Car Culture vs. Community

Canada and the United States share many cultural values and practices but perhaps no one element of those cultures has influenced the whole like the car. The ability to easily travel long distances quickly comfortably and economically has lead to a mobility of people, goods and ideas as never before in history. This has allowed such great nations to expand rapidly and create great wealth as well, but at what cost?

For as much as europeans and many asians also love their cars, no where has the car culture dominated like it has in North America. For many in Europe and most other places in the world, a private vehicle is little more than a dream due to the high costs of the vehicles themselves and the costs to operate and maintain them.

If the majority of the world's population cannot afford to pay the cost of a car I have to ask, what has been the true cost of the automobile for those of us who are able to afford one or more? What has been the cost of our auto obsession to American society?

Most places in the world travel is by animal or some form of mass transit. Passenger bus and rail services dominate in most countries but for North America. As a result, most Americans, with the small exception of air travelers, travel alone to their destinations increasing their isolation from one another. In most of the world the majority of people either still live where they were born and raised. Neighbours know each other and have done so for generations. The mobility afforded to Americans by the automobile has dispersed families and neighbours so much in the last century that I don't think many people have the sense of community that their parents and grandparents had.

What would our country look like and what would we look like if we too had to rely on affordable mass transit because we could no longer afford to have private vehicles. Would we have a stronger sense of community? Would we be less independent as individuals and more interdependent on each other to survive? I don't know but it is a question worth asking. Again, what has been the true cost of having an automobile culture?

The Free Market Myth

Much ado is made among conservative circles about the free market being the panacea for all our ills. The concept of an unlimited or at least a very little regulated free market has been an historical disaster for all but the very wealthy. Free markets have been with us since the beginning of human history and until markets were regulated we never had a middle class. There was extreme wealth or extreme poverty. The wealthy had the best of everything including healthcare while the poor barely had enough to eat.

Under conservative free market philosophy, the market will self correct for any anomalies such as market bubbles and recessions. The great depression and this last "great recession" are examples of the failure of that philosophy. A truly unrestrained free market may sound great but its weakness are found in human nature itself. The excesses of the few who in their greed take unfair advantage of others will destroy the whole for all. The market as an "organism" lacks one crucial quality to ultimately be truly "free". The free market and its corporate constituents lack any kind of conscience, social or moral.

Only a government which is truly for and of the people can exercise the conscience of the people and that government must impose the conscience of the people upon that free market in order to prevent chaos in the society in which that market operates.

Healthcare is a second area in which the social conscience of the people must be in ultimate control. Like the greater free market, individual corporations such as insurance companies have no inherent conscience. As such, practices such as denying coverage when some one gets sick and pre-existing condition denials have become rampant. Only the moral and social conscience of people through their government can restrain these corporate practices and abuses. Some in the extreme may call this socialism but so be it.

Americans claim to live is a society of laws but only when it is convenient for them. Only when it is to their advantage and doesn't interfere with their individually perceived sense of right and wrong and not the moral values of the nation as a whole are those laws respected. Neither an individual nor a corporation has the right to pick and choose which laws to obey. To allow otherwise would again lead to total chaos and the breakdown of the very society those laws are intended to protect.

The term "free market" should be replaced with "fair market" and all that a fair philosophy implies. Only when the moral and social conscience of the people is allowed to guide the market can it be truly free and fair. Only then can true prosperity for all the members of a society be realized.

To Tax or not to Tax?

Recent days have seen much debate about taxation and tax rates specifically. Should the wealthy pay more as they have the means to do so? I think they should pay according to their means but that is a side issue distracting the people from more important questions they should be asking. Americans never seem to ask one important question that could give them a better perspective on their own situation.

The question not asked is how do we compare to the rest of the world? Wikipedia has a good article comparing world taxation rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
According to the charts in the article, Americans have some of the lowest personal tax rates in the industrialized world. We should be grateful for this instead of complaining about how high our taxes are. Like wise for our energy costs! Granted, our corporate taxes are on the higher end of the scale but isn't that the cost for having such low personal tax rates?

If we really want lower taxes we need to examine where our tax money is really spent and ask some hard questions about our priorities and ambitions. Do we really need dozens of military bases in foreign countries around the world? No other country has this. How can we ask other countries to become self sufficient if we don't allow them to stand on their own? NATO obligations for the mutual defense of its neighbours I understand. Korea, Japan, and the Philippines etc. are not members of NATO. Bases on Pacific or Indian Ocean island that are US territories I also can understand, but they are not foreign soil. How many billions do we spend on bases and personnel stationed in foreign countries where we have no combat roles or responsibilities? Could not these billions be better spent improving the lives and conditions of the American people?

Why is it that the countries with higher personal tax rates seem to be to a large extent, stronger and more stable economically. For one example, Canada. Taxes are higher, no one goes bankrupt and loses their home due to medical expenses. Fuel taxes and therefore prices are higher but the infrastructure in better condition. Banks are more highly regulated but they still make billions in profit, none have ever failed, foreclosures have not risen significantly and property prices never tanked. Mortgages can not be bought and sold on a whim or securitized and put an entire financial system at risk.

Sensible tax rates and regulations may inconvenience big businesses and wealthy individuals but they also can provide a structure and stability to a society that seems to be in chaos due to excessive tax cutting and deregulation. American roads, bridges and other infrastructure components are falling apart. Millions are without affordable healthcare. Healthcare costs are out of control. Government deficits have no end in sight and there is no real plan to resolve any of these situations.

We already have some of the lowest personal tax rates and energy costs in the industrialized world but at what cost? We want the world but we don't seem to be willing to pay for it. Taxes will eventually have to go up or we will have to learn to scale back our lifestyles and ambitions. We need to really prioritize and be grateful for what we have rather than complaining about what we don't have.

Infrastructure Disaster

The past week has been one to remember for disasters due to the crumbling state of the infrastructure of this country. The natural gas explosion and fire in San Bruno, CA and the wind and fires in Detroit are the two most recent major examples.

The San Bruno fires have been attributed to a 50 year old natural gas main, the Detroit fires to high winds and falling electrical lines. As an electrician working in the Detroit area, I am well acquainted with the poor condition of Detroit's electrical grid. That the neighborhood electrical lines would break during high winds is no great shock. The pole to pole lines beside my house are in terrible condition. The insulation on the wires is frayed or missing and the lines have numerous splices from previous breaks. Why broken lines are repaired time after time instead of being replaced I don't completely understand. The short term economics are one thing but how many splices can one line have and still maintain structural integrity? Any one who has driven on Michigan roads can ask a similar question. How many times can you patch a patch?

Any good engineer knows that new material is stronger than repaired. New wires can withstand wind storms much more easily than those with multiple splices. What we need from our utilities and governments is a commitment to replace an upgrade our roads, gas and electrical and water lines at a vastly accelerated rate. Infrastructure spending must increase at a substantial rate or our infrastructure will likely collapse around us before it can be replaced with better, more modern and longer lasting materials.

I am aware of the great costs of these endeavors but I for one am willing to pay a bit more to have a secure utility and transportation infrastructure. Are you?

An Inconvenient Constitution?

I hear increasing chatter from the extreme right about repealing the 14th amendment. If I read American history correctly, amendments to the constitution have always been used to expand and define individual rights. It concerns me that these same people who supposedly stand for the values of the constitution are the first ones to seek to change that same constitution to restrict individual rights when those rights inconveniently conflict with their philosophical/political bent.

You can't have it both ways. You can't preach a message of freedom to the world and, at the same time, restrict those same freedoms at home. Most countries of the world look to the USA for the best examples of freedom and individual rights. These people and politicians of the far right have accused those on the left of being Fascist. Read your history. Fascists restrict individual rights and are from the conservative right.

To get up and preach freedom to the world while restricting it at home is the ultimate example of hypocrisy. This country once welcomed the poor and destitute but no more! These radicals from the right are nothing but hypocrites who fly in the face of the principles this country was founded on.

Justice for the Children

As an immigrant I am especially interested in the ongoing immigration debate. I still feel that the single biggest problem is the backlog in the system due to a lack of congressional funding but another issue came to my attention last week.

A young man in Arizona who has been in the country since seven years of age voluntarily went back to Mexico to try and immigrate legally. He was brought here, as a child, by his mother. He was educated in Arizona and graduated last year with an engineering degree from Arizona State. His wife and child remain in the US legally and he is being denied permission to immigrate. His hardship petition was denied. What does USCIS define as hardship? Is it not a hardship on his family to be separated from their husband and father?

Apart from the hardship argument another question must be asked in cases such as this. Should a child who is brought here illegally by their parents be held responsible for their unlawful presence? Since when are children held responsible for the crimes or sins of their parents? If the child is raised and educated in the US from an early age and becomes an adult who contributes to society and has committed no crimes, why should he or she be forced to return to a country they do not know. They had no choice in coming here and should not be treated as if they did.

Children of illegals who are raised here should be allowed to stay and not be held to the same standards as their parents. This is one issue that must be addressed in any proposed immigration reform.

Curious Parallels?

Have you ever noticed how divisive American politics has become? The "Conservative" right accuses the left of being socialist! Most of them don't even really know what the word even means. Is it a coincidence that the extreme right are the big 'C' conservatives and the extreme radical Muslims are also the big 'C' conservatives within their own world? Neither one is accepting of any moderation of their extreme viewpoints, yet both are willing to fight each other at the drop of a hat.

What has happened to the common sense of the American people? Why is a narrow and extreme political philosophy so attractive to so many? People, please use the minds God gave you and think. Educate yourselves and stop believing everything the political extremes are selling. Do your own research and learn. Remember, foot notes and documentation authors use can be used to back up any point of view they wish to present. Using information from only those who you agree with will never present a balanced view, presenting all sides of an argument, allowing the reader to truly make up his or her own mind.

Banking Hypocrisy!

Recently, one of our major banks has come out with a series of commercials equating good citizenship and banking. The concept is that our deposits are lent out in turn to proving mortgages, business and individual loans and in return the bank pays us interest on our deposits. That sounds like an equitable arrangement but it is in fact little more than a public relations ploy.

Credit and therefore loans is tight. Most small businesses will tell you that operating credit is not so easy to come by. Mortgages and consumer loans are harder to get and the interest paid to depositors is negligible if anything at all.

The reality is that banks are making most of their profits from trading in the stock and financial markets. These billion dollar profits benefit the banks and their stockholders. The depositors, upon whom the bank's financial foundation supposedly rests, get little or nothing from these massive profits. Do the depositors not deserve a fair share?

True citizenship implies equitable treatment. I don't see this equity in the bank's treatment of it's depositors and until this happens all the commercials about good banking being good citizenship are nothing more the a PR smoke screen.

Contrary to the Loudest Opinion

A few moments ago, the President signed the first part of his promised healthcare reforms into law. I have heard many loud voices in opposition to these changes and a question comes to mind. Was it necessary to make all of these changes by legislation ?

I'm afraid that the answer is yes and no. Changes such as removal of lifetime and annual limits, forbidding insurance companies to drop your coverage if you get sick and the elimination of pre-existing conditions are all necessary to work towards limiting the damages caused to families by personal bankruptcies due to medical bills. It is unfortunate that these changes had to be forced upon the insurance industry because they could have instituted these changes themselves, without legislative action. It was their own refusal to do what was needed and wanted by the public that forced the present situation.

There are enormous profits to be made from healthy people, not sick people. Unfortunately, this is not how insurance is supposed to work. The risk is not being spread among all subscribers as it should be if the ill cannot buy insurance or are dropped from coverage if they become sick.

Questions that I have not heard adequately asked or answered are, how much are these changes going to cost versus the costs to the economy of the personal bankruptcies due to uninsured medical expenses? How much money will be saved by more people being able to see and pay for a doctor's visit compared to the cost of an uncompensated emergency room visit?

The truth is that no one really knows how this will all shake out. To toss what has been done in favor of the status quo, before giving the new legislation a chance to work and be tweaked, is short sighted and irresponsible way to run a country or a business.

Was all of this necessary? Yes because the health insurance industry refused to do what their customers asked for and therefore forced a huge financial burden upon those customers, often destroying the lives of those customers in the process.

Are the newly instituted reforms all the correct ones? I don't know but, they must be given a fair chance to succeed or fail before a proper judgement can be rendered. Let's give them that chance.

Why "Free"?

Have you ever noticed that the most popular buzz word in the US is "free"? "Free Trade", "Free Enterprise" and "Free Market" are the words that seem to dominate all economy related discussions.

In recent years this emphasis on all things free has resulted in widespread deregulation of large sectors of the economy. This deregulation is good in theory but we seem to have forgotten why these regulations were instituted in the first place. The excesses and risks of the 1920's lead to the market crash of 1929 and the ensuing "great depression." We now find ourselves in a great recession because the leaders of this country never seem to learn anything from history.

Ninety nine point nine percent of the businesses in this country are run by honest hard working individuals. The problem is that the one tenth of one percent of business leaders are not as honest and are looking to make as much as possible at any cost. They maybe small in number but they seem to be concentrated in the wealthiest and most powerful levels of society. They have a level of wealth where they have very little, if anything, to lose when things go wrong. Their salaries are outrageous and their bonuses, which can pay many times that of their salaries, are truly obscene to the majority of the population. This 0.1 percent have the influence, through their greed and avarice, to bring to whole system down around them.

We need to replace the overuse of the word "free", in our vocabulary with "Fair". We need fair trade, fair enterprise and a fair market. The realization of the american dream for all requires the level playing field of a fair market with reasonable and fair regulation, reasonable and fair taxation, reasonable and fair trade and included in that must be reasonable and fair healthcare.

All the people need is a reasonable and fair opportunity to realize their dreams, not one which gives all the advantages to the elite, ultra wealthy, and powerful. Christ threw the dishonest money changers out of the temple and we should find a way to throw these dishonest "businessmen" out of business and hold them personally responsible for the damage they have caused.

Truth in Advertising

What happened to the idea of truth in advertising?

There are laws regulating manufacturer claims about product performance or efficacy in many areas of our lives. Why is it that when industries, special interest groups or politicians try to influence the public about a certain issue, they so often resort to half truths, exaggerations and often, bald faces lies. Though I understand and support the concept of free speech, do not the citizens of this country deserve some sort of consumer protection from these deceits?

The clean energy debate is rife with such deceit. For example, "Clean Coal" is a theory and a technology in development. I does not yet exist in industry and if it comes to be it will be very expensive. The same industry which falsely promotes this technology as if it exists is simultaneously fighting carbon cap and trade policy claiming it will be very expensive and cost thousands of jobs. The truth is that it likely won't be significantly more expensive than the nonexistent "clean coal" technology and as far as jobs go, that is speculation and a scare tactic. Cap and trade can provide some of the funding to encourage clean coal and other alternate energy development leading to new jobs in new industries that don't yet exist.

If you really want to convince someone that your viewpoint is right the best method is truthful education and open debate based on the facts, not on half truths, exaggerations, lies and scare tactics. Syms clothing stores motto says it best. "An educated consumer is our best customer."

We need to hold those who blatantly lie to the public to task for their underhanded deceit.

Health care in the US

Considering the mishmash of insurance companies and regional economic disparity within this country, I am amazed that the existing health care system works at all.

One proposal is to allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines in order to foster greater competition int the market. Although well intentioned, this idea is fraught with problems. Under the current system insurance companies must adhere to the regulations of each individual state and must be licensed to operate in each state within which they do business. Each state has the right and ability to regulate the industry in their own state as they see fit. Much is made of states rights. Would this new "interstate competition" not trample on those state rights? Would a company operating out of Georgia and selling policies in Michigan be subject to the laws of Michigan or those of Georgia? I have not heard this question asked or discussed. Until this question is asked, discussed and answered I don't see it as being a viable concept.

Different insurance companies can reimburse one doctor at different rates for the same procedure. Likewise, hospitals have to negotiate reimbursement rates with each company they accept. This is insane. This creates a vast and expensive bureaucracy that wastes money better used on patient care and is, I believe, ultimately unsustainable. A single payer system would be a better option but practically unworkable given the present climate in the country.

Growing up under the Canadian system, I wish we had it here. Everyone is covered and no one goes bankrupt because they get sick. The system is not prefect but it works and the vast majority, even if they complain, would not want a private system for anything.

Contrary to popular opinion, Canada does not and never did have a national or socialized health care system. Rather, it has a national health care policy. Each province has its own insurance system and those provinces often squabble over inter-provincial reimbursement rates. Health insurance is socialized but health service delivery is private. Doctors and hospitals do not work for the government. Canadians have more choice of doctors and hospitals than many Americans do. HMO's tell you what doctors and what hospitals you have to go to and what procedures they will pay for. Canadians have no such restrictions. The insurance system has no say over your treatment.

What the US needs is a hybrid system. Pre-existing condition exemptions must be eliminated. Doctors must not be able to be over ruled in treatment decisions by anyone except their patients. Annual and lifetime limits to coverage have to go. Policy cancellation due to illness must be banned and Copays, deductibles and coinsurance must have reasonable limits so as not to force anyone into bankruptcy. The entire structure and concept of risk pools in the industry needs to be reconsidered.

The idea of insurance is to spread the risk out over as wide a pool as possible. The idea of taking the sick and those at high risk and placing them into a separate pool from those who are healthy defeats the entire concept of spreading risk. Instead it only serves to concentrate the risk. This may not be a popular idea but it is a fair idea.

Many European countries use private insurance companies but rates are regulated for basic coverage and companies cannot make a profit on those policies. Their profits are made on supplementary policies purchased by those who want them and can afford them. Surely this is a concept worthy of consideration. I really find the idea of making huge profits from the illness of another human being repulsive. Earning a reasonable living is fine and expected but billions of dollars of profit for shareholders who provide no service to patients is just wrong.

We need federally regulated minimum standards but State regulated standards of practice within their borders. Larger pools spread costs out and result in more fair premiums for all. The more people who are covered the greater the risk is spread and the lower the cost to the consumer. Lower premium costs will allow more people to participate and continue the cycle of reduced premiums for all. Those who, through no fault of their own, still cannot afford to purchase coverage must the be taken care of by a level of social coverage. Just as we can't allow people to starve to death and provide food stamps, we have a social and moral responsibility to provide for the poor in a responsible way other than the emergency room.

I have heard that the constitution does not provide for federal guaranties of health care but I tend to disagree in part. To "promote the general Welfare" must include personal welfare and ones health is surely part of that.

I have also heard that heath care is not a right because it is not mentioned in the constitution. Healthcare as we understand it now did not exist two hundred years ago just as many of our other rights were not originally mentioned. Although I believe the preamble makes a case for it to be a right, the amendment process still works and perhaps the right to healthcare should be formally enshrined and the naysayers silenced.

Ultimately, a federally supported, state run single payer system would be a more efficient and cost effective one but, given the realities of the present environment it is not workable.

Government regulation does not mean and never has meant socialism. Free enterprise should not supplant fair enterprise and fairness is all I am really proposing.

Immigration Reform?

As a legal immigrant I may have a different perspective on the issue than the politicians and natural born citizens of this country. Is the system as broken as the illegal immigrant lobby, the media and the politicians make it out to be?

The system is cumbersome and very time consuming. Given the bureaucracy involved, I understand some of the problems. However, no amount of rewriting of the laws or changes in procedures and policy will do a bit of good if the Congress acts in the usual manner. That is, the simple error they make in most legislation mandating sweeping changes in anything. They perpetually under fund every program they come up with. Current problems such as border security should come first but I have yet to be convinced that the current system is as broken as we are led to believe. The biggest problem is chronic underfunding. If the funding issues are not resolved first no attempts at reform have a chance at success.

Corporate Detatchment

One of the keys to being successful in an interview is supposed to be the ability to get some feedback from the interviewer as to what you need to improve in order to be more successful. I get a rejection note in the mail with no hint of personality, humanity or explanation. The person who interviewed me was described to me as having the personality of a rock with eyes. Not exactly an image most companies would like to project. What did I do or say wrong and how am I supposed to learn for the future? I may as well have been interviewed by a computer. Too much time is being spent relying on computer surveys and formulated questions and no time really talking to the applicant to find out what they are really like.

Application and interview systems seem to have become so formulated and automated that employers are likely missing out on hiring the best people for the jobs. Years of face to face interaction with customers means nothing to companies who use these types of hiring methods. Only watching some one interact with customers can truly give an employer an accurate picture of any prospective employee.

Maybe there is some humanity left?

The first interview with the second potential employer was much more enjoyable. Once the mandatory STAR questions were done it was time for a short role play. Usually I hate role plays but this one went very well. Unfortunately the job is only for 90 days but 90 days at 40 hrs. per week is better than part time or no hours. It is unfortunate that they only hire most jobs as temporary/seasonal. No commitment on their part to the employees and no long term security for those who try to provide for their families.

Corporate America still doesn't get it. Jobs without hope of long term security will never give consumers the confidence to spend and invest in this economy enough to return us to the prosperity we all want.

Keep your fingers and toes crossed! Come on call backs!

Step one

Initial interview with possible employer number one done. Now comes the wait to see if I get called for a second and third. The first interview with employer number two is tomorrow.

I hate the interview process! Psychology and scientific methods, although valuable, seem to have taken the humanity out of the experience. Job hunting in this economy is no picnic but the whole process seems to have become totally sterile. Human resources seems more IT than it does human. Computers read resumes and choose candidates based on using the correct key words. Real people have been taken out of the equation and the subtleties that a human could discern are now lost. The best candidate for a position may be over looked because of a few missing key words and industry specific terms or acronyms.

Computers are wonderful things but they will never be able to replace all the qualities a human can impart to the hiring process.

Serendipity?

Some may call the events of my last few days of job searching as serendipitous but I prefer to think that God's hand is at work. An acquaintance of my wife suggested that I apply with her company. I did that and also applied at the competitors store.

Another friend of ours works for the competition at the particular store I applied to. He was working the day I went in with my resume and he informed me that they were hiring only for part-time positions. After a few moments of conversation he informed me that a full time position in commercial electrical sales had opened due to the sudden passing of the employee who held that job. Suddenly I'm looking at a full time day time position with a major retailer and in a field in which I've been working for the past 22 years. I have an interview scheduled for tomorrow morning. A second interview for a part-time seasonal job with the competitor is set for Tuesday morning.

Be it through networking, serendipity or as I choose to believe, the hand of God, I have my first real opportunity in months. I am excited for tomorrow and thankful to all involved for their advice and help in this, the longest job search of my life.

Keep me in your prayers tomorrow. I'll keep you all updated here.

Health Insurance Choice

Surely one of the biggest smokescreens in the current health insurance debate is that of consumer choice. Much is made of the choice of consumers as to the coverage plan they wish to purchase while the fact of the matter is that very few people actually have any choice at all! If you are fortunate enough to work for a large company or you can afford to buy your policy as an individual then you may have some choices available to you. Given that many insurance companies had virtual monopolies within given states, little real choice exists for those in those states. For the majority who work for small businesses that can afford insurance for their employees, the choice is what ever plan the employer can get the cheapest. That usually leaves the employee with an option of one plan or nothing. Some choice that is.

In order to control premium costs many benefits are being reduced or eliminated. Is this also not a reduction in choice?

The fact is that choice is only a political argument for the majority of people. No real choice exists!

Economic Winter

I'm sitting at the computer looking out the window at the falling snow. Two things come to mind. First, the snow is beautiful to see falling and on the ground. Undisturbed scenes of winter are beautiful but at the same time I'm ready for winter to end. I need warmth and the hope of spring.

Second, I'm reminded of the economic situation. It still looks and feels like winter and we all want it to be over. Is an economic spring time coming soon? I hope so. I'm starting to see more job postings and I feel good that I've been able to apply for a half dozen of them over the past few days. Let's hope I get a reply or two soon.

Michigan is not known for having particularly short winters but this economic winter does not seem to have an end. Many seem to think that the end is in sight but I'm not convinced yet. I may be convinced once I find a job but maybe those who see the end are a bit blinded because they have a job.

Going back to school may help me see the end as well but I really want the job first. I have no wish go into debt at my age and making this winter last into my retirement. Financing more education could do that. I have no wish to dig out from any more debt than I do shovel the piles of snow in front of me.

Spring will be here in a couple of months as far as my view out the window is concerned but when will it arrive for the people of this state and for me?

Broken Government?

I've heard the questions asking if the government is broken. Is that really the right question? I don't believe that the government is broken, rather the people elected to run it are. Often I hear how complicated issues are and I don't really believe it. Squabbling politicians act more like a bunch of children that can't play together in the same sand box more than adults having a civil conversation or debate. More time and energy are spent fighting over ideology than over real issues. None of them have the courage and fortitude to do the right thing for the people. Is it not better to be voted out for doing what is necessary than bowing down to political expediency? I have heard of members of congress who will vote against their own, or their own party's measures, simply because there are not enough votes to ensure passage. That is illogical and cowardly. If all members voted using such logic nothing would ever get passed.

I fully understand differences within a given party. Everyone will not agree on every issue. There is a time and a place to air these differences and in public and the media are not the places. Caucus is the appropriate place for these discussions. Public party splits are not good for anyone. Besides the bad PR the only thing this serves to do is confuse the public and erode support. The Democrats are especially guilty of this. You cannot dig at the foundation of your own house for long before it falls. Perhaps the Canadian system has something to teach its southern neighbor. Discuss the issues in caucus, and with the people represented the make a unified policy and stick with it. Present a unified face to the people and demonstrate real leadership.

Congressional leaders have ample opportunity to discuss and formulate policy with the President. There is no excuse for the leaders of the governing party to differ publicly with the President on major policy issues. In order to be effective leaders, those who hold the positions of authority must show unity in their goals and in their actions. These qualities are solely lacking in the present governing party leadership.

Ideally I think a real third party would help revitalize this wounded system, but I don't see that happening in a so culturally entrenched in a two party philosophy. Believe me, politics is no science and never will be. The term should be political philosophy. Science is about facts. There are very few facts in politics and those that there are are subject to unendingly blurry and interpretation based on theoretical ideologies none of which can stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

Pure unrestrained capitalism is proven to be self destructive. The few greedy will bring the system crashing down every time. If the great depression and this current recession don't prove the point, I don't know what does. On the contrary, pure socialism is as equally unsuccessful. The former USSR is the testament to this as well. We need restraints on both ends of the spectrum in order to maintain a successful balance that is fair for all. There is a real middle ground where all can thrive. If our leaders can get past their extreme ideologies a real middle ground can be found where all can live in prosperity and justice.

No Worker Left Behind

For as many success stories as Michigan's "No Worker Left Behind" program has to it's credit the program has enormous structural problems for the workers it's intended to help.

To begin with, the responsibility to administer the program locally has been given to the local school districts through Michigan Works. As a result there is no consistency from one district to another. One district may still have money available while another does not. The quality of the personnel running the program is inconsistent at best. Some follow through with their clients and others do not. Once a client begins the application process in one district they have to start from scratch again if they want to go to another district office. There is no mechanism to transfer from district to district.

Another problem for me is the invasiveness of the program. They require detailed personal financial information that I am not comfortable disclosing. I don't feel that an individual should have to provide detailed banking statements to any government agency without a warrant or other similar legal instrument. This is a great affront to me and I view it as a violation of my rights to privacy.

Until you attend the orientation, which you may have to wait six months to get an appointment for, you may not realize that the program is a second payer program. You have to apply for a Pell grant first. Only after that application goes through will they pay the balance of tuition up to $5000 per year for two years.

The system is so bureaucratic and poorly organized that it could take months to get through it. By that time you may well have exhausted your unemployment benefits.

Additionally, the community colleges do not have the programs in place yet to train people for the new jobs or if they do, they do not have sufficient seats to meet the demand. More opportunities would be available if the training was available at accredited online institutions but this type of education is not available within the program.

All of these deficiencies can be addressed but only if there is the political understanding of the situation and the willpower to do something about it.

State and City Budgets

Most states and cities are dealing with large budget deficits and can't find any more places to make cuts. I realize my idea would require legislative action and perhaps constitutional change but it is what it is.

My question is, do we really need to fund two elections each year? The burden of these costs is on the state and city governments, IE you and I. How much could these governments save if odd year elections were eliminated? How much more could be saved if everyone changed to a caucus system for nominations instead of a publicly funded primary election? This is the only country I am aware of with such a system where there is a constant election cycle for one thing or another.

If we really want to shrink the cost of government isn't this a good place to start?

I also have problems with the concept of an elected official running an election. The city clerk where I live is one of the few who is a civil employee, not elected to the position. It seems to me that having an elected official running an election that they themselves are running in could be viewed as a huge conflict of interest and an open door to corruption.