In today's Business section of The Oregonian there's this little tidbit-

PGE takes on utility tax law

2006 sale - A filing argues money from equipment bought in 2001 should go to shareholders, not ratepayers.

Ratepayer advocates are voicing concerns about what they see as an attempt by Portland General Electric Co. to turn back the clock to tax accounting machinations employed by Enron and subsequently outlawed by Oregon legislators.

Filings PGE and customer groups made to utility regulators in the past week could, in fact, presage a legal challenge to a controversial tax law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 408. The 2005 law requires utilities to match the taxes that they collect from customers in rates with what they actually pay the government, and offer a refund or surcharge to customers if the gap is too large.

PGE collects taxes as part of our electric bill. The law passed by the state legislature in 2005 says that if those taxes aren't forwarded to the government in turn then they should be returned to ratepayers. This is basic, common sense to anyone outside of those who own oodles of stock in the electric utility company. The 2005 bill is about as "controversial" as the idea that you shouldn't leave your dog in your car on an August day with the windows rolled up.

PGE is giving Oregon voters the finger yet again. This is the same PGE that's continually getting stroked by the state Utilities Board that's supposed to be looking out for ratepayers as they rubber-stamp every planned rate increase by the company. They get away with this because they are a virtual monopoly so they have no free market competition and because they know how to play the political system so they have no real chance of competition from the government.

Not that legislators haven't tried to make the utility a public entity. Most recently the city of Portland tried to put together a bid to purchase the company which was thoroughly defeated by PGE and it's threatening political muscle. It's absolutely absurd that given PGEs constant abuses of Oregon ratepayers - from transferring the costs of shutting down Trojan to ratepayers to the Enron tax scam they're continuing to try and apply here - that the state hasn't privatized the wayward company. I simply cannot understand this thinking.

The idea that the free market is some sort of panacea that automatically means better service to customers, lower cost to customers and greater returns to shareholders all at the same time is just nuts. Corporations pay nothing but lip service to trying to balance those three competing interests and if they hold a monopoly on the industry not even that. Something will always suffer and it will never be the shareholder aspect of the equation.

Yet governments continue to do exactly the opposite of what would be good for citizens as they rush towards transferring public assets into the private sector without a second thought to how the customers, sorry citizens, will come out of the deal. Consider this story from Business Week-

In the past year, banks and private investment firms have fallen in love with public infrastructure. They're smitten by the rich cash flows that roads, bridges, airports, parking garages, and shipping ports generate — and the monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating heart. Firms are so enamored, in fact, that they're beginning to consider infrastructure a brand new asset class in itself.

With state and local leaders scrambling for cash to solve short-term fiscal problems, the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented burst of buying and selling. All told, some $100 billion worth of public property could change hands in the next two years, up from less than $7 billion over the past two years; a lease for the Pennsylvania Turnpike could go for more than $30 billion all by itself. "There's a lot of value trapped in these assets," says Mark Florian, head of North American infrastructure banking at Goldman, Sachs & Co.

There are some advantages to private control of roads, utilities, lotteries, parking garages, water systems, airports, and other properties. To pay for upkeep, private firms can raise rates at the tollbooth without fear of being penalized in the voting booth. Privateers are also freer to experiment with ideas like peak pricing, a market-based approach to relieving traffic jams. And governments are making use of the cash they're pulling in—balancing budgets, retiring debt, investing in social programs, and on and on.

But are investors getting an even better deal? It's a question with major policy implications as governments relinquish control of major public assets for years to come. The aggressive toll hikes embedded in deals all but guarantee pain for lower-income citizens—and enormous profits for the buyers. For example, the investors in the $3.8 billion deal for the Indiana Toll Road, struck in 2006, could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits, estimates Merrill Lynch & Co. What's more, some public interest groups complain that the revenue from the higher tolls inflicted on all citizens will benefit only a handful of private investors, not the commonwealth.

Why would investors be "clamoring" to buy these assets if they weren't worth more than what the governments that own them are raking in on these deals? Infrastructure should remain under the government's control. All of us, as well as future generations, own these assets. They are better owned and managed by the public sector.

Private industry is very good at a number of things, especially when they face competition. Shoes, jeans, soda, televisions and cars are all things that government should stay the heck out of. But when it comes to basic necessities - electricity, water and the very roads we commute daily on the government is the best, if imperfect manager, of those resources.