Washington Post:

Even with risks, the cloud offers advantages for small businesses

By Erik Larson, Published: January 27

Just about every small business owner, and anyone else for that matter, has been hearing a lot about “the cloud” lately.

Internet behemoths like Google, Apple and Amazon are fighting it out for cloud superiority, as are other giant tech companies like Oracle and Microsoft. While the concept of delivering applications over the Internet is simple, it is revolutionizing the way hardware and software are sold.

Take computer backup, for example.  The old way of backing up computers was to purchase an external hard drive and a software program, install the software, physically connect your computer to the hardware, then run the software program.  If you had a laptop, you needed to make sure you continued to connect your computer to the external drive. And if you were traveling, the only way to keep your backup current was to haul the drive along with you.

With cloud backup, you don’t purchase any hardware or software.  Instead, you subscribe to a backup service over the Internet, download a lightweight app, and your computer data is securely backed up over the Internet to a server which is safely and securely housed at the backup provider’s data center.  The backup runs in the background and the only thing you need to connect to your computer is the Internet, which we’re pretty sure you’re doing already.

Backup is just one service moving to the cloud.  Everything from accounting software to fax service to phone service is now available over the Internet. All of these new cloud services have a few common advantages over their traditional counterparts of which small business owners should take note:

● Simple set up: With cloud services, there’s usually no hardware to buy and install and if any software is needed (often it’s not), it’s just a quick and easy download.

● Lower cost: With no hardware to buy and maintain, it only makes sense that cloud services cost less than doing it the old-fashioned way.  And technologies like online meeting services can allow you to deliver presentations remotely, saving a bundle on travel costs.

● Ease of access: Since cloud services are delivered over the Internet, they’re also available anywhere you have an Internet connection.  Waiting for a crucial fax but out of the office? No problem — the fax can be forwarded to your e-mail as an attachment.

While the advantages of moving to the cloud are many, there are some downsides.  You’re at the mercy of the vendor to keep the service up and running.  And while your internal network and your own computer are also vulnerable to hackers, so are cloud services, although they’re probably better at protecting data than you are.

Still, for most small business owners, the savings in time and cost that cloud services offer will be worth it.  If you’re thinking about buying a new piece of software, hardware or a telecom service like phone or fax, do a search to see if there is a “cloud” or Internet version that might do the trick.

Erik Larson is founder and president of NextAdvisor.com, a San Francisco-based consumer and small business information Web site that provides reviews and comparisons of cloud services.

WASHINGTON — President Obama pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America’s rich and the rest of the public, trying to present an election-year choice between continued leadership toward an economy “built to last” and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused an economic collapse.

Declaring that “we’ve come too far to turn back now,” the president used his final State of the Union address before he faces the voters to showcase the extent to which he will try to contrast his core economic principles with those of his Republican rivals in a time of deep economic uncertainty. While many Americans remain disappointed with the state of the economy and the president’s handling of it, Mr. Obama nonetheless tried to bring into relief the difference between where the country was when he took over and where it is now.

“The state of our union is getting stronger,” he declared in time-honored tradition. “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” He pointed to renewed hiring by American manufacturers and — borrowing the “built to last” phrase from the auto industry he helped save — he sketched out, albeit vaguely, what he called a blueprint for economic growth in which the wealthy play by the same rules as ordinary Americans.

Republicans challenged Mr. Obama’s assessment of the economy, and asserted that his policies had made the situation worse. But with their own poll numbers diving, Congressional Republicans were subdued in their response to the speech, careful not to boo or seem disrespectful. And the president disputed their claim that he was practicing the politics of division.

“You can call this class warfare all you want,” Mr. Obama said of his call to create a more even economic playing field. “Most Americans would call that common sense.” He characterized the choice as one between whether “a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by” or his own vision — “where everyone gets a fair shot.”

In returning to his 2008 campaign motif of these being “not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values,” Mr. Obama presented a somewhat modest list of initiatives he could enact through executive authority coupled with more ambitious proposals unlikely to advance in Congress. It was an address meant to show a president still interested in governing and a leader putting the interests of the American middle class at the top of his agenda.

Many of his proposals centered on changes to the tax code, including limiting deductions for companies that move jobs overseas, rewarding companies that return jobs to the United States and increasing taxes on wealthy Americans.

Taking aim at financial institutions that engaged in risky lending practices that many believe tipped the country into financial crisis, Mr. Obama said he was asking Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and state attorneys general to expand investigations into abusive lending. The new unit, he said, “will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.”

Mr. Obama also proposed a new trade enforcement unit that would add to the number of government investigators pursuing unfair trade practices and that would be responsible for filing lawsuits against foreign countries, namely China. He called for new legislation to make it easier for Americans to refinance their homes if their interest rates are above market rates. And he proposed a bound-to-be-contentious way to allocate any savings from ending the war in Iraq and winding down the war in Afghanistan: by using half of the war savings on infrastructure projects and the other half to reduce the deficit.

“We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits,” Mr. Obama said. Though his advisers have vowed a campaign against Congress, he expressed a willingness to “work with anyone in this chamber” and said he would “oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”

In an emotional moment, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was wounded in the Tucson shooting last year, returned for the speech before her imminent resignation from the House to concentrate on her recovery. Although the president is often criticized for his aloofness, he embraced Ms. Giffords for a long 10 seconds, rocking and almost seeming to be dancing with her.

Mr. Obama again proposed changes to the tax code so the wealthy pay more, a position he has indicated he will continue to press in this election year against Republican opposition. He called for Congress to put into place his “Buffett Rule” — named after the Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren E. Buffett — whereby people making more than $1 million a year would pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent in income taxes.

To illustrate his point, he provocatively used Mr. Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, as one of his props, seating Ms. Bosanek — whose effective tax rate is higher than Mr. Buffett’s, he has said — in the chamber with the first lady, Michelle Obama.

Mr. Obama’s income tax proposal on Tuesday night was particularly charged, coming as it did less than 24 hours after Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, released tax returns showing that he and his wife, Ann, had an effective federal income tax rate in 2010 of 13.9 percent and an income ranking among the top one-10th of 1 percent of all taxpayers in 2010.

Mr. Obama would like the new tax to replace the alternative minimum tax, which was created decades ago to make sure that the richest taxpayers with plentiful deductions and credits did not avoid income taxes, but which now affects millions of Americans who are considered upper middle class.

An upbeat Mr. Obama delivered his remarks standing in the chamber of the House of Representatives, an arena ruled by his political adversaries, given the Republican majority that the president and fellow Democrats have criticized as blocking much of the White House agenda.

But in the official Republican response to the address, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana said it had been Congressional Republicans who had acted to improve the economy, only to be thwarted by the president.

“The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crisis that continue in America tonight,” Mr. Daniels said. “But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”

While he was addressing Congress and assembled dignitaries, Mr. Obama was trying to reach the far greater national television audience of American voters, and his speech, while deep in policy initiatives, served in many ways as a prime-time kickoff of his re-election campaign.

In fact, most of the first lady’s guests on Tuesday night came from states that figure heavily in Mr. Obama’s re-election plans. Included were North Carolina, from where Mr. Obama selected both a worker and an employer, to demonstrate the benefits of public-private partnerships, and Florida, from where he chose a homeowner who was able to keep her house thanks to Mr. Obama’s housing refinance program.

Mr. Obama said a major part of his agenda would be the expansion of domestic energy supplies, both from traditional fuels like oil and natural gas and from cleaner sources like wind and the sun. He singled out the rapid growth of domestic natural gas production through the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which the government says has unlocked a 100-year supply that now makes the United States the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

Reflecting the heavy emphasis on the economy in an election year, the president’s speech was relatively short on national security, where most political observers and indeed his own aides believe his performance has been much stronger than on the economy. In fact, Mr. Obama ended his speech with the American assault last year that finally, after 10 years, killed Osama bin Laden, and talked of that fateful day last May when he monitored the attack from the White House.

He called on the country to emulate the unity of the Navy Seal team that conducted the raid. “When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you,” the president said, “or the mission fails.”

ABC News’ Amy Walter and Michael Falcone report:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — On Thursday night Mitt Romney finally looked like a candidate who wants to win this election. On the debate stage Romney was confident and focused. More important, he was aggressive and disciplined, and never allowed his chief rival, Newt Gingrich, to get the upper hand.

The difference between the Romney who showed up tonight vs. the one who was on stage in South Carolina last week was night and day.

Several of Romney’s answers were as knife-sharp as we’ve seen at any debate during the primary season, particularly his laundry list of projects, including the lunar colony that Gingrich has proposed in the first few early nominating states.

“In South Carolina, it was a new interstate highway, and dredging the port in Charleston. In New Hampshire, it was burying a power line coming in from Canada and building a new VHA hospital in New Hampshire so that people don’t have to go to Boston,” Romney said. “This idea of going state to state and promising what people want to hear, promising billions, hundreds of billions of dollars to make people happy, that’s what got us into the trouble we’re in now.”

“A big idea,” Romney concluded, is not always “a good idea.”

That’s not to say that Romney’s performance at the debate hosted by CNN, the Florida Republican Party and the Hispanic Leadership Network wasn’t without fault. When asked to own up to an ad his campaign is running on the radio that said Gingrich once called Spanish the “language of the ghetto,” Romney said it wasn’t his ad. Only problem: it is. The CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer corrected him publicly a few minutes later.

Romney also repeatedly referred to his “trustee” when asked about his investments, particularly those based offshore.

“I have a trustee that manages my investments in a blind trust. That was so that I would avoid any conflicts of interest,” Romney said.”That trustee indicated last week, when he was asked about this, he said that he wanted to diversify the investments that I had.”

But, it was Newt who fell flat tonight.

With the latest polls suggesting that Gingrich’s momentum in Florida ebbing, Newt needed a strong performance at the final debate before voters cast their ballots next Tuesday. He didn’t have one.

Gingrich’s Achilles heel is his lack of discipline and follow-through. The fired up and aggressive Newt we saw on the campaign trail this week was not on the stage tonight. In his place was a passive and hesitant candidate. Even his attempt at turning the audience against the moderator didn’t work.

“This is a nonsense question,” Gingrich told Blitzer when the moderator asked whether Romney had been transparent enough in releasing his tax returns. “‘He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts,’ I didn’t say that.  You did,” Blitzer said confronting him with his own words. Again, Gingrich wouldn’t bite, and it fell to Romney to attack.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here?” the former Massachusetts governor said referring to his rival.

Rick Santorum was the only candidate to challenge Romney, going after him aggressively on his Massachusetts health care plan.

“What has happened in Massachusetts is that people are now paying the fine because health insurance is so expensive. And you have a pre-existing condition clause in yours, just like Barack Obama,” Santorum said. “So what is happening in Massachusetts, the people that Governor Romney said he wanted to go after, the people that were free-riding, free ridership has gone up five-fold in Massachusetts. Five times the rate it was before.”

Even so, any gain Santorum makes in the polls is likely to come at Gingrich’s expense.

To win Florida, Gingrich needs to build on the momentum he got from his South Carolina win. His debate performance was a momentum killer.

By Karen Tumulty, Published: January 21

Queens Gazette

Salute And Shop At Small Businesses

Our editorial for the Nov. 30, 2011 issue of the Gazette cited American Express’ second annual Small Business Saturday, an effort to encourage shoppers in search of holiday bargains to patronize local stores as well as or instead of joining the hordes thronging big-box retailers. We do not have statistics to demonstrate how many shoppers heeded the call, but we think we can safely postulate that more than one locally owned and operated mom-and-pop enterprise saw an increase in trade in the closing months of last year.

We hope Small Business Saturday did more than increase holiday patronage of local enterprises. Too often, the role local businesses play in the life of the communities they serve can tend to be overlooked. Owners and proprietors of small businesses are the moving forces behind Business Improvement Districts, merchant and business associations and local chambers of commerce. Through these organizations they foster clean streets, holiday lights, tree lightings, Fourth of July festivities and sidewalk sale days. Yes, these activities earn recognition for the enterprises that sponsor them, but they add to a community’s sense of self and civic pride as well.

Many of the families that patronize local small businesses find them valuable adjuncts to their children’s formal education. Kindergartners take the dollar bill an aunt or uncle tucked in a birthday card to the corner store and learn the first of a lifetime’s worth of lessons about getting the most for their money at the candy counter. A few years later, these same children, now adolescents, obtain their first jobs working part-time after school and on weekends at the local delicatessen, fruit-and-vegetable stand or corner drug store. They learn the value of their labor, take pride in their accomplishments and forge a powerful and long lasting connection to the neighborhood they live in. A teen who spends a Saturday morning sweeping the sidewalk in front of the florist shop where he has a weekend job is unlikely to look kindly upon anyone, even any of his contemporaries, who drops a gum wrapper on the pavement. Small businesses give back to their communities by building a trained, educated, and, most important, motivated work force.

That small businesses survive and even thrive in New York City is a testament to the determination and resiliency of the spirit of their proprietors and owners. This city is not an immediately commercial-friendly environment. Small business owners many times must make their way through a convoluted tangle of permits, licensing requirements and bureaucratic mazes to be able to open their doors and keep operating. That many do so in spite of the obstacles is testament to the power of the human spirit and to the esprit de corps such enterprises generate. The civic and business organizations to which the operators of such businesses belong are, as we stated, the backbone of community good and welfare, due in very large part to the drive and determination of the small business owners who make up their ranks.

We salute the owners and operators of the small businesses of all sorts that line the streets of our neighborhoods and make our communities the thriving, viable areas that they are. We call on our readers, most of whom are our neighbors and friends, to continue to patronize these businesses as much as possible. The value of an item sold at a corner store for a few pennies more than at a big-box retailer many times proves to be far greater than its price in dollars and cents alone. Good relationships between business owners and their customers and the additional safety and security provided to a streetscape simply because a business is open and operating add to the worth of an open, thriving business to the neighborhood it serves immeasurably and in more ways than only by dint of the bottom line. During the year which has just begun and for long after, we urge our readers to make use of the goods and services offered by their neighborhood small business owners as much as is humanly possible. By aiding our neighbors in their commercial and business enterprises we add to our property values and the quality of life in our communities as well.

“Full company re-certification means that every department and business aspect of Aviat Networks has been strictly assessed for compliance to both the ISO 9001:2008 and TL 9000 quality standards by Bureau Veritas, resulting in an in-depth review of every category of our operations,” says Scott Graham, director of corporate quality, Aviat Networks. “This is another significant milestone for Aviat Networks and provides solid ongoing evidence–since our original TL certification in 2004–for current and prospective customers that we are a highly qualified provider of telecommunications products, services and solutions. These certifications give a guarantee to our customers that Aviat Networks can deliver on more than 90 telecom-specific business methods and assurances–something a non-TL-certified vendor cannot deliver. An increasing number of customers worldwide now make ISO 9000:2008 and TL 9000 certification requirements for all their suppliers.”

Bureau Veritas Certification North America, Inc.’s awarding of certification for Aviat Networks’ ISO 9001:2008 and TL 9000 compliance demonstrates the effectiveness of the company’s quality management system, ensuring delivery of the high-quality products and support that customers have come to expect. Certification is valid for three years, during which time Aviat Networks will be consistently making additional enhancements as part of its commitment to continuous quality improvement. View Aviat Networks’ certification at http://www.portals.aviatnetworks.com/exLink.asp?11396084OU84X53I74866372 .

For more information, please visit www.aviatnetworks.com or join the dialog at www.twitter.com/aviatnetworks .

About TL 9000 and QuEST ForumIn 1998, QuEST Forum developed the TL 9000 quality management system (QMS) to meet the supply chain quality requirements of the global communications industry. Built on ISO 9001 and the eight quality principles, TL 9000 is designed specifically for the communications industry. The purpose of TL 9000 is to define the unique communications quality system requirements for design, development, production, delivery and service. In addition, it specifies measurements for companies to help evaluate the effectiveness of quality implementation and improvement programs. See http://tl9000.org/index.html for more information.

About Bureau VeritasBureau Veritas is a global leader in conformity assessment and certification services. We are a trusted partner of our clients, offering services and developing innovative solutions to reduce risk, improve performance and promote sustainable development. Read more at www.us.bureauveritas.com/bvc .

About Aviat NetworksAviat Networks, Inc. is a leader in wireless transmission solutions. We apply innovation and IP networking expertise toward building a carrier class foundation for future mobile and fixed broadband networks. With more than 750,000 systems installed around the world, Aviat Networks has built a reputation as a leader in offering best-of-breed solutions including LTE-ready microwave backhaul and a complete portfolio of service and support options to public and private telecommunications operators worldwide. With a global reach and local presence in more than 46 countries, Aviat Networks works by the side of its customers allowing them to quickly and cost effectively seize new market and service opportunities. Aviat Networks, formerly Harris Stratex Networks Inc., is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, and is listed on NASDAQ (AVNW).

SOURCE Aviat Networks, Inc.

By ERICA WERNER

The Associated Press

Published: January 14, 2012 10:04PM
Updated: January 14, 2012 11:53PM

The country’s biggest banks are overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, a Charlotte Observer analysis of federal campaign contributions shows.

Employees at the five largest U.S. banks by assets, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had given Romney about $600,000 through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the most recent filings available from the Federal Election Commission.

The second-largest recipient of bank employee contributions, President Barack Obama, had far less, about $200,000, the Observer analysis showed. The Republican presidential hopeful with the second-highest total, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, dropped out of the race in mid-August.

Romney received more from employees of those top five banks than all the other candidates combined, helping make the former Massachusetts governor the best-financed candidate in the Republican nomination battle, which is heating up in South Carolina ahead of Saturday’s primary.

The contributions are the tip of what observers say will be the most expensive presidential race on record, and the first in which corporations are not limited in what they can spend.

Big banks have long been among the top givers to political campaigns. Part of what’s behind this year’s spending is the debate over regulating the financial sector, which is driving money to Republican candidates for president and Congress.

Charlotte-based Bank of America’s employees and PACs have given more than $1 million to candidates for president and Congress this cycle, according to the latest data from the research group Center for Responsive Politics. That’s half of what peer Goldman Sachs has donated so far.

The commercial banking industry as a whole has donated more than $10 million, the center’s data show. The entire finance, insurance and real estate sector is the top political giver this election cycle, with more than $135 million so far.

“The financial sector at large is continuing to be the largest sector in terms of campaign contributions and trying to influence policy through political money,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director at Public Campaign, an organization that pushes for campaign reform. “Even as the economy is not doing so well, campaign contributions from the banking sector seem to be increasing.”

To be sure, more money could flow to Obama and Democratic congressional candidates once the hard-fought GOP presidential primary is over. But at this point, Republicans have the edge in donations from bankers.

Donations from commercial bank employees and PACs to Republican candidates for president and Congress made up 68 percent of the total so far. Should that pattern continue, it would mark the most skewed to one party the spending has been in more than two decades. For all of the 2008 cycle, bankers gave 52 percent of their money to Republicans.

The donations have occurred amid debate over banking regulations and the implementation – or possible ultimate repeal – of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law passed in summer 2010. Its provisions range from capping the swipe fees banks can charge merchants on debit card transactions to creation of a new regulatory agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Banks also were on pace to spend more than ever before on lobbying to try to weaken or repeal those regulations through the first three quarters of 2011.

“We’ve seen a massive shift from Obama to the Republican candidates on the part of the financial industry,” said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit that advocates for taxpayers and consumers. “Obviously, part of that has to do with a competitive primary. But we’ve definitely seen the financial services industry publicly chastise the president for going after financial reform.”

Romney has vowed to repeal Dodd-Frank, though he has said there are certain parts of it he supports, such as regulating complex financial instruments called derivatives.

It’s not just his policy on regulation that draws bankers to him, observers say. As the former head of Bain Capital, another top financial industry political donor, he comes from their world. Romney says his business acumen is one reason he’s best suited to lead the country.

“Romney really is the candidate of Wall Street,” Donnelly said. “He’s the most comfortable in the board rooms of any of those.”

In Congress, commercial bank employees and PACs have given $5.4 million to Republican candidates, while giving $2.4 million to Democrats, according to the latest data from the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a 69 percent edge to Republicans so far.

“They have really shifted their giving to Republicans more so than in previous cycles,” Donnelly said. “There hasn’t been a huge amount of difference between Republicans and Democrats on financial deregulation in the past. Now there is.”

The influence of deep-pocketed donors is under particular scrutiny this year with the growing influence of super PACs. Those organizations can accept unlimited contributions from corporations or individuals so long as they do not coordinate directly with a candidate.

They were created after the landmark Citizens United case in 2010, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign contributions are political speech protected by the Constitution.

Although corporate contributions to individual candidates are still barred by law and giving from a bank’s traditional PAC is still capped at $5,000 per candidate each election cycle, super PACs offer companies an avenue to influence an election more than ever before.

But companies, banks in particular, have been hesitant to wade in quite yet. Still, many super PACs have yet to disclose their donors.

“I think corporations are somewhat reluctant to give directly to these groups or spend directly for ads themselves,” said Viveca Novak, communications director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “They risk offending the other side. That’s not good PR for the company.”

Wells Fargo policy prohibits contributing company money to candidate committees or independent expenditure organizations, a group that includes super PACs. A spokesman said the company has “affirmed” that policy this year and will not donate to super PACs.

Bank of America’s corporate policy states that the company does make donations to non-candidate organizations in “appropriate circumstances.”

In 2010, Bank of America donated $405,000 to a number of Democratic and Republican legislative, governors and attorneys general associations, including campaign committees.

Bank of America did not respond to inquiries about whether it would contribute to super PACs this year. Observers generally agree that banks are unlikely to pour money into those groups.

“Brand-sensitive companies would be very cautious about their executives or the companies themselves giving in any disclosed manner,” Donnelly said. “They will probably co-host events and raise money from their colleagues, but as far as pouring millions of dollars into outside groups, I don’t know if that will happen.”

But with the stakes so high, some consumer advocates believe the financial services field will take advantage of the unshackling afforded by Citizens United.

“We have no doubt that the industry will wade in significantly once the players are set,” Balber said.

The influence of corporate money has long been decried by consumer advocates, and giving from banks even more so in the wake of the financial meltdown.

The final report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission cited the fact that between 1999 and 2008, the financial sector spent more than $1 billion on campaigns as a factor.

“What troubled us was the extent to which the nation was deprived of the necessary strength and independence of the oversight necessary to safeguard financial stability,” the report reads.

Some shareholders, too, question the practice because of its riskiness.

Yes, a company might make the regulatory landscape more appealing, but it could also become the target of boycotts and outcry, as Target Corp. did in 2010 when it gave to a political organization that contributed to a gubernatorial candidate who opposed same-sex marriage.

“The reputational risk and potential gain are disproportionate to the amount of money that is spent,” said Jon Lukomnik, executive director of the IRRC Institute, which advocates for shareholders. “It is what I’d call high impact, high risk spending.”

Lukomnik said there might ultimately be backlash among company executives that leads to diminished political giving.

But don’t count on it this year, he said.