Responding to Terrorism

The most recent attempt by a terrorist to blow up a plane on its approach to Detroit airport is a good example of how our previous administration did its job in carrying out the law of the land. And, this is an area they claim great expertise in.

“9-11” caught us by surprise approximately 8 years ago, plus we had the failed “shoe bomb” attempt. As a result of these events and threats from our enemies, our Department of Homeland Security was created. It has spent billions of dollars ostensibly to protect us from such efforts. They claim some successes; but, one of the main points of emphasis coming from “9-11” was the lack of communication among agencies protecting our security. A process was supposedly put in place to insure this communication of data and to insure proper profiling of those boarding planes on international and domestic flights.

I would think it is fair to assume that the new administration coming to Washington less than a year ago would operate under the assurance that this process was in place. Well, we found out that it isn’t and we dodged a major catastrophe only because of the failure of the terrorist to activate the bomb correctly along with the courageous, quick action by private citizens and crew on the airline stopping it.

President Obama has admirably been honest about the government’s failure to prevent this and is ordering a review of the process to get it right. So, suddenly we have yet another major issue laid on this President’s plate where he has to correct and/or reconfigure a process that should have been developed and in place over the last several years. Too much of his “full plate” is correcting “screw-ups” from the previous administration.

Apparently, when Republicans say that government is ineffective and unmanageable, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to their ability to administer the law. On the other hand, this Democratic Administration has come to work with a positive, “Yes we can,” attitude of how government can work within our culture on behalf of the people and have a positive impact on improving this great nation. Hopefully, people will be reasonably patient, although not always in full agreement, with encouraging this administration to accomplish its growing “to do list.”

Terrorist acts against the U.S. are going to be a fact of life for many years to come. Actually, I’m surprised that our enemies have been so focused on the airline industry. I would think that they would have broadened their horizons by this time and I fully expect them to in the future. Our failed “cowboy/tough guy” foreign policy has encouraged and actually fostered a growing, more mobile, and dedicated jihad force in the world which from their point of view has a lot of “pay back” to heap on us.

In the short run, we will have to be creative, dedicated, wary, and yes militarily decisive, in a limited way I hope, to protect ourselves here and abroad. But, in the long run, we need a gradual change in our policies where we will be perceived as strong in a defensive way unless we are threatened or attacked; respectful of other nations sovereignty letting they and their people work through their own problems; and strive to set an example to the rest of the world of how a great democratic/republican nation can put their own house in order as well as provide limited assistance where needed in the world. Leading by example is always preferable to “do as I say, not as I do.”

I hope that this present failed attack will not result in an over reaction leading to unreasonable, outlandishly expensive, and/or restrictive practices in our airport security process. We already have to take our shoes off, I hope we don’t have to take off our underwear and/or be subjected to indecorous full body screens every time we get on an airplane.

Congressional Mess with Health Care Bills

To begin with, I clearly want to state that I fall into that category of feeling we need a universal health care program. Our present system is too expensive, inadequate, and unjust for an ever increasing number of people. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment suppliers, and large corporate hospital organizations are taking unfair advantage of their favorable positions at the expense of the American people. The self-regulating, free market system, so revered in this country, is a failure in health care. The only entity with enough power to make it equitable in coverage and cost is the federal government.

The two bills – one from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate – are so different in content that I find it almost unimaginable that they can be successfully blended into one in a conference committee. But, we are about to see it happen and the result should be fascinating. But, whether the bill gets enacted into law is certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Polls clearly indicate that the majority of the people have moved from overwhelmingly supporting a universal health care program a few months ago to opposing these bills. This is a real conundrum for me. I suspect there are a variety of reasons:
1. Some have succumbed to the litany of false claims and fear mongering that opponents have exposed them to – like death panels, issue of public support of abortion, claims of exorbitant costs, suggestions that there will be reduction in benefits for Medicare, etc. All it takes for some is hitting one “hot button” they feel strongly about, whether it is accurate or not, and they make a 180 degree turn.
2. Some have bought into the idea that these changes need to be made in a “slow, deliberate, careful” manner, one at a time. In the meantime, what happens with the 40+ million people with no coverage, the “cherry picking” coverage practiced by the insurance companies, and the exorbitant increases in cost of medical care? It appears that some people haven’t thought through how all these things are related to one another and that the one problem at a time approach makes no sense at all.
3. Some in our society have the attitude that if they have adequate coverage for themselves today, they don’t need to concern themselves with those that don’t – pretty self-serving and shortsighted in my opinion.
4. Some are opposed because this national system would result in federal government involvement and/or fairly high level of government control. These are the ones who don’t think the government can do anything right and the free market, private ownership, capitalistic system can do everything better even though history has clearly demonstrated that this naïve theory is out-dated and inaccurate and will eventually lead us into a plutocracy.
5. On the other hand, I assume that some people are upset that the bills fall short of a true “single payer” universal health care system and may end up not even including a public option feature where competition would keep costs more equitable. I share in this remorse; but, I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
6. Some have chosen to ignore that the present bills have many provisions that would solve many of our health care problems:
(1) Will cover 30 million people now without insurance plus those with
inadequate coverage.
(2) Will curtail practice of denial of health care coverage because of pre-existing
condition.
(3) Will make health care more portable from job-to-job and/or state-to-state.
(4) Will provide small businesses, families, and individuals the chance to buy
health care at reasonable costs.
(5) If the money crunchers are right, it will be deficit neutral over the next 10 yrs.
Plus, many other provisions that will improve health care coverage.
7. Some have bought into the claim by the opposition party that they have been left out of the system (not true) and that they have a much better plan to solve these problems. The truth of the matter is that their plan is a figment of their imagination. They don’t have one that anyone has seen or read, they just keep making the claim.
8. The most recent criticism results from the realization on the part of the American public of just how messy this legislative process is. It’s like many are aware of this for the first time and are outraged. It has been this way for years under both Democratic and Republican Congresses – it’s not new. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are simply operating within the system that exists, not one they created and yes, it is a “deal making,” complicated, “stupid rule” dominated system. Votes are bought and sold, special interest and lobbyist activities have disproportionate influence, and partisan politics reign. The mentality is, let’s do all we can to make the other side fail and look bad so we can win the next election and gain power.

It is a shame and it is our collective fault – we keep electing them. Whether we get some kind of universal health care program or not out of this mess, I would like to see the 2010 election be one of the most important in history. I’d like to see the American electorate vote out of office almost every U.S. Representative with 3 terms or more in office (6 years) and almost every U.S. Senator with 2 terms or more in office (12 years). Instead of concentrating on unseating the relatively new Congressmen, we need to eliminate the ones who have created/or perpetuated the present process that make legislation so ugly. And, make it a clear mandate that they are to go to Washington to make significant changes in the legislative process. If we do this over the next 3 election cycles, we have a chance of seeing the legislative branch of government establish its rightful place as an honored institution representative of the people.

A War Tax

I’ve always believed that to determine what our politicians think is truly important is to look at what they appropriate money for. But, after observing our political process over many years and watching our national debt grow and grow, I’ve narrowed this even more. To determine what our politicians think is overwhelmingly important is what they are willing to increase taxes to pay for. With the debt load we’ve acquired over the last 9 years, this question has now become paramount in any discussion of public policy. There are undoubtedly government programs that can be and should be cut and/or eliminated, but I don’t think there are enough to cover the increasing debt load. We are going to have to increase taxes for many years to begin paying down this debt.

One place it seems obvious to me is in paying for the wars and/or troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan by imposing a war tax. After all, isn't national security the number one role of government? Those who support our continued and expanded war effort should be willing, without hesitation, and with enthusiasm to step up by insisting that we impose a tax surcharge to pay for the wars. Not just for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but for the whole war effort. It should be used to pay for the day-to-day operation, for veterans benefits, and if and when these wars and deployments end, it should continue to be paid until we have rebuilt our military to “appropriate” levels.

That this suggestion being made by a few Congressmen should be so easily dismissed as unrealistic is both a disappointment and a puzzle to me. I know that there are some Congressmen who’ve based their “successful” careers on reducing and/or advocating no new taxes. This is no longer germane. I think a war tax should be viewed as “put your money where your mouth is” situation.

It should be an easy tax to impose. It would require that each of us figure our taxes each year and then add onto this tax bill a progressive surcharge for the war efforts. And, it should be combined with the elimination of the tax brakes unwisely enacted by the Bush Administration in 2001 which is coming up for review soon. One simple wrinkle I would add is that any person or any family with a spouse serving in the U.S. military in a combat zone be exempt from the surcharge.

Would it hurt financially? Yes it would! Would it be devastating to our economy? I don’t think so! But, I would hazard a guess that our involvement in these wars would suddenly be viewed differently than they are now, both by our elected public officials and the general public.

If you want to find out what people really think about these wars, make them a “pay-as-we-go” process. We’ve conducted these wars in an attitude of limited personal impact except for those people who have family members actually serving in the armed forces. With some wars in the past there has been a “war effort” with high progressive tax rates, victory gardens, war bond sales, rationing of certain consumer goods, etc. With our present wars, there has just been debt piled on debt while most of us have gone about our lives without much personal impact.

If the “war on terror” is a reality which can bring this country down, the least we can do is get serious about making it a true “war effort” where we are all expected to sacrifice, at least financially, to bring it to a successful conclusion. Plus, if this were to become a standard policy in any potential war effort, I think some tough questions would be raised regarding whether it is a wise move like: what is the justification for the war; what vital interests are at stake; what is the extent of our troop involvement; what casualties can we expect; how much fire power will be brought to bear; what is the military strategy; what is our enemy’s resolve in fighting this war and will it warp into an insurgency; how much destruction including collateral civilian casualties will be visited on our enemies; how much real support can we expect from our allies; what effect will it have on the world’s view of our action; will it destabilize a region or the world; what support will our enemies get from other nations and what is the nature of that support; how much will it cost; how long is it expected to last; is nation building a part of the conflict; what is the end strategy going to be; are there popular, just, and respected leaders we can turn the country over to when we leave; along with other pertinent questions we still haven’t answered with these present conflicts 9 years later. If we would ask and could answer these questions, maybe we would learn to quit going to war “by the seat of our pants.”

Universal Health Care

In regard to health care, I feel that we need to create a universal health care system run by the Federal Government along the lines of Social Security (SS) and Medicare. I see few if any advantages to something else. Especially, not an impossibly convoluted bill being considered presently in Congress. We can do it now, which is highly unlikely, or we can do it later when we come to realize what a mess we’ve made of what could be a relatively simple system.

A very basic universal health care program would offer coverage to everyone and be paid into by everyone. The insurance pool and premium base would be the whole nation which allows for true shared risk and reasonable cost. To keep costs down further, a basic system could be created with something like a $500 deductible per person per year and co-payment for insured of 20% up to a maximum of $5000 out of pocket and then full catastrophic coverage beyond that. Those over 65, on disability, or with a chronic disease could be eligible for a tax credit on their co-pay. I would imagine that the poor would need to be given tax credit or assistance to pay premiums they could not afford. Everyone wanting additional coverage could go out on the open market and buy it and/or employers could offer it as a fringe benefit. The basic plan would:
1. eliminate denying coverage for pre-existing condition
2. automatically provide portability
3. involve government negotiating for “fair” pharmaceutical costs
4. identify a fair price for medical procedures
5. not allow dropping of coverage and allow no upper limit on coverage.

The private sector has had well over ¾ of a century to develop a plan to give people in our country a fair and equitable system. But, the system is giving progressively worse coverage at unreasonable increases in cost – we pay more than any other developed nation in the world with health care results that are pretty paltry compared to our relative wealth. I think we should begrudgingly admit there are some things that the private sector just cannot do as well as the government and health care may be one of these. We need a system that allows for basic universal coverage and protects us from economic destitution resulting from poor health.

Would the system be socialistic in nature? Yes it would, just as many other government programs are, like SS, Medicare, universal public education, fees (taxes) on fuel to build roads, farm program with its subsidies, Medicaid and other welfare systems, corporate welfare programs, national park system, etc. At some point we are going to have to get away from the idea that government can’t do anything right and/or that the private sector can do everything better. Both are historically failed notions.

This anti-government ideology is promoted by wealthy conservatives who are comfortable with their privileged position in society and their desire to maintain the status quo; and better yet, add to their advantages. It is seldom mentioned, but they are often recipients of significant special assistance from the government. They have learned that time and money carefully spent catering to public officials pays substantial dividends. Plus, we have learned the hard way that the controls of competition, costs of labor, and supply and demand that are supposed to naturally manage the free-market system to keep things fair and equitable can be too easily circumvented. We are not a nation of small farmers, tradesmen, artisans, and small manufacturers which is what the capitalistic, free-market system was designed for by the founder Adam Smith when he wrote the book the Wealth of Nations.

I prefer that the capitalistic, free-market system be left in place as much as possible to do its magic in allowing everyone to pursue their own productive interests. Some choose to take risk to satisfy their entrepreneurial itch. When they succeed, certainly not a guarantee, they deserve the “fruits of their labor.” Others choose a safer course of selling their gifts of labor to the highest bidder. And, competitive supply and demand should dictate the price of products and services. The capitalistic, free-market system is a thing of beauty when it works this way. But, when it is manipulated in a multitude of clever ways that result in abuse, rewards greed, ignores dishonesty, allows unfair profit taking, and encourages inappropriate risk taking with other people’s money, the government is the only vehicle we have that is powerful enough to insure that the playing field is kept just and fair. In a few selected cases, I think government involvement is the only way we can maintain a vibrant classless society assuring everyone the free choice to take their own “run” at being a productive part of our economy. Health care costs and coverage should not be a barrier to this goal.

Highway 61, McPherson to Hutchinson

Have you driven to Hutchinson lately and watched progress on the new highway being built? Is it just me, or do others agree that this project is “ridiculous over-kill?” I was caught by surprise and more than a little upset by what’s being done.

When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.

We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!

Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.

Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.

But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.

When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.

Let's Question the Quality of our Congressmen

Here are some important questions to ask the next time you get involved in a reasonably, rational, pragmatic discussion on the quality of the elected public officials that serve us in legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress. Maybe there are some good reasons why Congress suffers from consistently low ratings with the American people.

First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.

Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.

Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.

Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.

Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.

I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.

Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.

Getting Out of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

As debate and discussion goes on in the Obama Administration and in the U.S. Congress as to what our continued role in Iraq and Afghanistan should be, I pray that a way be sought to extradite us from there ASAP. The underlying reasons for involvement in both conflicts was flawed with the exception of destroying al-Qaida and their ability to attack us. Our conduct of these wars was simply bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment. It has proven to be and continues to be too costly in lives lost and injuries sustained by both our soldiers and the citizens of these nations. It was and continues to be too costly a use of our limited resources. In my view, we cannot afford to continue with these policies. It is terribly destructive for both us and these nations and is destabilizing for this region and the rest of the world.

When one invades another nation, essentially destroys it with superior raw military firepower, kills and injures thousands , and then attempts to impose our cultural, economic, and political systems upon them, justifying it as “nation building” in our image, you accomplish nothing but ill will. Their hatred of us resulting from our actions will continue on for generations to come. Why wouldn’t they. Just put yourself in their shoes. What would be the attitude of most in this country if we were to be militarily invaded, our country destroyed, where almost everyone in the country had friends and relatives killed or injured, and our cultural, economic, and political systems were forcibly altered. How many generations would it take to forget this. Afghan’s history is one of almost constant war against invading armies or amongst themselves. Because of their strategic location as a buffer between several powerful civilizations, they have been invaded by about every notable army beginning with Alexander the Great. All of them found Afghanistan to be inhospitable. In modern times, both the British and the Russians took their turn at occupying them only to leave several years later thinking the effort too costly and of little value. Afghanistan takes great pride in thwarting these efforts whatever the cost and we should have factored that into our plans.

One of the biggest barriers to getting out of these conflicts is our unwillingness to “lose face.” I submit that this is a terrible indictment of our collective ego. We are so afraid that it will be perceived as weakness on our part that we are willing to seriously consider expanding our military involvement with its continued injury and loss of life to our soldiers, the continued squandering of our limited resources, and the further solidifying of their hatred towards us. Our military capability to kill and destroy has been well documented here, but short of genocide, you don’t win insurgency type wars with military “shock and awe.” You might win conventional wars with this type of military action, but not wars of this nature, but we don’t seem to “get it.”

Another major concern is whether getting out ASAP will put as at a greater risk from extremist, militant, Islamic groups. Yes it might. They are out there, they want revenge, they want to “bring us down,” and they are dedicated to jihad. We’ve spent 8 years in the region and we still haven’t destroyed al-Qaida and now it is wider spread and very mobile. We’ve made it more of a monster than it already was and put ourselves at greater risk than before. We will have to remain vigilant at home and abroad. We will have to be ready to move quickly and be devastating in our military attacks on their training centers, work to disrupt their lines of communication, and most importantly, move to cut off their supply of money needed to support themselves. It will require that we develop and institute the tools to do the above and probably more.

Our Presidents, our National Security Council, our Congress, and our Department of Defense have let us down over the last 35 years. We should have been prepared for this kind of struggle with lessons learned in Vietnam and been prepared to modify it to other geographic regions and cultural and political situations. Instead, despite warnings from President Eisenhower back in 1961, we have spent billions of dollars in supporting a conventional “military industrial complex” that we now know was out dated. It has been our “Maginot Line,” and it has cost us dearly. And, if and when we move beyond this, we need to heed Collin Powell’s warning to avoid a terrorist military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, there is and will continue to be too much money to be made in the war business.

Another, and in my mind the saddest problem with getting out ASAP is, how do you say sorry to individuals and families of our soldiers who went off to war under the belief that they were doing their patriotic duty to make America safe and to preserve our great nation. They put themselves at great risk, they suffered life time injuries, and were killed doing what they were told was right. And then, for us to say, “We screwed up,” is a “bitter pill.” It will take incredibly courageous political leadership to make this admission because of the firestorm of criticism from the hawkish, hard line, conservative right. But, we dealt with it before with our disengagement from Vietnam and our wise acceptance of limited objectives in Korea and the Gulf War. No matter what is said or how it is couched, it won’t correct the mistakes. Those who served need to be honored for their sacrifice and we can only hope that in turn they will magnanimously agree that continuing to put others in harms way does not make good sense.

Walking/Jogging/Biking Corridors Column 1

This will be the first of several columns that I am offering regarding the proposed walking/jogging/biking corridors (WJBC) that a substantial number of people in town feel should be constructed.

A year ago, the McPherson Planning Commission initiated a look at such a program. Our first effort was to meet with the elementary schools (public and parochial) and middle school site councils. They showed enthusiastic support for the idea. Then, a study committee of some 27 people, representing a broad cross section of McPherson, was formed and met over several months preparing a plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. The plan was presented to the City Commission at a study session and at the City Commission meeting Tues., 10-6-09. It was well attended by local citizens, many of who were there to offer support for the plan.
We have a mission statement which reads: “The WJBC Study Committee recommends the following comprehensive plan for an interconnected network of corridors which includes sidewalks adjacent to selected streets/avenues/roads, bicycling lanes, paths, and trails to be used by pedestrians, joggers, tricyclists, bicyclists, those pushing strollers, wheel chair users, skaters, skate boarders, and scooters in and around the City of McPherson. The primary purpose is to encourage people of all ages to use non-motorized alternatives of transportation (with exception of motorized wheel chairs) on safe and convenient corridors that are clearly built and designated for these activities. These uses are intended to be both functional (to get from point A to B in town) and recreational (for exercise, relaxation, and family/socializing activities) which promotes healthy lifestyles.”

Also, we prepared a list of priorities that grew from one to six as time went on with our committee meetings. They are as follows:
1. Establishment of corridors for students (especially young ones in the 5 to 14 age group) to go safely to and from schools, parks, and recreational areas.
2. Provide corridors for adults as well as students to safely travel to public points in town like the Post Office, library, YMCA, Community Building, Court House, Municipal Building, colleges, churches, theatre, Opera House, parks, and recreation areas.
3. Establish corridors so that employees at our local businesses and industries can elect to commute safely to and from work by walking and biking.
4. Provide safe corridors for citizens of all ages to reach shopping areas down town and on the outskirts of town.
5. Provide safe and attractive corridors that would appeal to and be used by visitors to our city as well as those considering relocating to McPherson.
6. Further develop recreational paths and trails which would be removed from normal vehicle traffic providing a more relaxed walk and/or ride through a more natural setting.

On the surface this project does not appear to be a complicated one. However, when one gets into the workings of what is required to accomplish this corridor plan, it gets involved. There is need to justify the program by making it clear what benefits such a program would bring to the community; there is a monumental amount of engineering to be done by the public works department to determine how to do it and the cost; it could require a re-write of our city ordinances and policies regarding sidewalks; and of course the 800 lb. guerilla of how it is to be financed sets out there.

I intend to address most of these things over the next several weeks and would welcome community input. If you choose, you can contact me directly at 241-0606 or e-mail me at jeboyer1@cox.net. Those in support of this plan think that “it is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it!”

(A feature I will be putting in the column is the “walk or bike ride of the week.” Imagine you are doing this in all kinds of weather. You can draw your own conclusions if you give them a try) Walk or ride of the week: From Foxfire or Deerfield neighborhoods, go west on Ave. A to the Middle School or Washington Elementary School at same time kids are going to school and/or east when they are coming home from school.

Jim Boyer

PS. I want to commend our local school district for their organized, pro-active observance of National Walk to School Day conducted Wed. 10-7-09. The number of participants was good to see. These are the kinds of activities that are needed to encourage healthy life-styles. We just need to build infrastructure to support these programs.

We need universal health care

To better understand this “debate” over a universal health care plan let’s look at why the government has gotten involved in our lives with various new programs in the past.

You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.

You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.

Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.

In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.

We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.

Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.

The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.

As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.

Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?

Planning for the City of McPhrson - Demographic Considerations

It is critical that McPherson encourage growth, which typically involves a growing population with additional business and industry offering good paying jobs, affordable housing, appropriate medical facilities and services, excellent schools, broad based retail trade options, cultural offerings, and superior recreational opportunities.

The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.

Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.

One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.

There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.

Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.

2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.

3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.

3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.

4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.

5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.

Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”

I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.

Is our present administration going too fast and taking on too much?

I’ll make a clear statement here: “I’m really tired of hearing the naysayers complaining about President Obama going too fast and ‘biting off more than he can chew’.” In my opinion that is rubbish.

First, I think most of the complaints are from conservative Republican naysayers who want to maintain the status quo of what they created over 12 years prior to 2006 and were able to continue on to 2008 with President Bush’s vetoes. They spent money “hands over fist” on projects and programs that padded their supporter’s pockets with all sorts of lucrative subsidies, favorable contracts, and topped it off with tax breaks for the wealthy. They got to live a conservative Republican’s dream of deregulating about everything they could deregulate which led to all kinds of financial and governmental failure. They got to be “tough guys” with countries elsewhere in the world that didn’t kowtow to their view, even to the point of unilaterally starting an unnecessary war which distracted from a fully justifiable, clear cut military retaliation that itself has now warped into a war with both of them lasting longer than either of the World Wars of the 20th century. And, they would still be following these failed policies if the economy hadn’t done a “humpty-dumpty” off the wall and they couldn’t put him back together again.

Secondly, I think some are opposed to Obama’s drive to fix things, which requires changing things, because they just don’t like to work that hard. Too many are “too old” and “too slow” and they were coasting in their comfort zone. They are elected from “safe” districts and states; they’ve gotten their “pork barrel” bills through Congress to show people back home how much they “love” them; their campaign “war chests” are full or can be easily refilled with a few phone calls because their supporters both owe them and own them; they’ve got their staffs doing all their grunt work; and they are out doing what they do best – getting re-elected over and over. (In all fairness, there are some Democratic Congressmen that are in the same position which is our collective fault.)

Then, along comes this young President who actually wants to take a shot at doing what he said he was going to do in his campaign. This is almost unheard of in their political world. He has turned them upside down and made them very uncomfortable. When they say he is trying to do too much, it really means he is forcing them to have to hustle just to keep up. When you hear Congressmen publicly complaining about how many pages are in a bill, like Universal Health Care, and that they are struggling to get it read that’s a “smoke screen.” Important bills are almost always that long and most Congressmen haven’t been reading them for years. The best hope is that their staffs have been and give them a one or two page summary with a few talking points to use out on the stump. Suddenly they want time to read these bills? They are just “grasping at straws” and stalling.

Thirdly, when you hear them say they want to slow down and consider all the ramifications of a proposal like Universal Health Care, they are stalling again. Where was the slow down and consideration of ramifications for our unilateral rush to war, our deregulation of the financial world in the early 2000’s, or the creation and inadequate funding of prescription drug program? Drafters of legislation do their best to factor in consequences when they write legislation, but no one can second guess the ramifications of some changes until you get into them. You win some and you lose some and conservative Republican’s lost the last election because the ramifications of their policies resulted in failure.

Every change is a bit of a gamble and ramifications can’t always be forecast accurately. But, if you have problems like a failed economy, failed health care system, failed energy policy, failed educational system, collapsing infrastructure, and failed foreign policy, it behooves you to try to fix them.

But, instead of facing these problems head on and cooperatively working together to find solutions, the conservative Republicans have decided the easiest thing to do is to “stop the train” or at least slow it down with constant negative innuendo, a policy of no to everything, conjuring up a wagon load of fears, and repeating outrageous lies over and over again. There are legitimate concerns and need for serious bi-partisan discussion to deal with these problems – for example how should we pay for these solutions. President Obama has been admirably patient in trying to do this – more than I would be.

If you have a company with bad or out-dated product, poor customer service, sinking sales, "tired" inefficient manufacturing facilities, poorly trained and performing workers, status quo loving “fat cat” managers, etc. you better not approach these problems with let’s go slow and take one thing at a time. You do that, and you are out of business. You had better bring in some new high energy management people with creative minds and innovative ideas. You better do some serious R & D. You’d better invest in up-to-date infrastructure, train and motivate your workers, and hustle to retain existing customers and get new ones. And guess what, you are going to have to borrow money big time to get it done! Try as you may, you aren’t going to foresee all the ramifications of your changes in advance. You are going to have to dump some things, cutting your losses when mistakes are made. You will need to tweak, adapt, build and expand on those things that do work. But, you’d better not rely on “smooth talking”, “glad handing”, “do nothing”, “too old”, “too slow”, “fat cat”, “status quo loving conservatives” to get things up and running. There is a great book written by Jennings and Haughton for the business world in 2000 that I’d recommend, it’s not the Big that eat the Small……it’s the Fast that eat the Slow. We’d better be ready or the Big ole USA is going to be eaten by the rest of the world that is getting faster and faster and smarter and smarter.

Another opinion on Town Hall Meeting in Lindsborg

It was interesting in a kind of disconnected way. You had U.S. Representative Jerry Moran with sweat dripping off his face and soaking his shirt being pleasant, obviously intelligent, showing a good sense of humor, and being very articulate. He was clearly well prepared and spent less than 30 minutes telling his audience his views on the big issues of the day. He was obviously “preaching to the choir,” getting all kinds of smiles, applause and moral support for his rendition of Republican Party ideology. He was “home” and you could tell it bolstered his spirits and he rose to the occasion.

However, one could feel a current underlying his opening statements where people in the audience were only somewhat patiently waiting for him to finish so that they could have “their day in court.” This is where the disconnect began.

He announced at the end of his opening comments that he didn’t put much stock in polls, not mentioning the fact that they are usually conducted these days following very scientific processes, but instead he put more stock in “pressing the flesh” and talking directly to the people. I thought “bologna,” but since he is a politician I let it pass until the very end of the town hall meeting when he asked for a show of hands on several topics including how many supported the universal health care plan, the public option in the plan, etc. With a crowd of obviously strong Republican supporters, he got the response he came for, seemingly ignoring the fact that this is about as unscientific a measure as one could imagine. I wondered if he went away from there truly convinced that the overwhelming number of people in Lindsborg really agreed with him.

Then, the people began to speak. Some were well prepared and had good quality questions, comments, and life experiences to share which made it a good learning experience. But, there were some that were to say the least, “off the wall.” People who liked to hear themselves talk and had been saving up for years for their chance to tell their life story to a U.S. Representative and an audience of some 200 people many of which had already made up their mind. It made me happy that we have a small “r” republican form of government, not a pure democracy.

There were quite a few partisan anti-government questions like, “When are you going to shut down this liberal government in Washington that is taking away our freedoms and leading the country to “rack and ruin.” I wondered if this guy wasn’t aware that we recently had a national election where the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency because the majority of the people in the country believed that the Republican President and Congress (of which Moran was a part) had led us down the “tubes” for years.

One commenter said he had read 45 pages of the 1000+ page plan which Rep.Moran’s staffer had set on the podium as a visual aid. I guess they did so to show that the bill is long and involved. Are we to assume that an issue like this can be reduced to a one or two page list of bullet points? It was interesting that no one, including Rep. Moran, pointed out that this bill was just one of several bills circulating in Washington and that the one he showed from the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is not the important one. The one still being hammered out in the Finance Committee by Senator Baucus, of Montana, with the White House’s help, is what most experts are waiting for. This commenter then stated that “the plan on the table,” contained provisions where a committee with a chairman appointed by the President would take up to 18 months to work out the details ‘scares the devil out of him.” I stood there wondering if this guy doesn’t understand that this is the constitutional process in our government – legislative branch (Congress) passes a bill (makes a law) and the executive branch (President) administers the law with Cabinet and/or other agency appointments and that it takes a while to put a process like this in place.

There was a young couple who very emotionally talked about how they opposed the health care bill because it would result in euthanasia of their special needs child. I lost a lot of respect for Rep. Moran when he lacked the courage to come out and say “there are no “death panels” called for in this bill or any other bill and that rumor is out-of-line and totally unfounded. Neither Democrats or Republicans would support such a thing.” He dodged around it and kind of left the audience with the feeling that there might be something to it. Shame on him! Some of the other rumors that are equally out of line were mentioned and he chose not to accurately squelch those either.

In answering a series of questions and comments about how our present system needs changing, Rep. Moran went through a rather long laundry list of how our present system is “broke.” His conclusion was, let’s take this piece-meal and eventually get it fixed. I stood there wondering why. All of the things he mentioned, that have been around for 50+ years and are getting worse, are addressed in these bills being written and discussed. Why wouldn’t you want to fix them ASAP?

Also, he “pulled on the heart strings” of the audience by claiming universal health care would destroy an already marginal/on-the-edge medical service industry in rural America – a lot of applause. It sounded interesting to me as to why. But, he gave no explanation and I left still wondering whether this was just anti-universal health care hype or something to really be concerned about.

The “socialism” word was thrown around a lot in questions and comments – we don’t want socialism! I don’t want socialism either, but what about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Farm Program, universal education and several other programs that we have that few in the audience would seriously consider eliminating? The U.S. Constitution was written in the 1780’s for a time and period that no longer exists and that one of our country’s strengths is that we have adapted our government to meet the needs of each generation. As conditions change, role of government must carefully change with them and our mixed economy and political structure is a testament to that.

As I said at the outset, there were a lot of disconnects in the experience, but I did think it was good to see this many people out expressing their views. I would like to have seen it run along the lines of the old TV Gong Show. It would have saved a lot of time and allowed more questions and comments. And, it would have been even better if one had the feeling that someone was really listening and really cared rather than just solidifying votes for opinions already held. However, in my mind, one redeeming fact is that up to this point Rep. Jerry Moran is sooo much better than Todd Tiehart.

The World's Gun Culture

We have a gun culture in this country and evidently so do many other countries in the world. There are conflicts raging all around the globe where groups are fighting one another using automatic weapons, grenade launchers, hand held rocket launchers, mortars, etc. And, the incoming fire from these weapons is too often directed at our soldiers. My questions are, why are these weapons so prevalent and where do these groups get what seems like an inexhaustible supply of ammunition to keep these weapons firing? These are simple weapons by military standards, but they certainly are not something so crude that one can build them in one’s basement. Plus, road bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombers require access to plastic explosives and often sophisticated triggering systems. This equipment has to be made in a factory somewhere, warehoused somewhere, shipped by someone, cached somewhere, and then distributed to the end user. These weapons and ammunition are bulky, heavy, and not easily transported in massive amounts.

Our diplomatic core spends significant amount of time “gnashing their teeth” over nuclear weapons and delivery systems that if used would be disastrous. But, in the meantime our soldiers and innocent civilians are being killed daily with these much simpler weapons.

It seems so logical that nations ought to address this massive arms trade. Governments all over the world could insist that production of these weapons and ammunition be carefully controlled. Obviously, their own military and law enforcement need them. Beyond that, controls should exist on selling of surplus weapons or even obsolete weapons. Stock-piling and shipping could be severely curtailed using technology that now exists. Clandestine arms dealers should be put out of business. I understand that some of these weapons are well built and have excellent longevity, but they are simply a hunk of metal without ammunition and spare parts.

We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are still shooting at us every day. In fact, TV footage often shows them indiscriminately firing guns up in the air to celebrate and/or protest this or that – often us. It’s crazy watching it on TV and it has to be dangerous and scary for our military in these areas. One has to wonder how long these two wars would have gone on without these weapons and ammunition.

I have not seen nor heard of any concerted efforts by our government and other “peace loving” nations actually discussing ways this could be shut down. In fact, the weapons industry is one of the best kept secrets and our news media is strangely silent on any reporting on this huge industry. Existence of inexhaustible supplies of weapons and ammunition is not a shrug one’s shoulders inevitability – it could be gradually reduced and eventually stopped. But, part of the problem is that we are as guilty as other nations in the world in trafficking in weapons systems. After all, there is a lot of money involved in this business plus all the behind the scenes maneuvering to supply some group in our good graces in order to off-set this other group not in our favor. We have been an enabler in many of these conflicts.

The drug war along our border with Mexico is a good example of where our gun culture has come back to haunt us. News reports suggest that many of the weapons used in this war are coming from the U.S. Then, we have a criminal element in our own country who are often better equipped with automatic weaponry than our own law enforcement people.

I view our fascination with guns that have no use except to kill others as some kind of insane perversion. And, I’m not anti-gun. I own and have shot guns of various types all my life in a sporting atmosphere. But, some group’s insistence that guns of all types and configurations be readily available is crazy. This availability and lack of control lends itself to abuse. The military should have them, law enforcement should have them, and maybe a few responsible gun owners who view collection and firing of these weapons as a hobby are fine – they are for the most part very responsible. But, with these exceptions, availability of these weapons should be strictly limited, regulated, and licensed. However, the best place to stop this insanity is not with the end user, but with a concerted effort by government to control manufacturing, distribution, and supply. The world would be a much safer place if insurgents, intolerant tribal fanatics, terrorists, and criminals were limited to throwing rocks. The only people who win in this gun culture are businesses and governments trafficking in this activity.

Socialism, Capitalism, and a Plutocracy

What is socialism? This is an important question since it is a buzz word used by some critics of the new administration. By definition, socialism is an economic/political theory advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. In its extreme, it includes a system of society or groups living in which there is no private property.

Karl Marx viewed socialism as a transitional system which would occur as the world moved from capitalism to communism. We all should be confident that Karl Marx and communism have been clearly discredited as a viable economic/political system.

On the other hand, capitalism is an economic system characterized by private and corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Every adult in this country should have read or take the time to read the Scottish scholar Adam Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776. It is credited with being the founding work of modern economics and describes the capitalistic system. But most importantly, it is the system that comes closest to describing our present, much revered economic system. One thing that is clear is that it is well written and has much to say that is applicable to our economic system today. But, it is also clear that what we have today is much different than what Smith intended, which is not surprising since it was written 233 years ago in a much different economic climate. It shares the same position as the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution in this regard.

The fact of the matter is that none of these systems are working the way their founders envisioned them to. All advanced countries in the world use a mixture of capitalism and socialism with a few having remnants of communism. The most accurate description of what exists out there is a “mixed economy”. What that mix is, varies with each country and is in a constant state of flux. Capitalism, being so strongly ingrained in our minds and culture, will undoubtedly maintain a favored position in our mix despite the rhetoric to the contrary. We will resist, sometimes to our detriment but often to our credit, attempts to abandon it.

We began moving away from “pure capitalism” in the late 1900’s as we moved from an agrarian/small business economy to an industrial one. The 20th century saw even further movement towards a “mixed economic system.” And, it happened because we had wise Republican and Democrats in Washington who recognized that our biggest risk is that we were on a tract to a plutocracy – government by the wealthy and/or a controlling class of the wealthy. Republican Theodore Roosevelt, the “Great Trust Buster”, was one of the first to step up to begin limiting the huge corporate conglomerates that were abusive and unfair in dealings with their customers, workers, and society in general by vertically consolidating their power which eliminated competition. Then, throughout the 20th century we gradually and reluctantly added other protections from the potentially abusive capitalistic system. A progressive income tax was established, labor unions were recognized and legalized, regulations from SEC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Department were instituted, environmental regulations came on board, the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare were put in place, etc.

Rest assured that all of these government programs became law only after years and years of strife and struggle. They came about only when it became overwhelmingly obvious that a totally “free market system” failed to provide and in fact denied a fair and equitable system for the majority of the people.

That we have been able to somewhat forestall the drift to a plutocracy is amazing to me. In fact, these regulatory actions, laws, rules limiting the consolidation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands has preserved capitalism. If we are going to remain a free people, if we are going to have a healthy middle class, if we are going to have a “level playing field” for entrepreneurs to pursue their dream of starting up a small business and working to make it grow, if we are going to have a society where people through hard work can earn a decent living to provide for their families, then we are going to have to insist that the government become involved in helping to create that environment. A totally “free market economy”, despite what many people of wealth and advantage would like us to believe, will not do it. The last eight years of greed and unchecked self interest should have taught us that.

Our imperfect government has worked quite well in the past. It has saved us from excesses of capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, and a plutocracy while we became the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world. Our government is a republic, and against all odds, still listens to the wishes of the people eventually. It has provided an economic and political environment where the people still have the rights and freedoms to do their own thing within reason. We are at risk again with this huge economic crisis and the other laundry list of problems. I liked President Obama’s line in his sober, let’s get to work inaugural address when he said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works ….” That our imperfect government has constantly adjusted to deal differently with each new generation’s problems is one of the reasons we have been so resilient and it is challenged to do it all over again. As a people, we need to be patient, alert, knowledgeable, involved, and insist that our elected representatives do their job courageously and wisely. Since we are breaking new ground, both of us need to be persistent while being flexible enough to pursue a multitude of changing solutions without abandoning our roots. It should be a great debate hopefully devoid as much as possible from partisanship and demagoguery.

Tax Cuts as a Way of Stimulating the Economy

In the 1960’s, if tax cuts to businesses, cuts on capital gains taxes, cuts on higher income tax rates, and credits to provide incentives to businesses had been offered as a solution to correct a recession, I would have been open to it. And, if it could be offered now, strictly for small business, I would support it as part of a stimulus package. But, the last 40 years of watching how big business operates has soured me on that approach for them.

We have a big bank crisis that in large measure came about because of sub-prime lending practices in the real estate sector. This foolish, ill advised practice developed partly because of over-zealous self-interest and the willingness to take risk to satisfy greed. Both political parties should share in the blame; but, it became a serious crisis over the last 8 years when deregulation was encouraged, regulators were unwilling to enforce the rules that remained, and government failed to keep up with new ways invented by hedge fund managers and big banks to make huge profits by taking unacceptable risks with other peoples money.

In response to the banking crisis, a bail-out was devised to get money moving again - some $350B worth. What did the big banks do with this money? Most sat on it, gave bonuses with it, bought other banks with it, had extravagant conferences and still refused to get money moving once again. In addition, they have been using a foreign visa loophole to bring foreign employees in, while laying off their American employees. So much for the good will and willingness of the big banks to do their part in correcting the crisis.

American manufacturing sector didn’t do us any favors either. For years there has been a major exodus of manufacturing to foreign countries which has resulted in turning the Upper Midwest into a “Rust Belt”. This has resulted in a loss of American jobs, a declining real income level for American workers added to a serious negative trade balance. But, it was a win-win program for these corporations because they were exempt from paying taxes on the profits they gained from these ventures.

Then, we have the example of the big three auto manufacturers. They took a seemingly entrenched competitive advantage of only a few years ago and squandered it with poor management while blaming it on their workers who had no choice but to build what they were told to build even if it didn’t sell. Then, they came flying into Washington in their private jets to ask for bail-out money.

We’ve had years and years of farm programs that provide subsidies of all shapes and types to ostensibly save the family farm and improve production in agriculture. The result is that big farmers (many of which aren’t even farmers) get huge checks from the government while true family farmers struggle to stay viable by supplementing their income with jobs in town.

We’ve had producers and distributors selling knowingly sub-standard and unsafe products like the recent peanut butter crisis, tainted beef that Far Eastern countries like Japan refused to buy, toys with lead paint, and even substandard military hardware for our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few.

We have oil companies making record profits – Exon Mobile made $45B in one year – under conditions that appear to be manipulative rather than supply and demand. Then, when the move is underfoot to seek alternative sources of energy they turn their lobbyists loose to follow a multi-faceted PR campaign of obstruction on one hand and on the other hand a plea to the government for subsidies and tax breaks for research and capital expenditures to build these alternative sources.

When money dried up and demand for products went “South”, what is the first thing these “benevolent” corporate leaders do – they lay off workers by the millions. Are these corporate leaders sharing in the pain? I don’t think so! We could still support a long running TV program on the “rich and famous” using these corporate leaders as the basis. The title might have to be “Former head" of Lehman Brothers, General Motors, etc.

When the government steps in to relieve the pain with a stimulus package to help get the economy going again, what is Republican Party's and big business response? They object to it by complaining that it is only a spending program. Well, no duh! That’s what a stimulus package is – spending money to try and pump up the economy. If we follow their alternative plan of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, cut business taxes, cut capital gains taxes, and provide tax credits to business the end result will be the same as a stimulus package – large deficits and increased national debt. It is simply a different pocket for money to go into. They’ve even suggested temporarily suspending the payroll tax. Do they really think that people saddled with massive consumer debt are going to go out and spend, spend? People are going to treat it just like they did the rebate a while back – they are going to save it for a “rainy day” if they can and more likely pay down debt, which will help them personally along with those that hold that debt, but it won’t stimulate the economy. If they do spend some of it, it will probably be spent on manufactured goods from foreign countries like China. Who else manufactures consumer products anymore?

At some point these wealthy “fat cats” and their elected representatives will have to realize that they suffer from a credibility gap. They don’t pass the “giggle test” when they say, "trust us, we will use these tax cuts to invest in our businesses which will “trickle down” to job creation." I realize that the above diatribe paints American business with too broad a brush. There are many responsible large corporations who do it right and have the best interest of their customers, their employees, and the country as a whole in mind. But, for many of the public, it is hard “seeing the fire through the smoke.” There is a general lack of confidence in the business community. The last election proves that. Much of the American public does not deal with and may not understand high finance and government economic policy – they are too busy working and raising their families. But, they aren’t stupid, and you can only “kick them in the teeth” so many times and they are going to say enough is enough. We might be there.

What a Difference a Week Makes

Last week I was pretty discouraged with the way things were proceeding in Washington. This week things are much more encouraging. I’m beginning to suspect that we might often be riding a roller coaster with this administration and this Congress when one considers the mountain of issues they have to deal with.

With Congress we went from passing the stimulus bill in the House with a proud 100% opposition from the Republicans – not good. This week, the Senate has taken it up and it appears, at least initially, they are going to handle it the way it should be handled. Although, there is still way too much partisan posturing out there and the wheels might yet fall off with things going from posturing to partisan bickering and dead-lock. For instance, we are still hearing the “Reagan Myth”, that tax cuts and less government spending is what we need – a proven failure over the last 25 years. Won’t this ever go away?

Historically, it has often been said that the Senate is a more deliberative body than the House and hopefully they will once again live up to that reputation. There actually seems to be some meaningful dialogue on the stimulus package and alternative options are being presented in some cases in a bipartisan way, as with moderate Senators Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska and Susan Collins (R) of Maine suggesting cuts to package of around $50 B.

The bill as presented may be too much of a pent-up Democratic wish list. Some of the items many be too far reaching and not fine tuned for a stimulus package. There needs to be some criteria to meet such as: actually creating/saving jobs; encouraging corporations to step up by investing and even taking some risk to actually continue to make product in America; making sure that some help is offered for people whose lives have been devastated with unemployment through no fault of their own; re-training programs to help people whose jobs may never come back; re-building of infrastructure that has been neglected for years; greening of America with programs to build and refurbish structures to make them more energy efficient; making schools better so our work force can compete technologically; developing alternative energy sources; etc.- mostly long term improvements.

I’ve been encouraged by a few Republicans, our Kansas Senators being noticeably silent, who admit that some sort of stimulus package is needed. I find it refreshing that Senators from both sides of the aisle are admitting that they don’t know for absolute, “drop dead” certain that this particular bill will bring us immediately out of a Recession; but, something needs to be done to relieve some of the pain. Hopefully, Republicans won’t be so calloused that they will vote no and sit back, hoping the plan fails, to gain a political advantage in 2010. Both sides begrudgingly agree with the idea that legislation passed after only two or three weeks into an administration may not be perfect and there are parts of bill that may have to be modified or even dropped if it fails to accomplish what they hope.

The administration has taken some tough hits this week. I hate it that Daschle has withdrawn, because I thought he was uniquely qualified to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. But, Obama has lived up to his word on insisting on higher standards than we’ve had in the past, even if it costs him some needed expertise. I didn’t think I would ever live long enough to hear a sitting President come out and say, “I screwed up,” especially when he didn’t. It was Daschle’s fault and those who vetted him. But, Obama stepped up to make it clear that “The Buck Stops Here.”

Also, it’s encouraging to see our new President talking with both parties and being willing to listen. They may only agree to disagree; but, he is open to and invites reasonable criticism and alternative plans which does represent a change.

I like it that he takes a strong stand on the majority of the bill. He has let it be known that there are certain areas he will not compromise on – why should he, he won. He will not allow the bill to be gutted; but, he will compromise on some significant issues. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that he probably has the votes if they force him to “play the party card.” Also, he took a lot of criticism on earmarks in his campaign. But, he is the only President I can remember who has had the courage to say that he wants an earmark free bill. Hopefully, the Democratic leadership will deliver on that.

How long has it been since we’ve had a President look the watching public in the eye and talk about his legacy before the fact? Everyone knows Presidents are concerned about that, but few have had the courage to come out and say that he expects his presidency will be judged in large part by whether he can help get this economy going. He is setting a dangerous and maybe even unattainable standard. But, I for one went away with the feeling that this guy is serious, he’s tough, and he’s not going to make excuses. There doesn’t appear to be any quit in him. Maybe that’s what voters saw in him and I hope they are rewarded.

Where is Bipartisanship and the Need to Move Forward Together?

I am truly disappointed with the Republican minority in Congress regarding the stimulus package being proposed by the Obama Administration. 100% opposition in the House and being proud of it is not a good sign of things to come.

With Republican Party leadership not yet clearly established (Bush is gone and McCain doesn’t seem able to assume that role), we have a fractured Republican Party whose only agreement is to disagree with everything being offered by the new administration - so much for bipartisanship. With the news media’s attempt to present both sides to the stimulus story, it has given media savvy Conservative Republicans their opportunity to individually step out and offer their own version of criticism of the proposal so that they can “beat their chest” with their “base” back home. One has to remember that Republicans in recent years have shown that they have a natural ability for the role of the “loyal opposition.” Their problem comes to the forefront when they win elections and must move from criticizing to governing. They are once again back in their comfort zone – offering constant criticism with no alternative solutions to solve problems.

Part of the problem is their archaic, over-simplified, and naive view of our economic system. It is like they read Ayn Rand’s great novels – Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, etc.- back in 50’s and 60’s and forgot they were fiction. It helps them that their sound bites always include fears of higher taxes, more government spending, and government involvement somehow limiting individual initiative. These are always popular themes with some people and if they can figure out how to incorporate the big, bad bug-a-boo of “socialism” in their few seconds of fame on TV, they have a sure-fire way to raise big dollars for their next election.

Many of them do have a problem, they voted for the previous administration’s bail-out program which gave billions of dollars to big banks, powerful real estate corporations, insurance companies, and auto industry. Hopefully, these congressmen got thank you notes from these people for the undeserved bonuses they received last year. But, when the present administration starts talking about creating jobs, money for schools, money to support state service programs, investment in alternative energy programs, providing funds to move towards some sort of universal health care, re-building infrastructure, etc., they are opposed. Government money distributed to the people is unpalatable, whereas money to “well-healed” corporate America is OK!

I would love to see the Republicans put together a leadership team that would be willing to work in a bipartisan fashion where possible; and, if they disagree, provide well thought-out, reasonable, constructive criticism. This team should be prepared to offer alternative recommendations of how we can deal with massive unemployment, 2 wars, global economic crisis, collapsing infrastructure, declining middle class, deteriorating schools, inequality in medical care, reduction in dependence on foreign energy, etc.

I am fully aware that what Obama is doing holds a great risk. It will need to be modified and adjusted as we move forward. I am convinced that the only suggestion I’ve heard from Republican’s, significant reduction in taxes for businesses and the wealthy, is not a viable alternative – even though it has voter appeal. Most economists reject it as a bad idea, just as it was in 2001. Tax reduction and smaller government is not a cure-all for what ails us.

I have my own concerns with the stimulus package. For example, I’m not thrilled with the idea that the federal government might increase control over education through funding of “no-child-left-behind.” Although Obama has asked for an “earmark free” stimulus package, I don’t want to see special interest groups and a few powerful Congressmen/women getting questionable projects for their districts and states by “back dooring” the legislative process. I’m less than thrilled with massive amounts of money being spent on new roads (rebuilding of existing deteriorating ones excepted), when it is becoming clear that the time has come for a new generation of light rail and railroads to move people and goods.

I want the stimulus package to be just that – a short term boost to the economy not a permanent establishment of broadened government bureaucracy with an exception or two. Obama has promised that. In fact, he has promised a “house cleaning” of unneeded, over funded, ineffective programs. Unfortunately, it is Congress that controls the purse strings and I have been less than thrilled with the Congressional Democratic leadership up to this point. Hopefully, they will rise to the occasion.

As a private citizen, I really have little clout, just a small voice amongst many others. That is why I would like to see the development of a responsible opposition party that will work together in a bipartisan fashion where possible and offer well thought-out, reasonable alternatives when they disagree. If the Republican Party can’t accomplish that, they do not deserve much respect or support and certainly not the opportunity to govern in the future. If all they can accomplish is negative demagoguery, they are no better than their loud, obnoxious talk radio star – Rush Limbaugh.

Less Frequent Posting in the Future

Not that it represents any significant loss to the world of political, economic, or educational writing, but I will be posting to this blog less frequently in the future. I have truly enjoyed it; but, I had hoped to stimulate more discussion on these issues than what has resulted. Thanks to those who have taken the time to read them and thanks to those who have commented orally that they have enjoyed reading them. I’m amazed that there haven’t been any who have taken issue with some of what was said. There undoubtedly are and maybe they are just being kind.

I’ve decided to take on another hopefully meaningful, creative, and certainly time consuming job of helping to home school our granddaughter. That is the advantage of retirement – doing what one wants to within reason. I taught school and coached at the secondary level for about 15 years some 30 years ago so I should have known what I was getting myself into – plus she is only a 2nd grader for crying out loud! However, it has been an eye opening experience already. Teaching is a tough job requiring all kinds of prep work, background educational reading, and serious thought. I have been truly amazed at the volume of information out there for education of young people. There are K-12 computer programs, supplemental computer programs, many studies on educational practices I’ve not been exposed to over the last 30 years, plus a wealth of curriculum information, exercises, games, etc. to peruse and/or include in one’s instruction.

You take a bright young girl and add in “a little” ADHD and you have a challenging experience that offers an interesting mix of joyful exhilaration in one lesson with a humbling one of failure in the next lesson. It is a roller coaster ride of emotion for both of us. I love it, so I intend to spend a disproportionate amount of time working one-on-one with this little girl I love so much and do my best to remain sane.

I’ve made it very clear to her that I will do my best to help her do well in math and, more importantly, she will learn to enjoy the problem solving challenges of the subject. And, I will do my best to study history with her so that she gains an appreciation and knowledge for a subject she already enjoys. I’ve signed on for as long as her parents want to pursue this educational option and want my involvement. Please wish both of us luck.

What's up with Our Country's Financial Leaders?

Something that has always bothered me about the investment world is that it is run by a group of well-educated, intelligent people who seem too often to make terrible investment decisions. As I understand it, a good share of the “market” is controlled by a fairly small group usually identified as institutional money managers, mutual fund managers, investment brokers, corporate leaders, insurance company money managers, big bankers, etc. These are people who handle huge sums of money day-in-and-day-out and seemingly not too well sometimes – as in 2008. In addition to the above, we have well-educated, intelligent government financial people at Treasury Dep’t and Federal Reserve who have been seemingly caught by surprise and who appear to be stumbling around trying to belatedly correct the most recent recession by throwing money to some big banks, insurance companies, and corporations.

It is more than a little scary for lay people, having only a rudimentary understanding of “markets”, to see their life savings (like 401K’s) depreciate 20 to 40% in a few months, see family and friends suddenly unemployed (at 6.7% maybe heading to 10%), see property values decreasing rapidly (resulting in record mortgage defaults and up-side-down mortgage positions), reduction in government services (that many in our society rely on), etc.

Then we get the explanation for the recession. They tell us it started with sub-prime mortgages and the bundling of this paper to be sold around the world. Why would well-educated, smart people trade in these things when it is so obvious that it is a “house of cards” ready to fall apart? Also, we learn that huge, historical icons of American Corporations, like “Big Three Auto Companies”, are poorly managed, surviving on “smoke and mirrors” and are only a few weeks from being broke. We see large, highly respected investment houses like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers go under. We see big banks that have existed for generations going broke, being sold at auction, or being bailed out with infusion of massive amounts of government money.

Then, you add to this the rather cavalier attitude that many financial people have regarding these market swings. It is like, “Sure we are going to have these from time to time, it will correct itself, and we’ll be up and running in no time. Just hang on, don’t panic and cash in, maybe carefully move some money around to reposition yourself; but mostly, just relax.” I’m sitting here thinking, why is this normal, why is it so readily acceptable, and why does it happen at all with well-educated, intelligent people managing these financial affairs and these corporations?

Then the real kicker is that if one questions the functionality of our “free-market/capitalistic” system it is like you are committing blasphemy! Suggestions of regulations for the financial/corporate world is a really big, “NO-NO”. These people who have been responsible in large measure for this mess have never seen a regulation they like; and given the choice, they will applaud most deregulation. They insist that regulations will stifle the “free-market/capitalistic” system and its wonderfully self-regulating ability to create wealth for us all. The amazing thing is that they can say this with a straight face while “bellying up to the bar” with their open palm extended for government bail-outs. Then when it is suggested that they be held accountable for it, they are aghast, “What do you mean we have to tell you how we spend the money, how unreasonable. We know how to run our businesses and the worst thing that can be done is to get the government involved. And, by the way, if this isn’t enough money, we’ll be back to you when we need more.” Why do they hold to the archaic view of preserving a “pure capitalistic/free-market” economy? We haven’t had this system, other than in name, for about a century. We have a “mixed economy” with heavy government involvement that experience has shown us is needed to prevent illegal, unethical, ill-conceived, and abusive practices. Unfortunately, we evidently don’t have it quite right yet.

I’m sorry that I have no definitive answers to the questions I’ve asked throughout this column. I think they are worth some contemplation. But, in the mean time, our best choice might be to rely on carefully crafted government regulations that establish a delicate balance between freedom and controls that don’t unreasonably hinder the market system. That is the challenge moving forward with our “mixed economy”. We will have to constantly adjust the ‘rules-of-the-game”. Our aim should not be to eliminate risk, without risk you stifle innovation, creativity, and growth. But, maybe we can curtail the “lemminglike psychology” that overwhelms the entire market too frequently.

What History Teaches Us

History has always fascinated me. I think a deep understanding of history is a pre-requisite for success in many areas including business, local/state/national government, and foreign affairs, just to mention a few. I think what history does, is to teach us what mistakes not to repeat in making current and future decisions. However, it should not dictate what course of action to take with these decisions.

The War in Afghanistan might be a good example. We had good reason to militarily go after al-Qaeda – 9-11. But, history from the time of Alexander the Great, through British occupation, and the most recent Russian debacle in Afghanistan should have taught us not to make the mistake of moving into this country with what they would perceive as an occupying force. History clearly shows that they have the willingness to fight, even against what most would think are insurmountable odds, to resist that perception. They won’t accept defeat – they will choose death; they won’t welcome “nation building” – they will hold to their tribal system; they will not accept “puppet” governments set up by an occupier – they will bide their time and eradicate them as soon as possible; they will stay faithful to their religion and culture – in fact, the more pressure exerted to alter it will simply radicalize it even more. We should have known these things from history.

Understanding these things could have kept us from making the mistakes we made and are still making. A “surge” of more troops will result in having more control of Afghanistan. If you put more “feet on the ground” and more sophisticated military muscle in the country, you will kill more people and destroy more infrastructure; and for the time being, curtail insurgency and opposition because you will simply over-power them. We did it in Iraq. But, will it accomplish any long term goals like: establish a democracy, a peaceful and settled nation, promote human rights (for example, equality of women), create an appreciative ally for us in the region, etc.? I don’t think so!

That doesn’t mean we back away from confrontation with enemies dedicated in destroying us. My choice would have been to punish al-Qaeda with quick, overwhelming, devastating destruction and then get out – no occupation, no nation building, and no rebuilding. True “shock and awe” with no apologies; but, a promise that we will be back if need be. But, the time has passed for this. The Taliban has experienced a resurgence, al-Qaeda is linked closer than ever to them, and the conflict has broadened beyond the tribal areas in Pakistan to possible instability in all of Pakistan which is much more dangerous and complicated. I have confidence that the new administration has the necessary knowledge of history to avoid past mistakes; but, the solution is not to be found in history. It will take an innovative approach which may in the short run cost us more in lives lost and expenditure of money not readily available. In the end, our ego-defense may have to “take a hit” as it did in Korean War, Vietnam War, failed Iran Crisis Rescue Mission Attempt, and Mogadishu (of the tragic Black Hawk Down incident). The only consolation is that history has shown us that backing away from an ill-conceived and conducted military action doesn’t permanently damage our nation, just our ego. It does teach us that we do have limitations.

Another example is our recent economic crisis. Why are we caught by surprise and appalled by the newest “boom and bust?” They aren’t new, history has documented quite well one after another going back to our country’s beginning. We’ve had land speculation busts several times; technological inspired booms and busts like railroads, oil, and the 2001 “.com” one; numerous bank panics; investment speculation bubbles bursting like in 1929 and again in 2008, etc. How much evidence do we have to compile that a “free market” system, left to run amuck on its own, will create yet another “correction”, “down cycle”, recession”, and maybe a “depression”?

We should have learned enough from history to maturely accept the need for our government to balance responsible regulation with economic freedom to make our markets work. We certainly should have learned from history that we can’t expect anything but dire consequences if we retract regulations that were intended to protect us from obviously careless and/or unethical practices. Regulation needs to be carefully crafted and constantly adjusted to meet our needs, but seldom should we even consider deregulation. In addition to the above needed balance, there needs to be the acceptance of the necessity of maintaining a strong middle class which is required for prosperity and successful democracy.

However, history can’t teach us how to handle the most recent crisis. That has to be day-and-age specific problem solving. Hopefully, it will come as a result of much well thought-out public debate on a reasonably level playing field. This is where a democracy becomes so important - where large numbers of a wide variety of citizens take it upon themselves to offer their views. This is why it is so important that our government is not controlled by a few powerful special interest groups.

So, let’s learn and use our history to avoid mistakes of the past; but, let’s use our knowledge, intuition, and creativity to deal with current and future issues.