No (Rich) Child Left Behind May 30, 2003March 25, 2012 You see what I’m saying? (Yesterday: ‘And it all comes so fast and furious, none of it gets any traction before the next thing.’) I was totally planning to get back to Paying Your Bills, and to telling you the new URL to find quotes on the TIPS that were first recommended here at 99 – really I was – and then comes this. How is it possible we have become a country that puts a higher priority on reducing the capital gains tax on multi-millionaires than on helping 11.7 million children of low-income workers? This is compassionate conservatism? What are we coming to? And speaking of conservatives: From Andrew Sullivan‘s recent blog (Andrew is a leading conservative): ‘At this point, it’s clear that the Republican party, at all levels, is simply fiscally irresponsible. This is true at the federal level, where Republicans have out-spent Democrats; and at a state level, as this USA Today synopsis spells out: State legislatures controlled by Republicans increased spending an average of 6.54% per year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17% for legislatures run by Democrats… Republicans cut taxes an average of 1.08% annually from 1997 to 2002 when they controlled both the legislature and governor’s office. Democrats cut taxes 0.59% annually when they were in charge of state government. (My thanks to Hoosier Review.) So I was wrong yesterday. The Democrats aren’t worse. They’re actually better at controlling spending than today’s Republicans. True fiscal conservatives might want to rethink their long-standing preference for Republicans.‘ [Emphasis added.] Monday: Your Feedback – Paying Your Bills, Mark Foley, Jessica Lynch, Etc.
The New Tax Bill And Your Retirement Plan May 29, 2003January 22, 2017 It’s a little overwhelming. During Clinton/Gore, things were going so well here and abroad, for the most part, that the other side had to make up stuff to be outraged about, or else dwell on nightmares like the 15 minutes President Clinton may or may not have inadvertently delayed air traffic at LAX while he got an expensive haircut. International news for a week. Here, now, we’re bankrupting states and cities, laying the foundation to dismantle fundamental social programs and lay trillions of dollars in new debt on the shoulders of our children, failing to protect our nuclear plants, eroding the separation of church and state – little stuff like that – and it all comes so fast and furious, none of it gets any traction before the next thing. If you can find the time, here are two great columns to read and forward, one by Robert Steinback in the Miami Herald (although I disagree with his characterization of today’s stock as ‘soft’), the other, in case you missed it, by Paul Krugman. If you’re unwilling to register with the New York Times (but why? – no, wait, don’t tell me), read it here instead (click ‘Columns’ and then May 27). Now, I owe you a ton of stuff – which may be 1999 pounds more than you wanted this morning – so I promise to post many of your very good comments in the next couple of days. But for now: THE NEW TAX BILL AND YOUR RETIREMENT PLAN Erik Larson: ‘Decreasing the dividend and capital gains tax rates pushes a greater tax burden on those who have been saving for retirement in tax-deferred retirement plans – e.g., 401(k), 403(b). Remember, these are taxed as ordinary income. You can easily put together a spreadsheet to see the various break-even points and it seems an investor who does not realize many capital gains along the way (say, an index fund or buy-and-hold investor) would come out ahead over most scenarios.’ ☞ Yes. The three big reasons to use a tax-deferred plan now are: (1) Disciplined saving – retirement plans help you keep the money separate, with penalties for early withdrawal, so you’re less likely to raid them. (2) The tax code could be notched back up – indeed, this ‘little bitty’ $320 billion tax cut that everyone expects to be closer to a $1 trillion over the next decade is written just that way. Many of the tax breaks are set to phase out if not renewed. (3) If your employer provides a ‘match,’ that’s free money. Still, the case for skipping the tax shelter of a traditional retirement plan is definitely stronger now. Why turn what could be lightly taxed capital gains and dividends into heavily taxed ordinary income? Why give up ready access to your own money? Why incur custodial and management fees? Even the big incentive – lowering your taxable income by the amount of the contribution – becomes less enticing because your tax bracket is now lower. My own bottom line: If you’re in a plan with an employee match – or in a Roth IRA, withdrawals from which are never taxed – stick with it. Otherwise, I guess it makes sense to think twice. Especially if the plan you’re in only gives you investment choices that siphon off significant management fees TOO SENSIBLE! Nick Drury: ‘I suggest that individual states solve their budget deficits by taxing dividends received by their residents at an amount equal to the amount that they were cut by President Bush and the Republican Congress. In this way, no one would pay more taxes than they had in the past and states would not have to cut spending on schools or other essential programs.’ ☞ The problem, beyond the politics, is that if some states did this and some did not, wealthy folks would move to the states that did not, hurting the states that did all the more. It would only work if all the states did it more or less equally – and you can be sure Governors like Jeb Bush would sooner close every school in Florida than reimpose a tax on the wealthy. Tomorrow or soon: Your Feedback – Paying Your Bills, Foley, Jessica Lynch, Etc.
Mark Foley Wants to Be My Senator May 27, 2003February 23, 2017 But first . . . this just in from the Borowitz Report: Breaking News BUSH TO PHASE OUT ENVIRONMENT BY 2004 All Species Under Review, President Says Just days after Christine Todd Whitman departed her post at the Environmental Protection Agency, President George W. Bush announced ambitious new plans to phase out the environment altogether by 2004. “In addition to cutting taxes, it is the goal of this administration to cut our wasteful, bloated environment,” Mr. Bush said in a speech before the Association of Indiscriminate Applauders in Washington, D.C. While plans to eliminate the environment entirely are still being formulated, the general strategy of the White House is to phase out the environment gradually “so that hardly anyone will notice it’s gone,” an aide said today. . . . “If it comes down to choosing between air and water, the President will probably scrap water,” one aide said. “After all, the Iraqis haven’t had water in weeks and look how well they’re doing.” And now . . . Mark Foley wants to be my Senator. The rumor is that he is gay, in an 18-year committed relationship. How he is choosing to handle the rumor is interesting. When asked by the Miami Herald, his response led to this headline Friday: Foley: My sexuality is private Questions about homosexuality ‘revolting and unforgivable,’ Senate candidate says If he’s not gay, he’s making it very difficult for himself. All he need say is, ‘I’m straight.’ That he doesn’t leads one to assume the rumors are true. If they are true, and he’s gay – but, being a Republican, he feels he cannot say so – it’s not that hard, either. All he need say is: ‘Listen guys, like it or not, I want this race to be about my positions and my hard work for the people of Florida. I’m just not going to discuss any aspect of my personal life. And every time you ask me, this is all I’m going to say.’ And every time they asked, that is what he would say. Instead, according to the Herald, He called the innuendo about his private life ‘revolting and unforgivable,’ and blamed it on Democratic activists who fear his strength as a candidate. The implication: It is revolting to be accused of such a disgusting, horrible thing. It is unforgivable to insinuate it – like insinuating that someone is into kiddie porn or engages in (harkening back to Senator Santorum’s image) man on dog. Mark himself might tell you that he did not mean to broadcast this message. After all, despite his conservative voting record on almost every other issue, on issues involving equal rights for gays and lesbians, his voting record is near perfect. No homophobe, he. Yet if it’s revolting and unforgivable to suggest that someone is gay, what homophobic message does that send? What if someone had suggested he was part Native American or part Jewish or part African-American? Would that have been revolting and unforgiveable? The Herald continued: ‘Elected officials, even those who run for the United States Senate, must have some level of privacy,” Foley, 48, of West Palm Beach, said during a half-hour conference call with newspaper reporters from across Florida. Well, and who can argue? There has to be some level of privacy, even for United States Senators. Surely we are not going to start wanting to know the names – even meet – their spouses or life partners. My God, man! Next you’ll be wanting to know if they have children! Or what sports they enjoy! Is there no end to the sick voyeurism we have sunk to? Mark Foley is a fifth-term Florida Congressman and Deputy Republican Whip. I appreciate his good stands on most GLBT issues, but respectfully disagree with many of his other positions, so would vote for his opponent whatever his sexual orientation. (Well, and – as I feel compelled occasionally to point out to newcomers to this site – I’m treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.) But straight or gay, and knowing he was going to be on the phone with all the newspapers in the state specifically to discuss this topic, he could have handled it a good deal better. Tomorrow (probably): Back to Paying Your Bills
I’m Rich! I’m Rich! This Is So Cool! May 25, 2003February 23, 2017 This is so cool. We are wrecking the economy and our future, but never mind that – look what’s in it for me! I know it’s obnoxious to talk about one’s good fortune, but the Republicans have given me a huge tax cut. We have to borrow every penny of it from your children to do it, but we’re doing it anyway – I’m sure they won’t mind. And hey: kids don’t vote. We have not funded homeland security for our 106 nuclear plants and are cutting FBI agents because of budget constraints, but we’re doing it anyway. Our cities and states are laying off tens of thousands of workers, but we’re doing it anyway. Services are being cut (though not for those of us in gated communities) . . . and we haven’t heard a peep lately about a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens (or about protecting the Social Security Trust Fund), but we’re doing it anyway. The ostensible reason? ‘To create jobs.’ Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was spectacularly on message on the ‘Today Show’ last week, saying it over and over and over: that every aspect of this tax cut was crafted with one goal in mind – to create jobs for working Americans. Give . . . me . . . a . . . [I don’t usually use expletives like the one I’m deleting] . . . break. Almost no credible economist sees a connection between cutting my taxes dramatically and creating new jobs. And neither does the Congressional Budget Office. (And what about all the jobs Bush’s first tax cut for the rich created? ‘It is striking commentary on America’s situation,’ notes economist David Hale in a different context, ‘that Canada created 70,000 jobs during February and March while the U.S. lost half a million jobs.’) Like most hugely fortunate people who need no tax relief, the bulk of my income derives from dividends and capital gains. The tax on my dividends has just been cut by 61%! Isn’t that great? I expected to have to pay 38.6% of my dividends in taxes this year, but now, thanks to the Republicans, just 15%. Warren Buffett argued last week that this was beyond stupid. But whose judgment are you going to trust when it comes to money, Warren Buffett’s or George W. Bush’s? The tax on my capital gains has just been cut by 25%! From 20% to 15%. That’s most of my income – and I just got a 25% tax cut! This is the sacrifice I have to bear for my country in order to help create new jobs. The tax on the income I make from this web site, and other ordinary income – already cut from 39.6% to 38.6% last year – has been cut a further 9.3%, from 38.6% to 35%. It’s like Christmas in July, except that it’s still only May (never mind that it came close to snowing here in New York this weekend). So let’s say – just to take a number, this is not me – you’re the typical gal or guy with $20 million in investments. You’re no one special with $200 million (now that begins to be money) or $2 billion or $20 billion, let alone Bill Gates or Warren Buffett with twice that. No, you don’t have one thousandth the wealth of the phenomenally rich, you’re just the typical gal or guy bumbling along with $20 million you’ve been able to set aside. Chances are (because it takes a while to save that much, unless you inherited it), the kids are grown and through college, so you and your loved one have no big expenses. You already have your three houses and the other basics of a comfortable life. Maybe you’re retired. Twenty million isn’t much, but it’s enough to live on, if you’re careful. Say this $20 million is all you have and you’re able to grow it at 8% a year. That’s $1.6 million a year before tax. If (for the sake of this example) you were someone who locked in your gains the minute they went long-term each year, selling and incurring the tax, then you’d have been paying 20% of that $1.6 million each year, leaving you with only $1.28 million (plus any dividends, and your Social Security check). The Republicans, who control all branches of government, look at your plight – weigh it against other pressing needs – and decide to cut your capital gains tax bill by $80,000 a year, leaving you with $1.36 million a year to live on instead. Surely you see the fundamental soundness of borrowing $80,000 a year from future generations in order to provide this tax relief. And surely you see the wisdom of providing a huge chunk of the tax relief to people who don’t need it and won’t go out and spend it. True enough, the money doesn’t disappear. It goes somewhere. Take the $181,000 it’s been estimated Commerce Secretary Evans himself would save each year, or the $184,000 a year for Rumsfeld or the $274,000 a year for Treasury Secretary Snow or the $327,000 a year for Cheney.* Where will it go? One might hope they will take every penny and use it to hire more maids and gardeners, which would create jobs. But their houses are already pretty clean and nicely landscaped. No, most of their tax relief will just get added to the pile of money they already have, invested in stocks or bonds or money market funds, here and abroad. There’s nothing wrong with investment, heaven knows. But right now, capital is not what the country is starving for. Lenders are desperate to lend. Interest rates are at 45-year lows. It’s much tougher than it was in the Nineties for entrepreneurs to fund new ventures, but that’s not because investors have no cash. It’s because they are still in shock from the dot-com collapse, and still uncertain about the future. Those things would work themselves through whether we cut taxes or not. Please note: I’m all for tax cuts that apply to, say, the first $100,000 in ordinary income and, say, the first $2,500 of dividend income. Rich people would save a few bucks on their taxes along with everyone else. But Sandy Weill’s $4.3 million a year? (See note, below.) It’s enough to make you cry. We tried a tax bonanza for the Best Off combined with a huge military build-up under Reagan/Bush, and it produced a sluggish economy and added $3 trillion to our National Debt. Then, in 1993, we fixed it. And now we’re making the same mistakes all over again, only worse. In electing to borrow to help multi-millionaires, we are making crazy choices. Let’s borrow, if we must – but for investments in our kids and our cities and our security and our future. Not to further widen the gap between the wealthy few and everyone else. ——————————– *These estimates were based on the original $726 billion tax bill the President pushed for. The $350 billion he got instead, which he derided as ‘little bitty,’ will actually be more like $800 billion (both figures are over 10 years), because the only thing that makes it little bitty is the way various provisions ‘sunset’ after a year or two or six. A lot of people expect Congress not to let them sunset after all. So I don’t know exactly what Evans and Rumsfeld, et al, will save each year. It depends on the capital gains they realize and a whole bunch of other things. But clearly, it will be a lot. Here’s one example I did work out, Sandy Weill, CEO of Citigroup. He has 22.7 million shares of Citi, which pays an 80-cent dividend. So his ‘little bitty’ annual tax saving just on these dividends – let alone his salary and whatever capital gains he may realize – will be $4.3 million a year. Sandy is a good guy, and this is nice for him. But why on Earth, when we are running huge deficits and letting schools crumble and not protecting our nuclear plants, would we do this? If it bothers you, sign up to fix it at democrats.org. Wednesday: Mark Foley Wants to Be My Senator
Bush versus Buffett May 22, 2003February 23, 2017 As many of you noted in sending me the link, this is too good not to just reprint the whole thing. I hope Warren and the Washington Post will forgive me. Dividend Voodoo By Warren Buffett Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19 The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that — with occasional blips — the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth. The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich. Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income — about 30 percent — as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical — my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income — nor is it affected by tax shelters (I’ve never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do. She’s not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation — a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly. Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent. And our receptionist? She’d still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be. When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to “pay any price, bear any burden” for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay — if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free — seems a bit light. Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well. The Senate’s plan invites corporations — indeed, virtually commands them — to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they’d be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007. Overall, it’s hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: “voodoo economics.” The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices. Proponents of cutting tax rates on dividends argue that the move will stimulate the economy. A large amount of stimulus, of course, should already be on the way from the huge and growing deficit the government is now running. I have no strong views on whether more action on this front is warranted. But if it is, don’t cut the taxes of people with huge portfolios of stocks held directly. (Small investors owning stock held through 401(k)s are already tax-favored.) Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax “holiday” or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets. When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a “break” requires — now or down the line — that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can’t deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party. Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class. The writer is chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a diversified holding company, and a director of The Washington Post Co., which has an investment in Berkshire Hathaway.
Your Government at Work May 21, 2003January 22, 2017 My cousin Nan wrote this disheartening little guide to becoming a judge. If it rubs you wrong, hie yourself over to democrats.org and sign up. Everyone knows the President’s flying 30 miles out to sea – to an aircraft carrier they had had to slow down so it wouldn’t reach port before he got there – was a photo op designed for later campaign footage, courtesy of the taxpayer. But was the wonderful Jessica Lynch rescue a cynical photo op, too? If so, is this acceptable? Is there a pattern here? Should the news media scream bloody murder for having been manipulated this way? Should anyone be demoted for deceiving the taxpayers who pay their salaries? Click the BBC report and see what you think. (Or click here for the LA Times‘ take.) Verbatim from the Washington Post: “I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, May 14, 2003 “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003 Tomorrow: Warren Buffett (Always) Says It Best
My Stupid $20.91 Bill May 20, 2003January 22, 2017 But first this good news . . . A lot of you must have clicked May 6 to tell the Bush Administration how upset you were it would thumb its nose at 191 nations and obstruct the world treaty on tobacco. Your protests, combined with what were doubtless hundreds of thousands more – and just common sense and decency – got the Administration to reverse itself. Read all about it. And now . . . I have this stupid $20.91 monthly bill I get, and now that CheckFree has finally abandoned us Managing Your Money die-hards, I actually had to write a check. Gad, the indignity. Do they even still make paper checks? Talk about retro! But sure enough, I do still have a checkbook and a pen, and I wrote it for $209.10 instead of $20.91 to save my having to do that again for 10 months. Ah, you wonder – has he loosened his grip? Or lost it altogether? Why would anyone pay his bills a day earlier than necessary, let alone nine months early? But behold: Paying nine extra payments saved me 9 stamps at 37 cents each = $3.33. Assuming my time is worth nothing (which is, after all, what you pay me for it), $3.33 is the only advantage I get from writing one big check instead of 10 little ones. But what an advantage! I have tied up an extra $188.19 (on top of the $20.91 I would have had to pay anyway), and earned $3.33 by doing it. Yes, that is only 1.77% ‘interest’ on the money I tied up, but wait! It is tax-free (the government does not tax you on money you saved on stamps) and, more to the point, I didn’t have to wait a whole year to get it. With each passing month that I would have had to pay $20.91 anyway, that initial extra $188.19 that I tied up becomes $20.91 less. It works out to a compounded annual risk-free, tax-free 4.23% rate of return – which these days ain’t half bad. Not to mention the little bit of time and drudgery saved each month. Yes, if your automatic bill payment service charges you no fee, it’s smarter just to pay as you go – you save nothing by paying faster. But what if the checks themselves cost you a dime apiece? Now you’re really talking big bucks: you save an additional 90 cents, and the return jumps to 5.36%. Of course, if it’s a $70 cable bill you pay this way (let alone a $1,700 monthly mortgage), you might not be so cavalier. But on the cable bill, if not the mortgage, you might at least pay one extra month. If you paid $140 in a lump instead of $70 twice, you’d save 47 cents by tying up an extra $70 for a month – a dime on the check and 37 cents on the stamp. That’s an 8.06% tax-free, risk free rate of return on your money. Pay triple instead of double, so you need write a check only every third month and, using the same stamp and dime-a-check assumption, your annualized rate of return drops to 5.37%. Note: you needn’t restrict this practice to fixed monthly charges. If you’re phone bill runs you about $45 a month, you could pay $145, figuring that would likely carry you three months with a little left over. The phone company will just credit you with the difference. Note: If you run credit card balances, for heaven’s sake pay them off before doing this kind of thing. Note: This obviously isn’t really about the rate of return – no matter how high the rate, you’re still saving only pennies. Rather, it’s about helping you to save a little time, and feel smart doing it. Note: The best way to save time, in many instances, is by setting up recurring bills to be deducted automagically from your credit card (if you don’t pay credit card interest) or from your bank account (if you do). Many merchants offer this option. Final Note: No more check writing for me. Because I had been using CheckFree through Managing Your Money for a decade, I was able to sign on to Quicken Bill Pay in just a few minutes, and found all my payees and transaction history sitting neatly on line. The service no longer integrates with MYM, but I can live with that. And because Quicken charges 50 cents a transaction (if memory serves), much of the above math can still make sense.
Monday Fun May 19, 2003February 23, 2017 Michael Axelrod: ‘My new Honda Accord has a navigator, and it’s amazing. I got the car in April and it knew about the recent closing of the Fell Street off-ramp in San Francisco and deftly directed me through city streets to my destination. It seems to know the position of your car to within about five feet. It has an amazing knowledge of the local streets in the Bay Area. It’s also comforting to know that if you day dream a little while driving (who doesn’t), it will remind you of when to turn. One time I made a mistake and turned when I should not have. In less than 20 seconds she said, ‘Make a U turn!” ☞ And speaking of Hondas, you don’t have to buy one to enjoy their latest ad. Click here. Rube Goldberg to a factor of 100.
My Woman May 16, 2003March 25, 2012 When I went to get into my new white Volvo, she was already in the car. This was a new experience for me. My first stop was a restaurant in suburban Boston to meet with a donor one of the kindest, most generous men in the world. (Winner, along with folks like Bob Hope, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, of the United Ways Alexis de Tocqueville Award. Flies coach. Chose a nice Italian restaurant in a strip mall next to his dry cleaner.) I told her the address of the restaurant. "Right turn followed by slight left turn," she said in a pleasant voice. But Logan Airport is a mess of barricades, detours and temporary ramps, and I wasn’t sure which right turn she meant. "Continue on current road," she said, as I approached a choice. This took me back to the terminal. "Recalculating route," she said, leaving me to decide between Arrivals or Departures. "Left turn in point four miles, followed by slight left turn," she said. "Left turn." "No, not THERE," she said. "What are you DOING?" she said. I was just following signs for Airport Exit. This was making her completely crazy. "What are you DOING?!!" she moaned one more time before crashing. (She crashed, not me, although in my Volvo, I would surely have been safe.) Eventually I reached a known stretch of road where, after rebooting, she got her bearings and directed me safely to my strip mall. You have arrived, she said, with maybe I was imagining this, but I felt I detected a tone that implied, and good riddance. Wait in the car, I said, as I went in to dinner. I dont know whether it was the good company that warmed me up to her when I returned, or her determined professionalism that took the exasperation out of her voice, but somehow we began to get along. I played some classical music for her and she guided me from the strip mall to the Concord, New Hampshire, Courtyard By Marriott, where I would be addressing 200 JumpStart high school teachers the next morning. She got me there without a flaw. I left her in the car anyway you know how I am and didnt come back until lunch the next day, after my speech. On to a little town just past Dartmouth for another donor dinner, then back to the Hertz Car Return at Logan, again without a flaw. I am sold on this woman. The Volvo was too big and too white, but this woman? Despite our rocky start, Ill never again leave home without her. Thanks, babe !