~synthesis~

Is Obama Cheney’s Puppet?

You’re thinking, “That Shafeen’s really gone over the edge. He thinks Cheney is evil incarnate, and he admitted to voting for Obama in 2012.”

Listen to Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC speech, and you can't help but conclude, “This man is the anti-Republican.” He certainly campaigned that way in 2008 and 2012. But actions speak louder than words, and President Obama’s actions belie his rhetoric.

When I think of Little Dick (Nixon was clearly “Big Dick”), I think of a secretive, war-mongering, manipulative person.

President Obama:

Transparency: He promised to be the most transparent President ever.

• This White House has classified more documents as Secret or above than all others. It has used the Espionage Act to not just protect our national security, but to prevent embarrassment.
• Reporters consider this to be the least open presidency in the last 40 years. (And that’s because no-one who covers the White House is old enough to go back further.)
• No White House since Nixon has more aggressively prosecuted leaks than this one. Does he have more to hide than Big Dick?

Peace: When he was elected in 2008, the rest of the world rejoiced in possibility of a less self-centered, less unilateral, more humane partner. He was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in anticipation of future actions.

It would be hard to find a bigger advocate of the Bush Doctrine (really the Cheney Doctrine) than President Obama. From his first actions in 2008 (dramatically increase US military presence in Afghanistan), to his lack of action on Guantanamo, to his passion for drone strikes, to his flaunting of the 5th and 14th Amendments (due process), to his persistence in the War on Drugs (Fast and Furious), our President has lived the “do it to them before they do it to us” policy (Cheney Doctrine).

Domestically, President Obama was given an “F” by the Brady Campaign on gun control in 2010. While the rhetoric improved some in the wake of Sandy Hook, outcomes have not.

Genuine: Listening to his speeches (especially during the 2008 campaign), it was hard to imagine someone more genuinely committed to being genuine. I know people who basically worshiped at their Shepard Fairey altars. Their man Barak was going to lead the world to peace and humanity.

But he hasn’t. He has distanced America from world leaders (and citizens) by spying on them; a ripple effect of which will cause American businesses to lose as much as $35 Billion in global revenue by 2016.

Even the President’s signature Affordable Care Act is premised on a Republican model, and his change in stance on gay marriage was forced by circumstances vs. a real belief in the issue.

Little Dick would be proud...

I have often railed against MBAs, accusing them of being the curse of American business success, forsaking macro-success in favor of their own macro-successes. I have similarly accused CEOs that rely on their PR department to craft business strategy based on what will “play best” as being just plain stupid.

If Obama is our Macbeth, then his advisors are our Lady Macbeth. They have subverted his intent, and acted without scruples. It would not surprise me if many of his “people” are MBA/PR wonks, but it does disappoint me. 

When you put expediency before integrity and spin before accountability, there is no high ground. If you look at its work product, this Democrat White House is disarmingly Republican.

americanada

My good friend Brian Singh from Calgary published this in the Globe & Mail today. It is an excellent analysis of the Conservative Party’s strategy for ascendancy, and ongoing domination of the Canadian government.

There are clear parallels between Ottawa and Washington DC. And there are lessons to be learned about effective, sustainable governance.

Canada: Conservatives rise in the wake of (despite?) years of a strong and successful Liberal leadership, which presided over budget surplus (yes, surplus!) after surplus.

US: Republicans come to the fore in 2002/3 via Karl Rove despite the economic strength of the Clinton/Democratic leadership.

How did they do it? Brian nails it with his 8 Lessons. And with his indulgence, let me add my two cents.

By definition, underdogs are smaller, hungrier, and have less to lose. They have two paths to follow - leaderless/vacuous self-pitying petulance (the road to under-underdoggery), or disciplined, pertinent leadership. Examples of the former include the anti-gun and anti-immigration advocates, whose arguments are specious and whose policies will never improve things.

Then look at how Karl Rove transformed the Republican party into a consistent, relevant, and singular force of political might. He corralled people; narrowed their focus to a handful of clear, simple issues; and created a new truth (Republicans = economic strength and success). All of which led to a close race in Bush vs. Gore, and then a decisive win vs. Kerry.

The Democrats (and the Liberals in Canada) lost their mojo because their sustained success created too many wanna-be kings, excessive infighting, and through this, a fractionalized party whose leaders spent more time trying to one-up each other vs focusing on their Conservative opponents. (Similar also to the last Republican Primary.)

Like the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals (with the right leadership) were able to coalesce and form effective and long-lived governments. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are examples of leaders who were able to achieve critical mass.

Will Justin Trudeau be able to do the same for the Liberals in the years to come? Will Hillary Clinton (?) be able to keep Democrats in the White House in 2016?

I defer to Brian on the first question.

South of the 49th Parallel, the Republican party is in the midst of a 3-way tug-of-war. Traditional fiscal conservatives vs. the religious right vs. the Tea Party. Each seems to “control” about 1/3 of the Republican representatives in Congress, and certainly each believes they are the only hope for victory in 2016.

Try as they might, they’ve not been able to win (or even unite) under a traditional fiscal conservative (McCain, Romney), in fact, they’ve been spanked both times, and from what we’ve seen of the Primary candidate pool, they may be in line for another spanking.

Successful gerrymandering combined with trumped up voter fraud-prevention tactics will almost certainly assure them of a majority in the House, but to what end? There is no emergent House Republican winner or leader; worse, they can only agree on one thing - voting against Democrats. Other than that, they are consistently an inconsequential, and sometimes destructive (last debt ceiling fiasco) Congress.

Like the Liberals in Canada, the Republicans are mired in pettiness and infighting - they lack a consistent vision and are unable to believe in their leadership. Unlike the Liberals (who are now the third party behind the NDP), their success in Congress means they don’t believe they are underdogs. If it ain’t broke...

The Democrats on the other hand have an anti-1% and anti-gun fetish that will doom them. Say what you will about the 1%, they got there by fulfilling the American Dream. Persistently vilifying them is not only moronic, it is destructive and hypocritical. It is equally naive to believe that laws will stop people bent on committing unlawful acts. There are over 300 million privately owned guns in America - background checks are not going to stop gun violence.

Bizarrely, I would advise either party to listen to Sarah Palin’s speech at the CPAC 2013. She crystalized the issues beautifully in terms of what it will take to win votes. Avoid politics, stop blaming other people, just focus on the wellbeing of the lower and middle classes - fight for them, and not against your opponent or within your party.

The Republicans should get over ObamaCare, recognize that eliminating entitlements is not realistic, and see that shrinking government creates unemployment, which further drags the economy. That is not to say we should inflate government, but rather to say that we should spend more efficiently. If they were really smart (and hungry), they’d stop the “we oppose everything Democrats support” line, and become reasoned, compromising people intent on public service. Imagine the change in how independents and liberals would regard them.

The Dems should get over hating rich people, realize that entitlements are not sacrosanct, and stop being so sanctimonious. If they were really smart, they would focus solely on, and trumpet job growth and economic growth. This would especially be effective if Hilary Clinton were to win the primary, as she could “take credit” for the economic positives in both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama’s presidencies.

In the end, I feel more optimistic about Canadian politics and government, where with the right leader, a Party can make a difference. Here in America, it seems that we are doomed to a House, Senate, and White House that will prioritize one-upmanship over governing.

To paraphrase Brian's 8th lesson - winning is easier if your opponent is dumber than you.

stimulating peace

America is a generous country - from 1946-2010 (in 2010 $), she has given just under $2.1 trillion in foreign program and military aid. Impressive, and well... it makes me proud to be an American.

Over this period, the #1 beneficiary of American largesse is Israel ($185 billion or 8.9% of all aid).

Israel receives American aid with good reason - they are the longest-standing democracy in the Middle East, and they have the most effective lobbyists in the world. The value proposition is the preservation of Israel in the face of their anti-Zionist neighbors.

I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and except for the (very) rare zealot, the people I’ve met care little about the Jew/Muslim issue - their focus is their family (health, economic, social wellbeing). This is because the people I knew were gainfully employed and had something besides zealotry to live for.

Are there freaks on both sides that are filled with hate? Of course, but not as many as we might think. Do some of them wish to create armies with which to wreak violence? Yes - on both sides. The media’s relentless and gawky focus on the ugly side of humanity is why we think they represent the majority.

America also has it’s share of hate-filled people, but it’s not so easy to achieve critical mass here - most Americans have too many other things to live for/distract them. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement petered out because people soon had better things to do than sit in tents and be irritating.

In 2010, America gave Israel $2.8 billion ($386/person or 1.3% of Israeli GDP) in aid. The West Bank/Gaza received $693 million - $4/person or 10% of GDP. Israel’s GDP/capita is ten times that of their poorer neighbors; the average income in Israel is just over $30,000/year vs. just under $2,000/year in the West Bank.

Is it any wonder that it’s easy to recruit Arab “soldiers” - they literally have nothing better to do, and very sadly, nothing to live for but dying. Having just $5.50/day will lead anyone, however civilized or educated, to desperate acts. It’s not hard to see how a Palestinian parent might join a terrorist organization, or “volunteer” a child to the “cause” - it’s the only available way to feed their family - they’re that poor.

Has the $185 billion in American aid done anything to create a (self-) sustainably peaceful Israel? No. Should we stop? No. Should we continue doing the same thing? No. So...?

Our goal is the long-term preservation of Israel; we should then stop funding their ability to kill Arabs (majority of US aid to Israel is military), and instead help Israel by enabling the Arabs' economic viability.

Employment is the offspring of the marriage of demand with capacity. If America were to proffer large tranches of demand (we will buy $X millions of products Y1, Y2, etc. for the next Z years) to the Palestinians, the result would be widespread employment in Gaza and the West Bank. We would phase out our investment as they became self-sustaining.

This would profoundly change the dynamic in the region. If you had two ways to feed your family - send your daughter to her suicide-bomber-death, or work at a job, which would you choose?

If the majority of Palestinian families are earning enough money to cover shelter, food, education, healthcare, etc., and if they are then earning just a bit more so as to buy that new iPad Mini or a TV, I guarantee you they will not reelect Hamas. They will choose a commerce-minded government bent on improving their economic situation even more. Israel won’t matter except as a trading partner; they’ll be too busy playing Angry Birds, watching Desperate Housewives, and thinking about what they’ll buy with their next bonus.

Now think of how much more stable and peaceful Israel would be. The best way to end war is to give people something more valuable to live for.

America should never weaponize other countries. Peace through prosperity should be our foreign policy motto.

bloodied introspection

Why work hard to be "united" when "divided" is so much easier?

I wrote several months ago that the personal nature of the rift between the Middle/Southern (MS) states vs. the Northeast/Northwest (NEW) states has put America on a path to divorce - the differences are simply irreconcilable. That was in the midst of the Republican Primary. Have things changed since? Did the election resolve or reconcile anything?

No. America has never faced its mortality, and thus never grasped or faced the question of what it really stands for, what is at the core of being American. Without this, there is nothing with which to trump the red/blue emotional antipathy I referenced in that blog, and without which, I don't think America can be one nation.

I joined Microsoft in 1994, during its "cool" zenith (Windows 95): success was everywhere, the stock was rising, the world was happy. Then came the DOJ. Being a convicted monopolist put the company back on its heels. We became timid, cautious, and for a long while, without mojo. They are a different company today, Windows and Office are still the flagships, but now Servers, Xboxes, etc. are legitimate multi-$billion businesses unto themselves. Tablets and Phones are new, but the company is patient and tenacious and will keep trying.

Their size and diversity has put them in a position of potential success in a number of high-margin businesses. Each of their battles (DOJ, browser wars, open source, search, Apple, etc.) caused them to question who they are, what they are, and either re-up or abandon the idea that Microsoft could exist and thrive as a "new" entrant in non-PC markets. They have faced breakups, severe loss of cool, being viewed as insignificant, and yet, the profits keep coming in.

Look also at Germany through the 20^th century -- decimated in WWI, they rose from the ashes, became an industrial powerhouse in the hands of one man. Vanquished again in WWII, they were split in half and became servants of their Eastern and Western masters. Two generations on, Germany reasserted her independence and united as one nation with a clear identity that is informed by its past, understands its potential, and has the maturity to be a world leader. It is now a global powerhouse whose citizens enjoy a comprehensive social and economic foundation.

While the WWII/Holocaust generation is waning, that Germany's behavior still colors their thought process. Rather than diminish, it has strengthened their resolve to strive for success, but with a conscience. Over the years, they looked inward, explored what it really meant to be German, evaluated their past, understood the essence of who they were, and then emerged as the culture they are.

The desire to remain whole; diversify with a long-term view; and embrace conflict and introspection does pay off. If I were picking a long-term tech investment, or betting on a country's preeminence over time, I'd buy Microsoft or pick Germany -- they've been bloodied, faced their own good and bad, and shown that they can get back on the horse, and progress.

America is divisive and divided today because she has never been bloodied; the act of being American has never been questioned. 9-11 was a blip - there is no lasting effect. Support for the military and first responders at sporting events while touching, has not prevented budget cuts and reductions in force. America and Americans have never been sufficiently challenged or provoked to true introspection. The country remains successful, but also petulant, naive, and immature on the world stage.

Today Democrats hate Republicans for their passion for god and guns, and disdain for science. Republicans hate Democrats for their passion for socialistic services, secularism, and belief in science. If America is to be a beacon for pluralism and freedom, then it must experience the worst that can be thrown its way, and yet stay true to these ideals.

This isn't about any one issue, it is about never having questioned your fundamental identity, never having faced legitimate threats to your existence, and never having risen from such challenges as one.

America was most "American" when it faced the very real threat of identity and existence from the Soviet Union and Communism. It gave the country a higher purpose than childish partisan bickering - and while that threat was credible and imminent, the country was more together than apart. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the bickering returned, and as the threat to America diminished, so did our desire to put America above partisanship. It seems the experience of falling and then rising from the ashes is required to created sustained oneness.

Visit Fukushima, Japan, and then New Orleans, Louisiana and ask yourself which cataclysm happened seven years ago, and which one happened two years ago? Ask yourself which country is more persistent, more resilient, and more unified?

Despite their absurd and moronic efforts, our politicians can not make China another USSR - our economic interdependence and China's passion for capitalism are just two reasons.

Is it possible to become one without having to rise from the ashes? Can American ingenuity and "exceptionalism" extend this far? If the post election machinations of the White House and Congress are any indication, then no.

If America is to live, it must first die a little bit.

fatal dependencies = political failure

Marketing exists to grease the skids between the product and the buyer. There are many ways to do this, but in the end it boils down to creating actionable preference.

Because marketing is so visible and so expensive, it is easy to assume a good marketing campaign trumps the product, business process, or customer. We often see senior business executives more enamored with marketing at the expense of the other two. This generally leads to bad outcomes - in business or in politics.

Now politics is perception so marketing (and polling) do play a role. But relying on them exclusively can bite you, as Hilary Clinton learned during the 2007 primaries, despite being a pretty good product.

What can also bite you is believing that midterm (local) wins can translate to national elections. In 2010, the Republicans won simply by opposing President Obama. Their message, “We’ll stop ObamaCare, kill terrorists, hate anything a Democrat does, and lower taxes.”

The product/candidate didn’t matter as long as it could parrot the party line. Win first and worry about governing later, if ever.

Just months later, the Republican Primary candidates went back to the well: vilify the incumbent and make impossible, sound-byte promises that resonate with the base. All talk (spin) no substance (product).

It is hardly surprising that the shallowest candidate won.

But the Presidency is a different ballgame. The electoral college and broad-based support matter more than any one Congressional district. The dynamic is more complex, the scrutiny is greater, and your opponent is no longer a less competent and (even) more buffoon-like version of you.

Now the product matters as much if not more than the marketing. It must meet the needs of a much broader set of customers, it must be real, and it must convince skeptics. A shallow (and hollow) message won’t cut it.

Governor Romney lost because he assumed marketing would take him all the way. He let winning the primary go to his head, did not realize how different the new game was, and how much harder it is to convince undecided voters. He also assumed he and his plans were now fully-vetted and approved by all voters - no analysis or clarity required. “I’m bona fide!” And finally, he believed that the people attending his rallies represented all voters, that what swayed them would sway every voter he needed for the win, and that their fervency reflected their intent to turn out and vote.

The reason your base is called your base is because they love you and your platform, and hate your opponent. The relationship is irrational. Independents are less driven by emotion - they’re trying to make a reasoned choice based on factors matter to them.

The Romney camp didn’t grasp this - they reckoned that mere promises were enough to carry the day. They avoided specifics because they didn’t want to open cans of worms. Non-fanatics saw through it; they wanted:

• Specific, independently verified plans showing how 12 million jobs would be created.
• Proof that you can lower taxes, grow defense, not raise more money, lower the deficit, and allow everyone to take home more money.
• To know why he hated Latinos (and women?) so much.
• To learn Romney’s strategy to work with the Tea Party (something the Republican Speaker failed at), and a Democrat Senate.

These questions (and others) required more than vapid sound bytes, more than “trust me because I saved the Olympics.” The marketing wasn’t holding water.

But this wasn’t their only problem - remember the three elements in the equation - product, marketing, customer. They forgot that the only thing that counts in the end is a person showing up and voting (customer). They assumed that their voters would turn out, but did nothing to assure it. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The President, invested early and extensively at the local level. He was able to overcome a number of setbacks (negative ad campaign, poor debate performance, weak economy, etc.) with his “ground game.” He avoided outlandish promises (12 million new jobs, lowering the deficit without raising taxes, etc.), and his local machine created relationships and helped people come out and vote.

In the wake of the election, the "evolved" Republican strategy for 2016 appears to be:

1. Romney was too liberal - the next candidate needs to have unimpeachable conservative credentials (small government, lower taxes, bigger defense, loves God).
2. Win the Latino and female vote - support amnesty and trumpet Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez, to demonstrate Latino/female kinship.
3. Continue to deny inconvenient facts - the 2010 Republican House was the least functional ever; climate change does exist; lower taxes don’t magically create jobs; there is no fraud - voter id laws are designed to prevent Dems from voting; gay people families are just as normal as straight families. “Hey - let’s not change things too much, after all - there’s nothing wrong with the real us, the problem was Romney.”

#1 & #3 make sense. Republicans have a better chance of wining when they stay true to their roots. There is goodness in authenticity, misguided though it may be.

#2 - well... Latinos and women (and any other “target audience”) are not idiots - they can see through the lip service. If the Republicans truly wish to win over these constituencies, they will have to get over the idea that a marketing/spin campaign is all that’s needed.

Exit polls from the election showed that Americans are:

• 25% Liberal ~ 40% Moderate ~ 35% Conservative
• 39% Democrat ~ 33% Republican ~ 28% Independent

Neither party wins without the moderate/independent vote. This vote is by definition not emotionally attached to a party, and thus makes decisions by observing behavior, reviewing facts, and evaluating policies and plans.

Marketing alone can not convince them. The winning candidate will understand that you also have to show the substance of your product, and you have to directly and genuinely engage your customer.

I am a moderate/independent who will never affiliate with a party. I wanted to vote for Romney - on paper, he seemed the better candidate. BUT in reality, he lacked substance, disdained the voters, and exhibited a shocking lack of integrity. I changed my mind because all I saw was an empty suit whose only interest was self-interest.

To win, Republicans have to get past their Eric Cantorness and focus on the electorate - spin won't win.

debating integrity

In a few short hours, one wasteful, unscrupulous, liar will be chosen to serve as the most powerful man on earth.

This man will have won this right by wasting more than a billion dollars advertising to witless voters; by further polarizing the people against his opponent/party; and by lying.

The level of causticity that permeates politics in America has dangerous side effects:

1. Bifurcation of the populace. Most Americans are so indoctrinated (brain washed?) by this that they not only have an abject hatred for whichever party they oppose, but they also hate their fellow Americans that support that party!
2. America the global laughing stock. As a recent American, and perhaps still an outsider, I can say with certainty that the best impression American politics leaves in foreigners’ minds is bemusement; the typical impression is disdain.
3. Governing is impossible. The Tea Party REQUIRES their candidates to pledge to never compromise with either the Democrats or “unenlightened” Republicans!?!?

We can’t let this continue.

I propose that six days before the next presidential election, the candidates are required to participate in the following debate:

Details:

1. Each party will select three ads authored by their opponent’s campaign, and one ad authored by an outside agency (PAC or Super PAC) and submit them to the moderator six (6) hours prior to the debate.
2. Logistics:
   1. Duration: 90 minutes
   2. Setting: opponents sit across from each other at a table arranged so that one camera can show both faces.
   3. Audience: 300 people - evenly split Republican, Democrat, Independent; each will have a device with which to choose between “Righteous” and “Sleaze Bag.”
   4. Structure: 
      1. eight 10-minute segments for the eight ads.
      2. closing segment with one minute each to "explain."
      3. remaining minutes used at the discretion of the moderator.
3. Approach - a coin toss will choose the first speaker.
   1. Candidate A is given a transcript of one of his ads and required to read it aloud while facing his opponent (one minute).
   2. Candidate A will then have one minute to explain the ad.
   3. Candidate B will have two minutes to rebut.
   4. The Candidates will argue for six minutes (fact-checked by the moderator).
   5. The audience will assess (see 2.3 above) Candidate A, with the results appearing in real time for all to see (including the Candidates).
   6. Repeat for each ad. The Moderator will decide the order of the ads.
   7. Close - each candidate will have one minute to explain themselves.
4. Optionally:
   1. Viewers at home can also add their votes via text, mobile app, or the internet.
   2. Candidates’ seats are metal with electrodes through which voltage corresponding to the level of “Sleaze Bag” as judged by the audience is applied after each segment.

Some might think 4.2 is going too far...

Because the opposing Candidate is selecting the ads, they will be very prepared for the rebuttal. While the choice of ads will be a surprise, the Candidate should know their own ads, after all they approved them. The moderator will have fact-checked the ads and confront any lies.

Impact:

1. The voters will be able to judge the Candidates’ integrity.
2. The Candidates will publicly confront and defend their own lies as, as well as one "independent” lie.

There is no way (given today’s laws) to prevent political “free” speech. But by confronting their own ads in this way, we at least turn them from three-year-olds to twelve-year-olds.

healthy wallets, healthy bodies, healthier US?

Why are healthcare costs around the world rising so dramatically? The costs of innovation, lawsuits, and an aging population are among the “claimed” reasons. Of course they have an effect, but are they the only reason?

If you have an expense account or your parents’ credit card, your “generosity” with their money is much greater than with your own money. You’ll buy more expensive things and be more careless with them - after all - you aren't paying for it.

Health insurance = other people’s money.

If it's your own hard-earned money, you’re more likely to think before you spend; put more effort into preventing expenditures (live healthily), be diligent with your medicines, etc.

American health care was regulated [fascinating read] in the early 1900s; it resulted in better hospitals, but initially very few licensed physicians; this scarcity increased costs, and health insurance was created to ensure that patients could pay their bills. Insurance became pervasive through the 1960-‘70s, and when Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, we were off to the races. By distancing the cost from the consumer, people progressively became more cavalier.

The very existence of health insurance assures excess.

Any issue/injury/ailment/ingrown toenail is worthy of a doctor/hospital visit. We aren’t paying so what the hell! As coverage became based on procedures, doctors "found themselves" doing more tests, but since we aren’t paying, test away!

Costs escalated, insurance companies panicked. Rates increased, employers panicked. Lobbying increased, politicians panicked. Laws were written, and now citizens are panicked.

But then the economy began to slow, unemployment rose, and more people were without coverage.

This increased the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP), which allow individuals (and employers) to set aside before-tax monies in a savings account for routine medical care, and purchase lower premium disaster coverage with high deductibles as a backstop.

Now it's your money, from your account, and you're more careful. The effect? Health care spending growth slowed!

We not only think twice about going to the hospital, we even pay more attention to diet and behavior to keep our costs down. Doctors, knowing it’s the patient’s money, are ordering less tests and expensive or frivolous extras. When GE implemented an HDHP-type plan for its employees, there was a noticeable decline in the use of their own expensive imaging (MRI, CT) products! Not good for GE, but absolutely indicative of better overall behavior. :-)

If you’ve read this blog for a while, you know I’m a proponent of universal health care. But it is subject to abuse and mismanagement. I believe all Americans should have healthcare, but let's learn from previous mistakes. Our implementation should be universal, prioritize patient health, and save money by mandating a minimum of HSA/HDHP for everyone:

• Government pays HSA + HDHP for those earning up to 1.5 times the poverty level.
• Government pays HSA only for those earning up to 2.5 times the poverty level.
• All government employees (including ALL elected officials) receive HSA + HDHP.
• All others are self/employer insured.
• All insurance providers must offer HDHP for anyone without descrimination.
• HSA is tax-free/pre-tax; any unspent $ can roll into an IRA or next year’s HSA. 
• This supplants Medicare/Medicaid and any prescription drug benefits.
• High school graduates qualify for lower rates, as do those with a post-high school certification (see below).

Potential upside:

• Doctors say they can’t assure health because patients don’t take care of themselves or take their medicines properly. This doesn’t solve that, but people might pay more attention if it’s their money, and spend a little today (preventative) to avoid spending a lot tomorrow.
• Less excess = lower costs.
• More self-care = healthier people.
• Direct payment by the patient via HSA (debit card) reduces administrative costs.
• The elimination of Medicare/Medicaid in favor of subsidized HSA/HDHP for those that need it most.

Education mandate - it seems obvious that the more educated you are, the healthier your are, and the longer you live. Now there’s data. So why not tie universal health care to universal education? It only makes sense.

Health insurance costs in the developed world are rising much faster than GDP, and the US is in the worst shape. This approach blends universal access with the very American idea that that we should all have a vested stake.

If we see success (lower costs, improved well being) with this approach, maybe we should also try it for public education?

America is a unique country - it's approach to social services (health, education, etc.) should also be unique.

life choice

Politics in America is polarized and infantile; governing in America is even worse. Governing should be about the whole country; it should prioritize the well-being of all citizens now and in the future. It does neither. Short of a revolution, there doesn’t seem to be a way to change this dynamic. Or is there?

What if we put the most fracturing issue of our time on the table? If both sides can find common ground on this, their most polarizing issue, might that open the door to further compromise?

If the first presidential debate did anything, it showed that one event (in a campaign that began more than 18 months ago) + the right conversation + the right audience + the right visibility can markedly alter the election dynamic.

Maybe a similar approach can be used to alter the governing dynamic.

Abortion - more than taxes or socialism, abortion is the litmus test in American politics. It is the pivotal question when choosing Supreme Court Justices; it plays a role in our choice of political candidates; and it is an enormous sink of effort, money, passion, and divisiveness in America. This despite clear laws for almost forty (40) years.

It is a complex argument fraught with nuance, but I think the politics are simpler; and if presented in the right way, perhaps open to compromise.

Background:

1. Over 80% of Americans belong to a religion that proscribes sex outside wedlock.
2. 70% of boys and girls in America have had intercourse by their 19th birthday.
3. By age 44, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex.
4. 80% of young evangelical Christians have had premarital sex; 1/3 of their unplanned pregnancies ended in abortion.
5. Abortions have shrunk from 1.61 million in 1990 to 1.21 million in 2007.
6. 49% of pregnancies in 2006 were unintended; 43% of these ended in abortion.

With this undisputed data as context, what if we were able to bring the five most ardent and visible advocates/politicians on either side to a televised panel, where a moderator asked each of the ten people these questions:

1. Do you agree that in a perfect world, no fetus is destroyed; that every child is wanted and lives a healthy and fulfilling life?
2. Do you agree that every abortion is a tragedy; and that we should do everything possible to prevent it?
3. Do you agree that the best way to prevent an abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
4. Do you agree that the data above shows that we are failing to prevent abortion more than one million times a year?
5. Is creating a national goal to dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies and the resulting abortions something you would support wholeheartedly?
6. Do you agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus the more than one million abortions would by far be your highest priority?

Would all ten would unanimously reply “yes” to every question?? Would you?

I think so; and I would too.

How could they not? How could you not??

What then have we accomplished? We’ve bypassed the questions of a woman’s right to choose, and when life begins; and gotten agreement that preventing unwanted pregnancy is paramount. We have recognized that while there may be areas where we disagree, it is possible to find common ground, and more critically to act based on that common ground to serve the greater good.

During 9-11, Congress united with the White House to pass laws aimed at protecting America. We acted as one in response to the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans. The issue before us was without party affiliation; and we were able to rise together and as one to make progress.

Can we now act as one to dramatically reduce the more than one million abortions that happen in our country every year? Surely that is an even greater calamity?

Might this act of cooperation lead to new avenues of accord between the Left and the Right?

Is that not after all the essence of governing?

the single biggest issue in this election...

...is not the economy, unemployment, terrorism, reigning in Wall Street, foreign policy, gay rights, or anything like that.

There is only ONE thing that matters in this election and neither the debate moderators, the media, or the candidates will discuss it.

If I were moderating the debate tonight, my instructions to the debaters:

1. You will get as much time as I decide you need. It will not be equal.
2. I will ask the questions, and keep asking until I get satisfactory answers.
3. I have no tolerance for BS.

My first (and perhaps only) question to President Obama:

If you win a second term, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The last two years marked the least effective Congress/White House combination in memory. You've failed at working with this Congress for two years - how will this change? What assurances does the electorate have that you will be able to get ANYTHING done?

My first (and perhaps only) question to Governor Romney:

If you win the presidency, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The Republican caucus is dominated by a Tea Party fringe which does not suffer centrists gladly. Speaker Boehner was rendered impotent by this caucus. How will you get ANYTHING done knowing the obstacles you face in a partisan House, and an obstreperous Senate?

This may take a while...

America's greatest challenge is a Congress + White House so infantile that they would make a room full of drooling two-year old pouters and bullies appear coherent, dignified, and civlized.

is foxnews secretly pro-obama?

What if candidate Romney pulls out a miracle and not only wins the Presidency, but also drags a Republican majority into both the Senate and the House?

Whom, in the months to follow is going to be most disappointed and dejected? I say it is FoxNews, and especially Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (the prince and princess of vitriol).

Why would these two who revel in reviling anything and everything Liberal, who can spin the smallest Democratic act into a demonic plot to strike down all God-fearing Republican Christians be sad?

Because they’d have no-one to hate. The “lame-stream” Liberal media (MSNBC) would own the self-righteous, angst-filled hate advantage, and take over the mantle of official spokesnetwork for the easily-manipulated unwashed masses. Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest, all ardent supporters of Mitt, the Tea Party, and all things Sarah Palin would languish on their airwaves with nothing to complain about and no-one to insult.

Imagine that.

My assessment of the coverage mix at Fox/MSNBC:

• 5% our candidate/party looking good.
• 15% their candidate/party looking bad.
• 70% analysis affirming how their bad behavior makes “us” look good.
• 10% update (+ lots of video) of brain dead, ultra-tanned mom arrested for bringing daughter to tanning salon.

To fill the airwaves (and garner watchers and advertising $$) the best possible outcome for Fox/MSNBC is a president of one party, and a split in the House/Senate. This way everyone gets to have someone hate-worthy in power, and of course spend interminable hours with sycophantic "analysts" critiquing minutia in order to perpetuate the hatred.

Many think today’s professional athletes sacrificed the intellectual for the physical; that they are largely one-dimensional beasts whose sole focus is winning at all costs and cashing in on that big paycheck. With American Football, it is this plus the desire to physically dominate and punish your opponent in every way.

I was watching a replay of the Giants-Eagles NFL football game last night; these teams are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and typically for one to succeed, the other must fail. A factor that no-doubt contributes to their intense and long-standing rivalry. Suffice it to say, these players get paid to convincingly decimate each other.

One might even compare them to the Democrats-Republicans in politics, though we’d have to recognize that except for Joe the Plumber (assistant plumber turned actual Republican candidate in the 9th Congressional district of Ohio), most politicians have a meaningful university degree (often post-graduate), earned on the basis of intellectual ability vs. physical prowess.

How interesting then that once the final whistle had blown and the high-stakes, intense game had ended, we saw Jason Pierre-Paul (job: pummel Vick) hug Michael Vick, who hugged him back. This is not unusual - if you watch sports at all, you know this type of inter-team camaraderie is common amongst even long-standing rivals.

What does it say about our politicians when these physically gifted, but purportedly dumb jocks are able to transcend the field of battle and recognize that there is a time and place for everything? They compete with passion during the game, but once it ends, treat each other with care and civility, after all, much more unites than divides.

And yet, our better-educated, more sophisticated, and worldlier politicians are unable to overcome their in-election combativeness to do as the electorate commanded - govern.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

These are the closing words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. But he had no experience of Fox/MSNBC - a force united to break our bonds of affection; a force stronger even than the Parties' candidates; and a force whose survival depends on discord.

There is but one way to overcome this force. Hmmm... where is that remote?

fear foiled

Why is Mitt Romney not winning? He should be - his background is perfect - proven business man (Bain), proven state leader (Gov. MA), proven repairer of things gone bad (Olympics). On top of this, he’s a good person - faithful to his family, committed to his community, strong moral foundation, etc.

And yet the incumbent who has presided over the largest national debt in history, middling economic performance, difficult times internationally, massive unemployment, and has Hussein for a middle name is preferred.

How?

Is it because Mitt is so far up the ivory tower that he simply doesn’t connect to “regular” people? Is it because his plans are ambiguous? Is it because he equivocates too much? I don’t think it’s any of this. Compare Romney to W. Bush, and you don’t see major differences (President Bush never equivocated; but he was perceived as a bumbling idiot, no-one will accuse Romney of being an idiot so that evens out).

President Bush won because he sparked fear in his constituency. He (and Karl Rove) polarized their base against Gore (and Liberals) to the point where its fervency was so strong, it bled to the center to make the election very close. The Florida debacle did tip the balance, but fear made it close enough for Florida to matter.

In 2008, candidate Obama won because he caused people who had never done so to vote; his rhetoric combined with the absurdity of Palin assured a win. That fervor abated by 2010, allowing the Tea Party to take control of the Republican machine and dominate the House.

Over the last year, Tea Party fervor has abated some (abysmal Primary candidates), and while they still have a hold on Party policy, they are not controlling the campaign dialogue.

Here’s the problem - Team Romney (despite the best efforts of the FoxNews whackos) has not been able to spark enough fear in the base. Potential wedgies:

• Economy - everyone is resigned to a crappy economy; the EU crisis and China’s strength have taken their toll. No-one believes either side can really do much.
• Unemployment - no one believes either candidate’s claims that they can fix this, also a wash.
• Foreign Policy - as much as the media cares about this, most Americans just don’t.
• Redistribution - what crap! A society can't exist without redistribution; Romney has already said wealthier Americans should get a smaller Medicare benefit.
• Obamacare - well... sucks that Romney implemented 1.0.
• Terrorism - whatever - we’ve all got terror fatigue.
• Obama the Socialist - those who believe this are already voting Republican - the rest don’t see it as real or a big enough threat.
• Obama the Muslim - he’s been President for four years, and no-one’s singing the call to prayers from the White House balcony.

See what I mean? The fanatical Left and fanatical Right will vote for whomever their Party nominates - that’s a given. But this leaves Romney way short.

The “issues” aren’t scary enough, and no amount of Hannity/O’Reilly spin can change that. The tried and true Karl Rove strategy is failing despite the money they’ve raised and the vitriol they are spouting.

Romney could ask Grover Norquist to have every Republican candidate sign a pledge promising to cooperate with a Romney White House; it’s hard to imagine that happening, but it might be the one legitimate opportunity to one-up Obama... But then again, people hate Congress.

So, short of Romney so flustering Obama during the debates that he admits to being a closet Muslim who intends to give Palestine nukes, the Democrats have fallen into the good fortune of a country so resigned to its fate that it can’t be scared into voting for Change.

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

my first vote

Yesterday was a good day. I’ve been a fan of the Dallas Cowboys since I was 12 (yes - it was the cheerleaders), and they won their first game of the season vs. the team that undid them last year, the NY Giants. :-)! The Cowboys won because both the offense and defense played well; last year it was one or the other, and they sucked.

I also watched one of the best orators of our time, President Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention. He is masterful. I watched him on FoxNews, and was impressed by how differently they heard his speech vs. those at MSNBC. Their interpretations also differed during the Republican Convention, except the other way.

This is to be expected - elections are a zero-sum game, you either win or die. Fox advocates the right, and MSNBC the left. Their “journalists” interpret the candidates based on the outcome they seek vs. the true nature of the candidate, their platform, their patriotism, or even their record.

The Constitutional framers designed our government (division of power, House vs. Senate, debate procedures, etc.) to create a stilted enough process where as little as possible could get done, where megalomania was less likely, and where government has as little influence on citizens’ lives as possible. This is a good thing - we want government to do just enough so that our country is safe, our infrastructure is reliable, and we have a basic safety net to protect us in tough times.

Because of the complex and convoluted design, effective governing requires that the White House work with Congress; it requires that the House work with the Senate; and it requires that members of the House and Senate work with each other.

When this doesn’t happen, we are destined for dysfunction. Witness the last couple of years.

I have always thought that the Democratic Party is at best a random collection of special interests who hardly agree with each other much less anyone else. That they can never be organized or cohesive enough to stay in power on a sustained basis. The Republican Party on the other hand has always struck me as being both focused and unified - a powerful combination.

I didn’t realize until now that Democrat dysfunction embodies a fundamental principle of democracy - pluralism. Whereas Republican cohesion demands homogeneity. In the former, there are many roads to Rome; in the latter, it’s Caesar’s way or nothing.

When the Tea Party started to coalesce in 2007, they were idealistic about effective, constitutional governing - I liked them then. The 2008 elections were a landslide the other way, and they realized they needed to retool. Their new strategy: gain strength and inertia by co-opting the far right; focus the message (spend less, tax less, grow military, fear God); and, most critically, forget winning elections, just win primaries.

They realized that heartland Republicans vote against what they don’t like vs. for what they do like (witness how fervently they’ve now embrace Mitt Romney, a candidate they disliked intensely during the primary; but they hate Barak Obama more). They also realized their distributed, grassroots nature is ideally suited to placing their candidates in positions to win primaries. Once their person was the mainstream party candidate, all Republican voters would flock to him/her - they didn’t need to worry about the last mile.

This is how they took over the Republican Party in 2010. Ironically, the very adaptability and situational awareness that led them to this strategy has made them ABJECTLY INFLEXIBILE. They will now NOT compromise.

The result - Congressional dysfunction.

It took years of bad performance before the Dallas Cowboys made some tough changes, invested, and are now more balanced than they’ve been in a long while. This balance will hopefully lead to sustained success.

President Clinton’s speech yesterday extolled the Republicans of his time as much as it extolled President Obama. He harkened back to a day when governing took precedence over party, and when compromise took precedence over ego.

Governments are effective when politicians balance leading with winning.

The "new" Republican Party is incapable of this thinking; those that do believe that governing requires compromise know they will be replaced by “righteous” Tea Party candidates in the next Primary unless they toe the line. There is no balance, and there is no compromise.

This is the first national election in which I will be able to vote. As a Canadian, I was always a conservative voter - abortion, gay rights, national healthcare, role of religion in politics, and other social factors are broadly adopted and not up for debate. I care about these issues, but I care also that we have a government that will create a sustainable future for our children. I always believed that the Supreme Court would help protect the former, and a good Republican government the latter.

I must admit, I now have a hard time voting for a party that is so intractable, so absolute, and so opposed to balance and cooperation, that it would allow us to fall rather than compromise.

politics and not getting stoned

The Democratic Convention happens this week; they now get to respond (in kind) to what was thrown their way last week at the Republican Convention.

American politics is full of many things, most are far from honorable. But one thing which is more present than ever in both parties does give me hope. It is not supposed to have a place in government, the Constitution makes that explicit; and yet both parties honor and celebrate it with vigor.

I didn't watch much of the Republican Convention (I missed the genesis of Eastwooding :-(). All I did see was the last of Mitt Romney's speech, and of course the 100,000 balloons + 500 lbs of confetti. Did you see what happened next? The Romney/Ryan families left the stage amid raucous celebration, and suddenly the entire stadium - tens of thousands of celebrants, fell silent. Why? This man came to the podium to lead everyone in the closing ceremony - the shift from partying to praying was remarkable.

This same phenomenon will no-doubt occur at the close of the Democratic Convention - religion is a powerful, powerful force in American politics. But instead of an instrument of spirituality, community, and moral purpose; it is a bludgeon of orthodoxy, divisiveness, and ultimatums.

If I were President Obama, I would ask that the invocation to open the Democratic Convention speak of this passage from the Gospel of John, where the people brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, and asked if they should stone her as the Law of Moses commanded. He contemplated this, and then said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd then dispersed, and Jesus told the woman to "go, and sin no more."

If you have or know children, I'm sure that like me, you've counseled them with a variation of these words. We do this because we want them to turn the other cheek, and to do to others as you would have them do to you.

These simple yet powerful lessons which every politician has earnestly shared with his or her children, are fervently ignored when it comes to their own behavior.

Imagine how many undecided votes the candidate would attract if they began their convention with the promise that their party would henceforth (through to election day and beyond) act with respect and integrity? What if they would judge the other party only the way they wish to be judged, and seek to create bridges (even during the campaign) with all parties and candidates, for they know that once the votes are counted, all those elected are required to work together to serve the country.

They'd have my vote.

Divisiveness is difficult enough in good times, but in tough times it results in catastrophic dysfunction. We witnessed the invective in Congress and the White House over the last four years, and we have suffered because that made it impossible for them to accomplish anything.

Why can't we the electorate demand and expect civility? I have to believe the majority of American voters seek in their leaders a level of morality that at a minimum reflects what they were taught by their parents.

Religion is not supposed to influence politics but it does. There is no political risk greater than dismissing religious leaders or their opinions. Today, religion influences three issues - reproduction, homosexuality, and Israel.

Why such a narrow expression of religion??

Can we find a religious leader, a peer of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and their brethren to advocate cooperation and respect? Can we help this voice become as powerful as those who care about abortion and gay marriage? Can we ensure that this voice is just as vigilant about holding government accountable?

It would be impossible for the Falwell/Dobson/Robertsons, the Democrats/Republicans, and even the left or right wing media to stand in opposition to a moral and effective government. Imagine if candidates had to condemn all forms of negative campaigning because they had to live up a moral standard?

America is a deeply religious state - over 80% of Americans are religiously affiliated, and every one of these religions espouses spirituality, community, and moral purpose. It took less than five years for the Tea Party to go from random disaffected pockets to a major political force. Why can't we create a pro-cooperation movement between now and the 2015 primaries?

Today religion in politics is an agent of divisiveness; whereas religion itself is a champion of community. It is up to us to transform the former into the latter.

a reboot

Last week I suggested a Constitutional re-think was needed to help us put our government (and country) back on track. Here first is my reason why this approach is needed, and then a rationale for the Amendments I suggested. Thank you for your emails - it's been a great conversation!

If you run a business, you know that it is possible to take shortcuts and even break rules/laws to realize short-term gains; and you also know there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Can you get back on the straight and narrow after an ill-gotten gain? Sure, but the longer you wait, the harder it gets. Cheating quickly becomes habit-forming; we get used to any (even bad) behavior, and soon it becomes the accepted norm.

Nowhere is this more true than politics. There was a time when running for office had a higher purpose; it was a calling to public service steeped in honor and integrity; one derived satisfaction from knowing that the greater good had been served.

As the business/economic value of having a politician in one’s pocket has grown, so has “investment” in elections and lobbying. Companies and individuals with vested interests spend absurd amounts of money financing candidates. For the upcoming election only (not all Senate seats are up for election), and as of June 30, the incumbents and their parties have raised $2.1billion (see below, source). They will of course raise much more in the weeks/months to come, bringing the total to well over $3 billion.

Even those that donate $1.00 expect something in return -- it could be supporting or opposing abortions, gay rights, gun control, raising taxes, a stronger military, public health care, or whatever. But there is an expectation of specific behavior in exchange for the $ (and the vote).

I wonder what these (see table, source) organizations expected (and received/will receive) for their contributions? Solyndra’s primary investor and executives donated $87,050 to Obama in 2008 - did this contribute to their $535 million federal loan guarantee?

Politicians seek and wish to remain in power above all else. It is in their interest to “cater” to their supporters. The ROI for these supporters has to be tangible enough to warrant the $ billions invested, so lawmakers add “helpful” riders/earmarks, or amend tax laws with credits/deductions; all to assure funding for the reelection, and maybe a nice post-politics job as a lobbyist or consultant.

What price do we the people pay for this pandering?

Over the last ~50 years, politicians have perverted the election finance, law-making, and taxation processes to the point where you can’t even excavate back to see what they looked like in the 1960s. The paybacks have resulted in layer upon layer of legislative morass, spending excess, political polarization, and voter disaffection.

What we now know to be “government as usual” is a horrible perversion to those who knew it in the 1950s and 60s.

It’s easy to overlook government excess as an acceptable “success tax” in good times; but in bad times the morass impedes action, the excess creates debt, the polarization becomes hate, and the disaffection turns into economic dysfunction.

Welcome to the America 2012.

So how do we fix this? With three Constitutional Amendments to overcome both the issue of financed politicians and the resulting morass. 

The premise: reduce (if not eliminate) the need for campaign financing, make it more difficult to “repay” prospective “investors” by creating greater transparency within the law-making and taxation process. This streamlining or legislation and taxation, might then spur business-led economic growth.

Below is a summary of the proposed amendments with commentary.

1. Election Reform:
   1. Term limits - President 1-6yr, Senator 2-4yr, Congress 3-2yr.
      • The White House should lead knowing they will never campaign again -- only then can they act in the best interests of the country. This is how we avoid the 2008 Republican #1 priority of preventing a second Obama term vs. governing.
      • Politicians must feel a sense of urgency to make a difference vs. making a career of winning elections.
   2. Election finance - Only public $ ($0.50/voter); no private or corporate $.
      • To win in the 2010 election, House members needed to raise $13,461/week to fund their reelection; Senators needed $27,243/week. This is why they got NOTHING done.
      • This is how we even the playing field and allow the President and Congress to govern, vs. becoming professional fund-raisers, and reduce the power of lobbyists.
   3. Congress & President/VP’s tax returns must be public until death.
      • Public service is not about lining your pockets, now or in the future.
2. Legislative Reform:
   1. Scope - laws/bills must be understood and explained by 5 random high school students in one week; they must only deal with ONE problem (no riders, addenda, etc.), and all sources and uses of funds must be enumerated.
      • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for example is 906 pages long - it is complex and can not be understood by a typical citizen. We must reduce legislative complexity and obfuscation, and clarify the funding of all expenditures.
      • If the Bill requires enforcement, that cost must be included and paid for.
      • Any citizen can challenge a bill with the 5-student-test.
      • It reduces (if not eliminates) the ability to “hide” payback to lobbyists, funders, etc.
      • A side benefit could be an incentive for Congress to improve education, thereby enabling them to create more complex legislation :-)!
   2. All laws (past, present, future) expire after 2 years; they can be renewed (provided they comply with #1); if not renewed on time, they expire by default.
      • This creates fewer, simpler, more enforceable, and more modern laws.
      • Congress is obligated to work vs. obsess with wreaking partisan havoc (or raise $$).
   3. Accountability - Congress must pass a budget on time every year, if they fail, all 535 members’ wages and benefits are garnished.
      • Nuff said :-).
3. III Tax Reform:
   1. Flat tax at source, zero deductions (includes tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc.).
      • Taxed at source, no deductions means employees with a single source of income  (majority) won’t need to file returns -- it’ll be automatic.
   2. Personal: 0% on 1st $50k, 15% on next $50k, 25% on next $100k, 40% on balance.
      • As government becomes more efficient and debt free, these rates should go down.
   3. Corporate: 3.5% of gross income - no exceptions or deductions.
      • Notwithstanding the arbitrariness, companies will prefer the clarity and predictability vs. today's complexity and randomness.

Our country is fast approaching the situation Argentina faced in the early 2000s, and the one Greece faces now -- a feckless government bent on petty self-serving agendas that in no way benefit the citizenry.

The status quo is untenable.

a rethink

If I were writing the President's speech at the Democratic National Convention:

My fellow Americans good evening. It is with pride that I accept your nomination to be the next President of the United States. It is with humility that I speak about what must come next -- both in the weeks and months before election day, and in the four years that we hope will follow.

The last three and a half years as your President have been quite a lesson -- we live in a complex, nuanced, and opportunistic society. We each have great expectations for ourselves and our country, but we each see it differently. This is the magic of America, and the challenge of America.

It was easy in 2008 to be on the campaign trail, blithely criticizing everything President Bush had done, and telling you how I would make things better from day one. It is easy because until you sit behind that desk, there is no way to understand how powerful and powerless you are.

Each of us seeks the Oval Office with the best intentions; this time the campaign is between Mitt Romney and me. I will tell you now that I believe 100% that Governor Romney is a person of honor, integrity, and with a profound desire to serve his country. He intends to do his utmost to take our country to a better place. He has articulated a number of policies and strategies that he will enact to accomplish this, and if we took the partisanship out of it, I imagine I might agree with much of what he wants to do, just as I believe he would agree with much of what I want to do.

But in the scheme of things, today’s elections are won not by extolling that which unites us, but rather by objectifying those who divide us.

This colors our approach and vision of campaigning, and causes each of us to pander to fractional but wealthy or influential interests with polarizing rhetoric. The only victim of this behavior is the citizen.

Thankfully, strategies, policies, 9-point plans, and campaign promises don’t amount to much once you get behind that desk. On the day I was inaugurated, I was raring to go, but at every turn, I found myself facing three things - incumbency, partisanship, and complexity. The system didn’t like change at all, and was very effective at resisting it; each side was bent on making the other look bad at all times; and if you did manage to get past these two, you had to appease so many people, cater to so many interests, and account for so many legacy obligations that there was no way to actually get something meaningful done.

Here is what I want to accomplish in my second term, and if you do vote for me, you must do so knowing that this is exactly what your mandate demands of all those who are elected to office this November.

If I were a Republican, I might stand here and say I want a government that is as small as possible; that all elected officials must be completely accountable for their actions; that we must only enact laws that expand freedom; and finally that we must reign in excess taxation.

My friends, I, a passionate Democrat, stand before you to tell you that this is exactly where my campaign and upcoming term will focus. Specifically, I am going to campaign for three constitutional amendments, and ask the American people to only vote for me if they believe in all three.

Amendment A: Election Reform

Elected servants take on a greater obligation than any private citizen, and must operate under more exacting rules. There are three parts to this amendment.

First term limits - Presidents will serve one six-year term; Senators up to two four year terms, and Congresspeople up to three two-year terms. Second, election finance - no private or corporate money may be used by candidates - once a candidate wins their primary, they are allocated a budget of fifty cents per eligible voter in their district. No additional money may be spent. Moreover, third party expenditures will be illegal - we will not allow any candidate to be corrupted by special interests. Third, the accountability - to mitigate corruption, once elected to the Presidency or Congress, the winners are required to publish all future tax returns until they die.

Amendment B - Legislative Reform

Our laws are overly complex, filled with hidden benefits for special interests, take too long to enact, and live forever. We will change this. There are three parts to this amendment.

First, legislative scope - Laws and bills must be written so that five randomly selected high school students can read and explain them in one day; they must only deal with one thing (no riders, addenda, etc.), and identify all sources and uses of funding. Second, duration - ALL laws (past, present and future) will expire after two years; this means that any law passed two or more years ago, comes up for renewal in 2013; but they can only be renewed after being re-written per part 1 (scope); if a law is not renewed, it is eliminated -- this means a lot of Congress’ time will be spent on this! Third, accountability - Congress must pass a budget every year; continuances will not be allowed; failure to pass a budget will result in loss of all wages and benefits for EVERY member of Congress.

Amendment C - Tax Reform

Our tax code is absurdly complex, and too frequently used as a means of catering to special interests. We will simplify the tax code (following part 1 of Amendment B) and make it very difficult to change. This amendment has three parts.

First, scope - we will shift to a flat tax with no (zero) deductions; it will be progressive and deducted at source for individuals, and include all federal income (tax, entitlements, etc.) in that one percentage. Second, personal - the tax rates will be 0% for those earning below $50k/yr, 15% for those earning $50-100k/yr; 25% for $100-200k/yr; and 40% for the rest. Third, corporate - this will be a flat 3.5% on gross income.

These three amendments will assure elected officials intent on public service; clear and active legislation; and a simpler and less costly tax system. I will publish the analysis that shows that the amendments will put more money in Americans’ pockets, reduce our debt, and restore honesty and integrity to the government.

I have decided to suspend my “active” campaign in favor of first publishing the clear and simple amendments and our analysis; and then only doing live and televised town halls to answer questions about these three amendments. I will not spend one more dollar campaigning against Governor Romney.

Does the economy matter? Does the deficit matter? Of course!

Can we fix them? Yes, but not if the White House and Congress continue as we have for the last 10+ years. Our behavior and partisanship are reprehensible.

It must stop. It must stop so we can do the jobs we were elected to do. It must stop so that elections can once more be about public service. We must stop so that governing can once more be about doing good. We must stop or our economy will not improve, and our debt will become untenable.

My fellow Americans - I seek a national mandate to enact these constitutional amendments because without them, America gives in to persistent and reprehensible partisanship; it gives up on one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I will not accept that. As President and your nominee, I will do everything to win this mandate, and I ask you to walk beside me, to pledge your allegiance to the United States of America.

Thank you

divided

Something rather predictable happened in America yesterday. North Carolina became the 28^th State which overwhelmingly voted to amend their constitution to protect the "sanctity" of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

As a recent citizen of this much-vaunted nation, this and related events make me question two things I was required to learn to gain citizenship:

(1) Did the Boston Tea Party really occur? Was this country really formed in response to "a long train of abuses and usurpations" against the ideal that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."? Or is that all a sham?

(2) Are the fifty (50) United States of America really so, or is this just a geographically convenient artifact?

Today, 56% of American States are anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and anti-any-other-religion-but-ours. They ironically campaign for this using the very Declaration quoted in #1 above. They are strong in their conviction, persuasive with their campaigning, and (very) successful in their actions.

If an alien were tapping into American news over the last months, they would be convinced that this continent is on the brink of civil war pitting the Middle/South (MS) against the North East/West (NEW). They would be further convinced that the passion, state of weaponization, and ferocity of MS would prevail against the tepid passion and insipid NEW.

I think they'd be mostly right. MS wins referenda because they stir passion in an organized way, they instill fear by correlating any issue to the personal insecurities of their constituents. NEW on the other hand appeals to people's sense of what's right; they may agree, but are not provoked enough to rock the vote. Once again proving that when it comes to politics, the threat (actual, perceived, or fabricated) of imminent, personal danger far outweighs any intellectual discourse.

Notwithstanding their brains, NEW's density and lack of savvy are impressive -- if I were running the NEW campaign advocating that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, I would also argue that any two consenting married adults should be allowed to divorce. I would be sure to give the latter as much "air" as the former, secure in the knowledge that that would cause/require MS to oppose it. While incredibly obvious, I'm certain NEW will never do it.

Gay rights is but one rift in metaphoric Grand Canyon that separates Americans; it began with the Civil Rights movement and the US military presence in Vietnam (or perhaps with the abolition of slavery?), and fed by vitriol, violence, and politics, blossomed into our current state of "irreconcilable differences." The pundits claim that the upcoming presidential election is about the economy/debt, jobs, national security (energy self-sufficiency), and health care. They're wrong. These are surface issues, filled with gray; and both sides (politicians and voters) are mostly in agreement. The real issues, the most evocative, are personal and decidedly black/white.

Democrats and Republicans alike claim "what unites us is far greater than what divides us" and in the next breath, go on to paint "them" as against the core, fundamental, and personal issues that "we" share.

You can't have it both ways. Aaron Sorkin said this best with President Andrew Shepherd's speech in The American President:

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship.You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

America (and democracy) can't exist when her citizenry is made to be personally severed from its neighbors. If we continue down this path of intolerance, metaphoric severance will become literal; either peacefully - "You (44%) go your way, and we (56%)'ll go ours.", or violently - "You're too evil to live, you need to be ended."

Maybe it's time to renew my Canadian passport...

prelude to discombobulation

I was reading a speech John F. Kennedy delivered in 1961 to the Canadian Parliament, and struck by this quote:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder. What unites us is far greater than what divides us.

Over the last few months, I've been wondering whether the country President Kennedy represented still exists, whether his half of the "us" can in fact be represented as he did. Is there still a "we" in the "us" or is America no longer one country? Can the President legitimately "represent" US?

I thought the intra-American vitriol had peaked during the presidential election in 2008 - from calling candidates terrorists to questioning their birth and religious affiliation, because in the weeks that followed, it felt like we were moving back from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Wrong.

Today there is NOTHING the Republicans can do that will inspire Democrat support or approval, and vice versa. I bet if Speaker John Boehner(R) were to give money to a homeless person, Nancy (the idiot) Pelosi(D) would find a way to condemn it as a political act aimed at eliminating Federal social programs. Such is the lack of quality, maturity, and civility within the government.

The very concept of governing has lost meaning; American politicians' only goal is to win, and then raise enough money and create enough polarity to keep winning - there is no compulsion to actually do anything (serve) whilst in power, who cares about that!

Whatever "they" do, "we" have to hate and decry, even if we agree (or agreed) with it. If they do something that the electorate thinks is good, we have to spin it as misguided, anti-freedom, anti-common man, anti-jobs, or (last resort?) treasonous.

How did politics become so devoid of honor? I blame Karl Rove, who in crafting George W Bush's candidacy, saw that the only way to win was to target the religious right, prey on their fears, and make them hate, truly hate John Kerry. It was a brilliant strategy, and obviously successful. Now all politicians passionately embrace the low road.

Each side is so effective with their spin, they've erased the essential principle of democratic rule - that the wisdom of the broader electorate will attenuate the candidates' radicalism. When politics comes up at the coffee shop or at the dining table, it is easy to find "regular” people parroting either the MSNBC or Fox argument depending on their bias, and expressing the same vitriol against “them” that they hear on TV and from political talking heads.

The electorate has been manipulated, and can no longer do its job of keeping politicians honest and focused on governing.

The American government divides power among three branches so that no one agenda will or can dominate. But today the President (executive branch) largely controls his party in Congress (legislative), and with a majority in the House and Senate, is able to have his way on most things. The Supreme Court (judicial) is nine individuals with a lifetime tenure and the power to interpret laws as they choose. The current Court is comprised of five conservative and four liberal judges; many 5:4 rulings happen along "party" lines, and while the Court wishes to avoid this, it occurs more and more frequently, especially in cases where the Executives and Legislatives are also divided according to party propaganda.

If Mitt Romney wins his party's nomination (likely), and if he is able to activate the Tea Party with sufficient force to maintain the House majority and also win a Senate majority (possible), he will, with this "friendly" Supreme Court, essentially be a despot.

While he may have been (perhaps still is) more moderate than his rhetoric, he knows how to appease "them that brung him," in order to sustain majorities through the midterm elections, and then get reelected in 2016. Winning = radicalism + fear mongering.

Even within America, does the picture JFK painted still apply? Can Americans of both stripes be neighbors, friends, partners, and allies? Is there more that unites us than divides us? Or has Karl Rove put us asunder? It took a several years to foster the revulsion each feels for the other; I imagine it will take much longer to repair the rift and establish real trust. I do know that the longer we mistrust, the longer it will take to undo the damage.

Not ironically -- this rift was created by our leaders and blossomed with our assent. Not so long ago, a group of traitors wrote these words within a proclamation saying that enough is enough:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Here in the 21st century, the so-called Representatives inside the Beltway might well be worse than the despotic Brits of the 18th century.

So what will this primary and the upcoming election say about US?

Have we endured a long enough train of abuses and usurpations? Have they evinced a desire to once again establish new guards? Or will we just placidly whine about it and order another nonfat decaf half soy latte?

social reality

I’ve received a lot of email over my last post :) - my thanks to all of you! Most questioned the alignment between advocating killing Social Security and community-related posts like this or this.

So...

I believe that the role of society is to care for those that can’t. When pre-humans began to coalesce into communities, they discovered that it was possible to specialize - hunters, child raisers, security-providers, shelter creators, etc. As these specialists became more efficient, wealth was created; in this case, it was the wealth of time and reflection and communication and innovation.

Over time, they used fire for cooking and protection, they used farming to grow and improve their diets; they used knowledge of the human body and medicine to reduce infant mortality and increase life spans; and the community was able to “support” caring for the ill and aged, learning, art, and other “civilized” pursuits.

This is the essence and power of society and community, ...and civilization.

Then why nuke Social Security?

Western society has “evolved” to the point where necessities (healthcare, education, infrastructure, security, etc.) cost too much, and our organizations (governments, corporations, etc.) are so big, inefficient, and pendulous that real change/improvement is impossible.

For more than a generation, Western nations have had to borrow massive amounts of money just to maintain status quo. Despite deep programmatic cuts, operating costs today are still much higher than revenues. Bureaucratic inertia + embarrassingly juvenile (apologies to the world’s youth) and avaricious elected officials have prompted credit agencies to put most governments on “watch,” and recently, downgrade America and Italy, among others. This plus the prospect even bigger dufuses being elected in 2012 assures a future of worse government, greater ineptitude, and growing (more expensive) debt.

What to do? Short of a total national reboot, we must prioritize at the program level, and make some tough calls.

What programs must remain, and which can be eliminated? I say education and healthcare for all are more important than Social Security. With an effective education (early childhood through post secondary), and the comfort of basic healthcare, we give people the building blocks to not just survive, but thrive. Eliminating a safety net like Social Security creates an impetus for people to care for themselves and their families, or else.

Unfortunately, the Republicans/Democrats/Tea Partiers are proposing small, inconsequential but politically palatable cuts to everything; if they do recommend the elimination of programs, they are small and budgetarily inconsequential. Our situation is far too serious and dire to tolerate this kind of futzing around.

To protect the essence of our society and the viability of our community, we need someone with serious cojones to step up, take the bold step of throwing partisanship, politics, and silly amendments aside, and lead.

flaunting the third rail

The third rail in many railway systems (tubes, subways, metros, etc.) is electrically charged, and fatal if touched; unless you’re contemplating suicide, stay away from it.

In American politics the third rail is Social Security (SS). The people most affected are the fastest growing segment of the population (older people); they have very strong lobbies (AARP); a lot of sympathy (we’re all planning to get old + Congress’ average age is 57); and they turn out in droves and vote in both primaries and general elections.

After reading Monique Morrissey’s testimony before Congress and talking to a few people I thought SS was a sustainable program, needing only minor rate increases, and that Governor Rick Perry’s Ponzi claim was specious. But...

SS beneficiaries receive significantly more than they + their matching employers invest; to make this sustainable, the system counts on a reasonable return on invested capital, a certain mortality rate, and more people contributing than consuming (i.e. disproportionately younger, income-earning population).

This is similar in design to a Ponzi Scheme, so it is reasonable for Gov. Perry to make his claim. Plus here’s Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution quoting three Noble Laureates who agree with Perry, and argue that people are having fewer babies and living longer (= more older people, fewer SS contributors), and economic growth has slowed (a lot); all of which affirms that Social Security as-is is no longer sustainable and in a literal sense, fraudulent, especially to younger contributors.

The "fix" strategy is to pare things back a little - increase the contribution percentage, implement a means test, delay eligibility, and significantly reduce the amount of benefit paid. Does this make the return worth it for seniors? Can they live on this reduced benefit? Are Republicans right that it should be self-managed? Can the public do better on its own? I say, "Yes."

The President is fumbling the ball all over the place, has a largely vision-free and uninspired record thus far, and could very well lose the 2012 election. This is no time to be timid or take half measures. He could overcome his legislative impotence and take a bold step to redefine entitlement - he could propose that we face reality and sunset Social Security.

The first question in all of our minds - how will this affect me? Well, if you're:

1. Over 50: Three changes - increase in contribution percentage (+2%), a means test for recipients, and an increase in the retirement age (+1 year). You keep paying in, and you will receive what was promised until you die.
2. Over 35: You stop paying into the plan, and you get the current value of your historical contributions back in a locked, tax-deferred US Treasury Bond that you can access upon retirement. All your very important future contributions into this nest egg are tax deferred.
3. Under 35: Sorry, and thank you - your contributions will go towards your parents’ and grandparents’ retirements. You are encouraged to contribute towards your own retirement with tax-deferred deductions of up to 15% of your annual salary. You have the option of buying the same US T-Bonds, or a number of other tax-deferred instruments.
   
4. Federal employee: The same (#1-3) formula will apply to federal employees for their pensions - we will increase salaries slightly to compensate for this, but per the scheme above, times are tough, and we can't afford this benefit anymore.
5. Elected official: Historically, the President, Vice President, Congress, etc. received pensions to discourage, well... bribery. We will continue to offer this pension to elected officials as long as it is their ONLY source of income.
   

This is a long sunset - it will take about 40 years for those who are now 50 to die, at which point Social Security dies with them.

Advantages:

1. Take the government out of the pension business.
2. Screw everyone a little bit - spread the pain.
3. Create a palatable, self-managed savings scheme for American workers.
4. Offer tax-deferred T-bonds as a secure retirement investment, that are also a way for the Feds to raise money, put more of America’s debt in the hands of Americans, who have the greatest vested interest in ensuring its repayment.

This is a dramatic step to be sure, but real leaders face issues head on; they don’t patch things up and leave them for future generations to deal with. Will this be the only step in the “face and deal” process? Nope - MMO (Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare) also needs to be rationalized, consolidated, and made available as a basic service to all Americans in a way that encourages well-being and good health vs. the current system which funds visits and procedures and tests, but that’s for another post :).

If President Obama has a hope of not just winning, but winning a decisive mandate, he must LEAD. He should not marry this to taxes for jet plane owners or any other silly ploy. He should set the precedent for proposing simple, clean legislation that deals with our most important problems one at a time.

Start with entitlements, show that you're bold enough to go where others have feared to tread, and that you have our nation's best interests at heart, with no fear of the political consequences.

feckless

Tony Karon argued yesterday that Israel's 'Diplomatic Tsunami' has arrived, I think he’s right, and it got me thinking about America’s foreign policy.

From Wikipedia, “a country's foreign policy... consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations milieu.”

For almost a century, America has been the world’s cop, the world’s strongest economy, and even the world’s authority on morality. From protecting Korea and Taiwan in Asia, to helping Japan and Germany with their post-war economic recoveries, to leading the world in communications and high tech and entertainment, to being Israel’s doting uncle, America has been a (really “the”) dominant force in shaping the world’s behavior.

America, the President of the United States, and the American Congress were regarded, respected, and feared as the pinnacle of freedom, integrity, power, and achievement.

When “powerful” is your norm, you assume infallibility and righteousness are forever yours. The most brazen example of this is the Bush Doctrine (aka National Security Strategy of the United States) wherein the American government empowered itself to preemptively strike any entity or sovereign state that it deemed threatening.

American foreign policy is/was not so much a diplomatic process as thuggery; using either the threat of, or the actual act of military or economic retribution to impose its wishes.

Wielding brute force will go to your head; when you have this kind of power, why bother with subtlety? Why waste time on nuance and wit when you own the most powerful one-two punch (US Military, US Dollar) in history? Sure it's dominant now, but time isn’t kind to those that drink too much of their own Kool-Aid; Davids are able to find slingshots, Goliaths are vanquished.

Ten years ago today, America was the victim of a horrible and criminal act, and it reacted with force and anger, some of which was directed against its own citizens, making us a lot less free than we’ve ever been. America is a more intrusive place to live today than it was on September 10, 2001.

That same act also robbed America of its integrity, as evidenced by three words - Guantanamo, Rendition, and Torture.

The American military is without equal in “traditional” warfare; the last time they were asked to fight one of those was 21 years and 40 days ago, and they were victorious. Since then, the “enemy” has been replaced with individuals and small groups of criminals who are inhuman, without honor, and lack any national affiliation. This is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

Using the military to counter terrorism is like using a gun to kill a mosquito. You make a fool of the weapon, create a ton of random damage, and help the foe look agile and effective. Case in point - Afghanistan, ironically the same place where Americans helped the “locals” defeat the Soviet Union. American power does exist in reality, but in the eyes of the rest of the world, it is no longer mighty, nor is it feared. The thug mind assumed that every problem could be solved with the same weapon, and that delusion made a mockery of both the thug and the weapon.

Can we at least rest on achievement?

Going back to Karon’s article, taking its cue from Uncle Sam, Israel assumed that a powerful military and self-righteousness are all that’s required to maintain the status quo; but they didn’t count on the agility and effectiveness of the mosquito, which took the form of individuals and their desire for personal freedom and justice.

They did count on Uncle S to stand with them and “prevail” on the Turks, Egyptians, and even the Palestinians to respect and honor the integrity of Israel; and of course America did stand with its favorite nephew, but regrettably, with little effect. Nations (and worse, individuals) that once cowered are no longer bowed. They listened politely, but then followed their own beliefs rather than US "advice."

Why? Because today even America’s ability to get it done is suspect - the military will leave its last two theaters of operation without victory; the economy is weak and depleted; the government prefers ideology over strategy.

What was once a majestic and imposing and relentless is tired and fading. The “assets” that America has held dear for so long, it’s military and the all-mighty dollar remain, and remain strong, but only according to the definitions of the last millennium.

While the world moved on, America chose laurels and rest.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
Bob Dylan - The Times They Are A-Changin’

These are harsh words on this sad day; but this is also a day of reflection, when we contemplate not just what was lost, but how we've changed, and what we've become. Reflection must encompass the whole image in the mirror, not just the convenient illusion. Humility always prevails over hubris.

the hole in the middle

The professional baseball season is 162 games long, and the players have a saying: "Every team's going to win 54 games, every team's going to lose 54, it's what you do with the other 54 games that counts."

This is also true in politics. The fervent Right (1/3 of voters) will always vote Republican, and are lost to Democrats, who have the Lefty third in their camp. The theoretically “balanced” media is just as polarized, and only attracts audiences who are in violent agreement with them; few if any “minds” are changed.

Both sides realize they need the Center to win the Presidency, and despite redistricting efforts, many Congressional districts and states are also decided by Centrists.

Normally, politicians lean toward the Center once elected, but the 2010 elections have resulted in a level of dogmatic obstinacy that has rendered the White House impotent, Congress a disgrace, and America a laughingstock.

Was this a one-time occurrence? Will the political landscape come back to its senses with a natural regression to the mean? Or has the American voter become so polarized that the middle 1/3 is no longer meaningful?

As a Centrist, I hope not - I don’t want to see a cluster f&*k like the one that we’ve experienced so far in 2010/11.

I don’t speak fo all Centrists, but I believe most would agree that ensuring the sustained wellbeing of every citizen is the #1 priority of Government.

Today is Labor Day, but more than 25 million Americans are un- or underemployed (i.e. not earning enough to survive); the two greatest sources (public sector and small business) of jobs are retrenching; and larger corporations are doing pretty well.

The White House and Congress are oblivious; they think making government smaller, eliminating jobs, and pandering to the Tea Party (lower taxes, less debt) are the path to prosperity.

This at a time when more families are unable to feed themselves every day, individual debt is untenable (student loans are at an all time high), and those who might have a dollar or two of disposable income are saving it, preventing the very commerce needed to put people back to work.

To earn my vote, I’d like to see candidates focused on:

1. Investing to create jobs.Individuals and small businesses need improved access to debt, and assurance that their jobs are not about to go away. People create the demand that will drive the need for supply, production, and jobs. The obsession with shrinking government (the country’s largest employer), reducing debt, and cutting and cutting, has created a ripple effect in the commercial sector (shrinkage), and with individuals who are increasingly scared to spend.
   
   Government prioritized supporting corporations over the last couple of decades and it worked. Large businesses are more profitable than ever, and they are more cash-rich than ever. But they are not investing because they see no need to. There is no pressure on corporations to expand capacity because consumer demand is weak.
   
   Government must now prioritize the individual, to help them become consumers once again, and give corporations a reason to invest their savings back into the economy.
   
   Lowering individual taxes are not the answer - this has never worked. We must improve cash flow by refinancing existing consumer debt, changing the way student loans are awarded and priced (if we can deduct mortgage interest, why not student debt?), and providing individuals with some assurance that at least their children’s education and health will be taken care of (see below).
   
   These acts will immediately put money in consumers’ hands, and give them the motivation to buy stuff.
    
2. Creating a safety net that includes universal education and healthcare. Public education was a response to the demand for Industrial Revolution workers, and to protect young children from slave-like labor. It was decried at the time as a socialist act, but justified because an educated and employed workforce would accelerate Capitalistic economic growth, and prevent child abuse, which was thankfully agreed to be a good thing. Today we accept public education.
   
   Universal healthcare is no different. The ONLY constituent that suffers is the health insurer (and the politicians funded by them). By ensuring that everyone is covered, we grow the healthcare industry even more rapidly (it is one of the few that even today is adding jobs), and we recognize (as we did with child labor) that this is part of society’s obligation to help ensure the sustained well-being of every citizen.
   
   But we accomplish one more thing - we enable the bold, daring, capitalistic mindset of the “exceptional American” (sorry) by freeing them to invest and spend and grow the economy, safe from the worry that their families won’t be able to go to the doctor when needed.
   
   The value of this peace of mind can not be underestimated when it comes to a national, positive, growth-oriented outlook.
   
   
3. Banning government intervention in individuals’ lives (provided they aren’t harming others).
   
   I want my government to stop wasting time worrying about abortion (it is the law of the land), gay marriage, teaching creationism, and the myriad other “social” issues that are important to individuals, but which as a Centrist, I don’t want to make political.
   
   It is bizarre to me that Congress (a bastion of piety, morality and right-mindedness) should even be allowed to opine on these issues, must less legislate them. They simply have no standing.
   
   I think we can trust the American people to live within their moral fabric and rely on domestic law enforcement to protect them from those who would do them harm.

Once the economy stabilizes, we must absolutely focus on cleaning up Government - this will require a clarity of vision and cojones. Attributes both President Obama and the Republican candidates are sorely lacking.

It is ironic that the non-extremist nature of Centrism precludes the impetus to advocate for rational government.

demoPrats

Nope - it’s not a typo - a prat is an incompetent fool; and looking at the Party of Donkeys, I see a whole lot of those in their midst.

The DemoPrats have accomplished little to nothing since 2006, during which they’ve had control of the House (‘06-10), Senate (‘08-) and White House (‘08-); their leadership is inept and toothless, and they lack the ability to lead.

The Republicans are dogmatic bullies under the dual (and bizarre) thumbs of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist. But they are masterful at focusing their message in a way that is instantly resonant. Their platform in my words:

1. Taxes are evil - We must curb government excess and put Americans to work.
2. Life is sacrosanct - We must protect innocent unborn children from those who would kill them.
3. Peace through might - We must ensure America’s freedom and safety with a powerful military and border security that deters all our enemies.

To any Democrats that might read this post - can you in as succinct a way articulate your Party’s position?

...

Yeah - it’s a problem isn’t it? In the absence of a compelling message, you allow the Rs to define you as Anti-Jobs, Anti-Life, and Anti-Freedom.

...DemoPrats

From the President down to the petulant Reid/Pelosi dullards, no-one has been able to effectively challenge the Republicans. This is after all the party favored by most of the media, almost all of Hollywood, and some of the brightest minds in the country, and yet, they are bumfuzzled.

1. Taxes create jobs. Capitalism is greed - if your net revenue/employee is positive, you will hire more people because you will make more money. If your taxes go up, you’re still greedy and you’ll hire even more people to make back the tax money - remember employees are a tax deduction. There’s a ton of data to back this up.
2. Life doesn’t end at birth. Every life must be protected; a healthy birth is the beginning - we must ensure a healthy life for every child - that includes an excellent education and guaranteed healthcare. Healthy, well-educated children are net contributors to our economy - they do honest work, and pay their taxes. In fact, they give back more than we spend on them. The Bible says we must protect life, and we couldn’t agree more - the healthier our nation, the wealthier we are, the more jobs we create, and the less debt we incur.
3. America first. We have a lot of problems to fix here at home, and a lot of enemies wishing to attack us in our own backyard. Let us bring our troops back from abroad, and defend our own cities and towns. We don't need to be the world's cop anymore.

This is just an off-the-cuff (one hour of thinking) response written by an immigrant marketing guy.

The Dems could easily de-Prat themselves if they were to utilize the full capacity of the talent on their side; they just need to focus on connecting to their audience, and not on trying to be smart, something in which all DemoPrats revel.

Effective communication is not when the speaker does a good job, but when the audience hears what they need, in the way they need it.

To be clear, this is only a way to engage the voters politically, and win an election. It does not change the DemoPrats' ineptitude in government.

I think there is a possible fix. President Obama needs to replace Vice President Biden with someone who will run the entire Domestic portfolio. He must be able to wrangle Congress, and know how to streamline our government and catalyze job creation. He must be confrontational, decisive and impolite, but most of all, he needs to totally resonate with "regular people."

I think that person is Ross Perot.

how can you be so obtuse?

Sound familiar? It will if you've seen The Shawshank Redemption, and recall when Andy Dufresne (protagonist) finds proof of his innocence, but Warden Norton (antagonist/scumbag) dismisses it. Andy "knows" he is innocent; the warden "knows" that all criminals are guilty. We are on Andy's side, and appalled that the warden doesn't even consider the possibility of innocence. In the end, the warden is vanquished and Dufresne is free, but both remain obstinately true to their beliefs.

I was reminded of this when reading The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - a brilliant analysis on the strength of our belief systems, and why persuasion is so difficult. Psychologists use the term cognitive dissonance to explain it - when we are faced with conflicting ideas, we "reposition" things to reduce the discomfort. Like when justifying an expensive purchase - "Sure this is an expensive car, but that's because it's well-engineered, safer, and will last so much longer than that cheap clunker you just bought - you get what you pay for."

Unprovoked, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but when pushed, we forsake reasonable for defensive and obstinate, and that leads to bad decision-making.

As American politics kicks into gear for the 2012 elections, apparently *every* politician feels pushed and under siege, and none are capable of making good decisions. The abject disinterest in governing has never been more present than during the recent debt ceiling and FAA debacles. The good of the nation is/was forsaken for the good of the Party or the individual politician.

Why? Because politics is a zero-sum game - there is only one winner. It used to be that candidates would campaign on the merits of their vision, their ideas, talk about who they were as a person, and "may the best (wo)man win." But as politics has "evolved," they've discovered that it is much easier to make your opponent(s) lose than it is to show why you should win. Rather than being the best candidate, it's about being the one with the best opposition research and counter-marketing.

Bizarrely, this new breed of politician's cognitive dissonance causes them to actually believe that integrity and good is about partisan one-upmanship and not about service and governing.

How can they be so obtuse?

On Friday Standard & Poor's lowered America's credit rating from AAA to AA+; their analysis wasn't based on numbers (i.e. is America actually a trusted investment), but rather on the politics - can Congress and the White House stop the posturing and juvenile finger-pointing, and focus on running the country?

Is this a reasonable basis for judging credit-worthiness? Will a loan officer at a bank decide to lend money to a couple based on the numbers, or on whether they keep bickering all the time? I'm sure the bickering should be a factor, but am not convinced it is the ONLY factor.

How can they be so obtuse?

Having said this, the reaction so far from both the White House and Congress is partisan drivel. The ONLY thing politicians are capable of is showing how the other side is to blame for everything that's bad, and how they are righteous and good (there is no pressure to talk about compromise, leadership or governing). If immaturity and petulance were the only factors, America should receive a rating below that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain - maybe closer to that of Syria or North Korea.

A strength of democracy is that the fringes are attenuated by the center; and that effective partisanship impedes government overreach. A weakness of democracy is that it is possible for enough of the electorate to be swayed in the moment, that the most fringe voices are rewarded, and the more honorable and insightful are ignored.

Today the American public is as polarized as her politicians, no-one is considering the ramifications of the downgrade or our economic state, instead we are each bent on making sure everyone knows how screwed up the other side is, and how we'd be better off if they didn't exist. This is our cognitive dissonance, founded on our deepened commitment to the votes we've cast.

How can we be so obtuse? 

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things; and no good thing ever dies." These are the last words spoken by Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption.

Does good come out of bad? I hope so. Has American been harmed enough by our politicians' failings to demand and expect more from ourselves than angry sound bytes? Not yet, but perhaps soon.

I was listening to a show on NPR asking, "What is life?" I agreed with the NASA definition - life exists when there is procreation and evolution. I was talking to a friend later about the unasked question, "What is humanity?" I think humanity exists when there is empathy and aspiration.

Survival requires community - we must have more empathy for our brothers and sisters, because the community prevails when the least among us survives and thrives. Success requires ability and desire - we must make our children more capable than we are, and we must imbue in them a desire and urgency to be greater than their parents.

Out of all that has happened recently, my hope is that we overcome our cognitive dissonance, and resurrect our humanity.

the greater bad

Have you ever told a white lie? I have, many times. We tell them because it's convenient or more tactful than the truth, thinking that serves a greater good.

Saying those trousers don't make you look fat is one thing; claiming that we should invade a country because there is incontrovertible proof (a lie) that they have weapons of mass destruction is an altogether different thing.

Or is it? In both cases the truth was stretched; the consequences (they do look fat vs. thousands dead, $billions wasted) were ignored; and the liars weren't held accountable.

Where should we draw the line? When is it polite or forgivable vs. unethical? Most of us push personal limits, but rarely legal ones - the threat of being caught and the possibility of harming someone prevents me from speeding excessively. What constrains governments?

In democracies policing the government is the job of the opposition party(ies) and voters, though recent history hasn't shown either to be effective. Freedom of the Press is a constitutional safeguard, but most journalists work for news media owned by large corporations (=bias), and others (liberal MSNBC, conservative FOX) are excessively partisan. Plus let's face it, they're not motivated to find truth as much as they are to get elected or draw eyeballs.

Our governments (America, Britain, Sweden, etc.) are conspiring to undermine and attack organizations like Wikileaks, and many are rising up against the government to "fix them." Read for example John Pilger's speech at a recent Sydney Town Hall meeting, where he implores the ~2,000 people that attended to rise up and demand change. Will they succeed?

The ethos of government is integrity, it achieves sustainability through accountability, and its strength comes from transparency. The authors of the American Constitution and the Magna Carta believed this, but time hasn't been kind to our leaders.

Rather than aiming for the greater good, our governments are bent on sweeping their bad acts under the rug. Democratic governments come into power through a process of lies and exaggerations (aka elections); and from that beginning, they have no precedent on where to draw the line once in power. We citizens are so drawn to the political rhetoric that we forgive current and prior bad acts and vote the liars back into power!

Look at China's alternate fuel (vs. oil & coal) investments - they are NOT interested in climate change or reducing greenhouse gasses; they are simply uncomfortable being dependent on foreigners for something so critical as power. Their motivation is energy independence and market advantage; any climate change impact is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct.

There is no greater good, there is only what's good for the government of China, or America, or whomever.

It's naive to think that politicians will suddenly develop morality. Politicians are designed to self-aggrandize, grandstand, and win elections. Serving constituents is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct. Political ethos is tied directly to ego and a compass that points to power and reelection.

Voters are no different - we're self-centered as well. Whatever the situation, most of us will first figure out how it helps or hinders us, and then (if at all) consider societal consequences. We therefore "reward" the politicians that we believe will help us most, or more specifically, help us most right now.

Our elected officials have been conditioned (by the voters) to tell us only what we want to hear, whether that's a promise or a threat (or a lie). We apparently don't care about truth, we're just looking for a good pandering.

Shame on us - the burden of citizenship and the right to vote is enormous and not to be taken lightly. No wonder our leaders routinely aim at the greater bad... we ask them to.

cojones

Anyone who has run a business will say you can create bottom-line impact (grow profits) by cutting costs, but that this is a short-term fix; if you can't grow your top line (sales), the business is at risk. And if you keep cutting and cutting, your top line will eventually shrink as innovation, product quality and customer service decline.

When looking at where to cut and where to invest, you focus on how the business will look 3-5 years out and make your choices strategically. Which engines have been around a while and have fat in them? Which will create future value? Which ones were important, but have now outlived their usefulness?

Good leaders will make the tough calls, making big cuts in some programs, investing significantly in others, and killing some outright.

Bad leaders implement death by a thousand cuts, trimming each department by 5 or 10%. They will have done no real thinking, conducted no real analysis, and certainly made no real decisions. They are afraid to to be bold.

The same holds true in government - President Obama and Speaker Boehner have on opportunity to achieve strategic and sustainable impact through their budgets, but unless things change in the coming weeks, they will shirk it in favor of being safe. A plague on both their houses!

In 2010 the Feds took in $2.162 trillion, and spent $3.456T, creating a deficit of $1.294T. The best Obama/Boehner have come up with is a paltry 1.7% ($60B) reduction in spending. Worse, most of the proposed cuts do nothing to prepare the country for tomorrow, enable growth, reduce unemployment, or create a more self-sustaining economy. For shame!

Four programs account for 60% of the 2010 Budget - Social Security: $695B + Defense: $664B + Medicare $453B + Medicaid: $290B = $2,102 Billion. All-up (Fed + State) spending on Education is ~$600B for 2010.

If I were in their shoes, I would:

1. Grow the Top Line (increase income): simplify the tax code, eliminate ALL deductions:
   -- Business tax: flat 3.5% on gross receipts
   -- Personal flat tax: 0% below $50K, 15% between $50-100K; 25% from $100-200K; 40% above $200K.
   This includes all Federal deductions (tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc.). States that tax must adopt a similar model. For 2007 (most recent year with comparable personal and business data), this would have increased net Federal income from $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.
2. Rethink Defense: in 2009, America spent $664B - more than then next 22 countries COMBINED! We need to move away from being the planet's cop, and simply protecting the United States with the following cuts:
   -- 2011: budget capped at $500B total by phasing out ALL American military forces abroad
   -- 2012: $400B capped with cuts including reductions in nuclear arms.
   -- 2013: $300B cap
   -- 2014+: Cap = 10% of total Federal income (which per #1 above = $270B in 2007, or roughly 2.5 China's budget.
3. Redefine Social Security: Introduce legislation to add a means test + change the eligibility age to 68 in 5 years, and 70 in 7 years. Yes, this a bait and switch for many taxpayers, but one ameliorated by #4 below.
4. Eliminate Medicare/Medicaid, replace it with Universal Health Care ensuring health, medicine, dental and vision care for all Americans. As with the rest of the developed world, the costs will be shared at about 65% federal and 35% businesses. Insurance companies will suffer (yes!); some employers (particularly small businesses) will also take a hit (though their taxes (#1 above) will actually go down); most large companies will actually save money because this insurance will cost less than what they're paying now. Employees will have more disposable income, greater job flexibility, and of course be healthier.
5. Cut Education: Add a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, federalizing education, consolidating the nation to 50 school districts (one per state), and 3 years later consolidating further to one district. This would save $225 billion in district payroll alone. Enact a one-time $100B capital improvement program + $25B for a complete national curriculum with teaching resources.
6. Change Culture: do you know what LOBA is? It stands for "Lower of Budget or Actual" - this is how government budgets are set, and effectively how people are measured - your budget next year is the lower of what you did spend or were supposed to spend. The motivation is to spend everything you are given whether you need to or not. Per my post on simplicity, we should measure government employees on their ability to spend well, reward outcomes vs. process, and prioritize fewer, simpler objectives. By changing the culture, we can create a system motivated to spend less and do more vs. the opposite. This eliminates the need for the thousand cuts.

Difficult times require drastic changes. If the Republicans are to be believed, America is headed for bankruptcy, and will become the next Greece. These six changes would create a culture of lean efficiency, shrink or cut programs that are outmoded, and invest where it makes sense to enable future growth.

We need leaders who can guide this nation through the tough times ahead, and prepare the United States for sustained prosperity in the future. Legislators who waste time trying to save $50-100 million on trivial initiatives are afraid and useless. We have serious problems, and we need serious people to solve them.

President Obama, Speaker Boehner - let's see what you've got.

in the best interests

Are you familiar with the Butterfly Effect? It states that a small change in one part of a system can dramatically affect outcomes in another part of the system, or more poetically, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas.

A look into the roots of recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt reveals that some of their inspiration came from far-away sources like American Gene Sharp, and the Optor in Serbia. They were bolstered by a history of civilian uprisings against authority - from Kent State in May, 1970, where students reacted violently to President Nixon's announcement that the US had invaded Cambodia, to the African National Congress and people like Steve Biko rising up against Apartheid in South Africa, the list goes on.

Lives have been sacrificed and countries have been shaped through civil disobedience, but sadly, humanity is not yet civilized enough to claim that this phase of our "development" is over. Recent events in Bahrain eerily echo what happened at Kent State 40 years ago. We are at least consistent...

Our hackles are raised when our sense of what's right is shaken; we feel righteous indignation when what we know to be fair and just is violated; indignation turns to anger when the perpetrators are those entrusted with authority and expected to represent the will of the people (their victims).

What about those on the "other" side of these actions?? I think/hope most are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the people, that they are doing what they know in their hearts and minds to be the correct response given the situation and available information.

Look at President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, and how we see that the information he believed to be true and verified was a lie. Look at the actions of the British Empire, who for centuries believed that they were "civilizing" the Colonies. It's easy to fault their actions in hindsight, but in that moment, in their moment, I can't honestly say what I would have done, given what was known to be "true" at the time.

In their minds, they were doing what they felt to be "right." If any of you are or were children, were you ever "subjugated" by your parents for doing or wanting to do something you thought was OK? Did you swear that you'd never do that if you had kids, then when you became parents, you put the screws to your kids in much the same way??

Context matters. Our judgment about the best interests of those in our charge is at best complex, and infrequently based on pure, unbiased reason.

Parenting is different from politics - in politics transparency matters, due process matters, and the voice of the people matters. In the politics of a democracy, these are sacrosanct, aren't they?

Texas Governor Rick Perry believes that abstinence is the only way to teach sex education, and he has invested more than any other state on promoting virginity before marriage. Texas has one of the worst-performing public school systems in America, the 3rd highest teen pregnancy rate, and more sexually-active high school students (52.9% June/08) than the national average (47.8%), when recently questioned about his decision cut education budgets, close schools, lay off teachers, etc., but maintain abstinence funding, he responded: “I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to arbitrarily rewrite the rules governing public service employment in his State. His legislature will vote to ratify this despite strong opposition from the people of Wisconsin. His rationale - we can't afford to do what we were doing, we must live within our means, and this is the only answer - I/we know what's right.

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have always acted in what they believed to be the best interests of Tunisia and Egypt respectively. King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa has always acted in what he believes to be the best interests of Bahrain. Each of these leaders' assumptions have been challenged over the last weeks.

We in the West have looked on these events with some feeling of superiority, sanguine in the belief that at least we live in nations with government[s] of the people, by the people, for the people.

I wonder - are there butterflies in Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain?

a notre sante

In the face of the Republican onslaught against the Health Care Reform Bill, here's a speech I'd consider if I were President Obama.

[The Oval Office]

My fellow Americans, good evening. Almost 30 years ago, President Reagan delivered his first speech to the nation from this very desk in the Oval Office. His speech was about the economy, and the tough times ahead. I wish I could report that tough times are coming to an end, but I can't. Turning our economy around is my highest priority, and today I wish to focus on our health and how it affects the economy. To paraphrase President Reagan, I regret to say that Americans have never been more unhealthy than they are today - there is no comparison in our history; this despite the fact that we spend more on health care than almost every nation in the world.

I recently asked for a health care report card, and here are some high (or low) lights. You won't like it. I didn't like it. But we have to face the truth and then go to work to turn things around. And make no mistake, we can and will turn it around.

The incidence of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and others is highest our history. Today more American children are at risk of chronic health issues than ever before; we spend more per person on health care than ever before; and we waste more per person on health care than we can afford. Focusing on our children, 14.5 million (over 20%) live in poverty; over 16.7 million live with anxiety and depression and do worse in reading and math because there isn't enough food to eat. More than 1.5 million American children are homeless, resulting in a lack of safety, comfort, privacy, reassuring routines, adequate health care, uninterrupted schooling, sustaining relationships, and a sense of community. And things are not improving; two million children will be affected by the housing crisis and resulting foreclosures; and in 2000, 39% of children lived in low-income housing, by 2009, it was 42%.

These are shocking numbers, as are their consequences.

Children who begin life in difficult circumstances are most likely to end up struggling throughout their lives, most likely to run afoul of the law, and most likely to become a burden to society to the tune of about $500 billion per year. It breaks down to $160 billion in increased health care costs, and $170 billion each in increased law enforcement costs and lost economic productivity.

Setting aside the moral obligation to ensure that every child in this country has shelter above their heads, is well-fed, healthy, and well-educated, can we afford the economic impact of sick and impoverished children? I know the incoming Congress pledged to cut our budgets by $100 billion, and I'm very interested to see where they propose to make these cuts. But I'd like to up the ante - let's find a way to save $500 billion/year! With deficits ballooning and rising defense and social services costs, I challenge our Congress to make a real and sustainable dent in our budgets, with an impact that will last for generations.

Many will claim that America has the best hospitals, doctors, and nurses; the best technology; the most innovative researchers and the best treatment options available in the world. I agree. There is no better place to be than the United States if you need any kind of medical help, provided you can afford it. But as we've seen, millions of our children can't.

The definition of health care is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. I believe we have the best management and treatment system in the world, but we fail when it comes to prevention and preservation.

Why? As with many things, it comes down to money. The current health care system from pharmacology to treatment to long-term care gets paid when you get treatment. Their success is dependent on your ill-health. Let's think about that for a minute - if you don't go to the doctor, he or she doesn't get paid. If you don't need any medicine, the pharmacist and the pharmaceutical companies don't get paid. For them to be successful, you have to be sick.

Now you might say that being healthy favors the insurance companies, and I thought so as well, but it's not the case. People who are healthy don't buy as much insurance, and don't contribute to rising costs, which help justify premium increases; people who are unhealthy buy more. Insurance companies might prefer not to pay claims, but they realize that they have to keep the machine running - the more people visit doctors, go to hospitals, and seek treatment, the more they can keep raising premiums and growing profits.

Last year, we passed the Health Care Reform Bill, which aimed the state of our - your health care. While it does help, we must do more to address our children's struggles, and to improve the overall state of our economy.

So I challenge us all to find ways to save $500 billion a year, every year by investing in prevention and preservation for our children. From pre-natal to early childhood to young adults, by providing every child with free health care and a great education, we can not only save $500 billion/year, but also lower unemployment, decrease crime, and increase income taxes; all of which will help accelerate our path towards a stronger, healthier and wealthier country.

To close, once again in the words of President Reagan, my fellow citizens, let us join in a new determination to rebuild the foundation of our society, to work together, to act responsibly. Let us do so with the most profound respect for that which must be preserved as well as with sensitive understanding and compassion for those who must be protected.

We can leave our children in poverty, with an un-repayable massive debt and a shattered economy, or we can leave them liberty in a land where every individual has the opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. All it takes is a little common sense and recognition of our own ability. Together we can forge a new beginning for America.

Thank you and good night.

real service

During elections, candidates will tell you that their primary motivation for entering politics is to serve. They are called to a higher purpose, and wish to devote their time and energy to public service. Hmmm... I'm thinking "No..."

Paul Krugman's latest OpEd suggests that the only motivation Republicans have is to benefit wealthy people at the expense of the poor. Krugman thinks the new Republican House is bending their own rules to repeal the Health Care Reform Bill "because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do."

In the wake of the killing spree in Arizona, Democrats also feasted on the militaristic attitude of Republican campaign tactics aimed at stirring their base into a frenzy of fear and anger and frenetic action at the thought of a Democratic leadership. This story was almost as big as the actual shooting - "political rhetoric caused that idiot to arm himself and shoot people." Of course the Dems sought to mark the Republicans as the instigators. For shame!

Both sides are seeking to paint their opponents as evil, misguided fools, ostensibly in the hopes of getting them to see the truth, and come around.

But I think we're being naive - Democrats and Republicans exist neither to create a gay loving, baby-killing Socialist state, nor to create a redneck, gun-toting military state. They simply wish to win; to beat the other party and win.

It turns out governing is almost like the tax they have to pay for winning. I used to wonder how politicians ever work together following campaigns that have so much vitriol. Imagine for a minute that Sarah Palin had run for Congress in 2010, and been voted Speaker of the House -- how might she have "partnered" with Nancy Pelosi to create a bi-partisan Congress? To steal a quote from one of the best movies of all time, "Inconceivable!"

Hence the benignly-titled "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It aims to paint the opponent as "job killers" in the lead up to the 2012 election. It isn't about governing or improving health care, or even about creating jobs, it serves only to position one side as job creators and rescuers of the American worker, and the other side as misguided wrong-doers. A good marketing strategy at least.

Surely not all politicians are bereft of the desire to truly serve? Will voters ever prefer a genuine commitment to representing the electorate? Will there come a point in our future when people look back on idiots like Palin and Pelosi and wonder what the hell we were thinking?

Survival (or getting reelected) is the basest of motivations - the system requires politicians to be in constant campaign mode or they die. We live in a very connected world; to rise above the noise and become the preferred candidate, you need to raise and then spend a ton of money promoting yourself and de-positioning your opponent. The economics make actual governing an afterthought.

Can we fix this? What if we limit the President, Senate and Congress to only ONE term, and also ban private campaign spending. Each candidate gets a fixed amount of public money to spend on their election. This might make a difference, but it doesn't eliminate the D vs. R vitriol.

What does? The real problem is not the candidates, it is the electorate. They choose not to engage, hold their representatives accountable, or take the act of voting seriously. Until the right to vote is not given but earned, it will be squandered, and the voters will continue to suffer.

deFUDdle

Back when I worked at IBM, if we didn't have the "winning" solution, our strategy was simple - we used FUD. It was brilliant, and worked more often than you might think. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The idea was to push the customer's emotional buttons, poke holes, create scary what-ifs, do whatever it took to force a delay, redefine the problem, or whatever so that we were in a more favorable position.

The Republicans FUD skills are renowned. They are able to create a sense of tension in the electorate in ways that routinely befuddle Democrats. Take health care - they did a brilliant job of associating the reform bill with "bad for the economy" and "a perilous step towards socialism" - fantastic! First, I'm willing to bet that most of us don't even know the definition - according to Webster, socialism is a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Is there any real risk that America turns into a socialist country through health care reform? Hardly. There is no correlation between the government providing a service and the elimination of all private ownership, but it's a fabulous way to create FUD. The first people to oppose socialism are our much-vaunted Congress, who let's face it, enjoy private ownership of a lot of stuff, some of which was funded by special interests and the tax payers(!); they will do everything in their power to preserve the fruits of their avarice. So - socialism is an absurdity.

What about "bad for the economy"? Again - there are many ways to make numbers mean what you want. You only have to look at this NY Times article about law schools using misleading data to shore up their performance numbers (graduate employment rates, etc.) to help improve their rankings, and you can see how universities ("reputable" universities) will lie.

When it comes to the economy, there are two things that matter most - I want a good job, and I want to take home more money than I am now. But then here's one pretty diabolical piece of FUD: taxes are bad. Well... I don't think it's that simple. How much tax do you want to pay? As little as possible - right? Me too. Thus the resonance with the Republican push on lower taxes. It makes total sense - or does it?

Do my taxes really matter or is there more to this?? Put another way, the real question in my mind is: how do I maximize my net earnings? What I really care about is how much I take home at the end of the day, the nature of the deductions from my earnings are less important than the value I get for those deductions and whether the net amount I'm taking home is going up. <-- Does that make sense?

If it does, then it's not really about taxes is it? Why not make it about personal profitability? Profits being what you get to keep in your wallet after all your expenses are paid. So if there is a change to our economic system that costs me more in tax but lowers or eliminates another (bigger) salary deduction, and after all that I end up ahead, why should I care?

According to this (well worth a read), the American health care system is the most expensive in the world; in 2006, we spent more than $6,700 per person on health care, compared ~$3,500 for most Western nations. The cost is actually higher since every other Western country has universal health care, and about 10% of Americans don't have any coverage at all, so the $6,700 is actually closer to $7,500 per person.

Digging a bit deeper, 70% of Canadian health care costs are borne by the government vs. 46% in the US; the Canadian system costs about $3,700 per person (just about half of the US cost), and yet Canadians live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate - these are the two primary measures of national health care effectiveness.

Bottom line: Canadians spend $3,800 less per person for better health care. If you're American, you might think - yeah but my employer pays my share - what do I care? Well - if personal profitability is your goal, then you will know that you are paying EVERY penny of your medical insurance costs, whether it is in taxes, payroll deductions, a lower salary, or lower prices at the store. No matter how you cut it, the $3,800 difference DOES come from your wallet, and means those of us who live in the USA earn that much less every year, and die earlier to boot.

Even if the US decided to spend $4,500 per person (for every person), that's still a savings of $2,200 for each of us plus the knowledge that no-one gets left behind. Every person in this country gets access. Every person also gets to pad their wallets a bit, and rarely is that a bad thing!

But how to communicate this? It's a pretty complex analysis, and given the state of education in America, I'm not convinced that every voter is going to understand it. Think back to the last person that had a tough economic message to share with the populace - President Ronald Reagan in is first address to the nation from the Oval Office in 1981 - a brilliant speech.

If President Obama had addressed the nation in just this way - not talking to politicians and special interests as he did in his attempts, but talking to the American people, sitting in his office, and not standing in the House; if he had applied simple metaphors as Reagan did, perhaps each of us might have been able to look forward to an extra $2-3,000 in our wallets in 2011.