Giving Results

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

It is clear that the ideas presented in the previous entries will require huge cuts in government spending. Many people, including government employees, have become dependent on these programs, and cutting them will certainly put some Americans in a difficult position.

Fortunately, there is a community in America that is dedicated to helping people in need, and, unlike the government, they achieve consistent results.

I'm talking about our charitable institutions. Americans give huge dollar amounts to charity every year, and these smart, competitive organizations stretch the contributions they receive to the limit. How do I know? I spent two years working as the Director of Development (fundraising manager) of a non-profit charity.

Charities do not work like government. They understand how difficult it is for people to give and appreciate every dollar they receive. Donors are an intelligent group as well, only contributing to the best-run charities that produce consistent results. In short, the charitable giving industry has a client/company relationship that closely resembles that of businesses. In the case of non-profits, the product you are offering a donor is the fulfillment of their desire to help others and improve their communities, their country, and the world. Producing better results and making donations go further naturally leads to receiving more donations, just like an effectively run business that satisfies its clients tends to do more business.

This is a distinctly different model from government entitlement programs. Rather than investigating best practices and thoroughly examining each case, government gives money on the basis of predetermined benchmarks. What this means is that if an individual meets the qualifications laid out in the law, he or she is entitled to receive benefits. Furthermore, government does not have a responsibility to its donors, because taxpayers must fund the government. By its very nature, it is an inefficient institution. The result is poorly run programs that fail to produce results.

I have also worked at a homeless shelter. During my time there, dozens of homeless individuals came into the shelter to take advantage of its functions, which included a place to shower, free meals, reception services (yes, we even received mail and took phone messages for homeless individuals), public transportation fare, food stamps, and benefit applications.

At the risk of sounding callous, I was amazed at how few of these homeless individuals were taking active steps to find gainful employment or housing. My second day there, I approached a woman who had been working there for several years and asked her about this. She explained that about 1-in-30 people coming through their doors were making use of the intended function of the shelter, which was to help these individuals get back to work and find homes. My experience at the shelter confirmed her estimation.

This is not efficient. The cost of running the shelter must have been extremely high. There were at least five full-time employees in a large office space in an area where real estate prices are among the highest per square foot in the nation. The food and bus tokens alone must have totaled at least $1000 per day. No charity in the country could operate so poorly (a 1-in-30 success rate) and continue to receive donations.

Contrast this performance with that of "Habitat for Humanity," a well-known charity committed to building shelter for those in need. This organization has constructed over 200,000 homes and shelters, and finishes a new shelter every 24 minutes. Every 24 minutes! By June of 2006, Habitat had put 100 families who had been devastated by Hurricane Katrina into new homes. By mid-summer of 2007, they project that 1,000 new residences will have been constructed for the hurricane victims. And these are not shacks or government projects, either. I encourage readers to visit their website, www.habitat.org, and see what real charity looks like.

And that's not all. Habitat also does vast amounts of work abroad. Over the next 18 months, they expect to build 10,000 homes for victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Not only does this save lives and help people start over, it also aids in improving the image of the United States around the world.

Like all charitable organizations, Habitat publishes an annual report that the public can read (this is where all this information comes from). All non-profits are transparent, allowing potential donors to see the organization's record of success. The government frequently fails to research the success of its own programs, much less offering the public an opportunity to look at its records and determine whether or not they wish to continue funding the waste.

Because a charity's income is tied to its performance, efficiency and effectiveness are vital to operations. Because the government's income is guaranteed, efficiency and effectiveness are almost unnecessary.

On top of the 20% income tax proposed in previous entries, Americans should be asked to give to charity. Requiring this by law would flood money into our charitable organizations, and this is sure to be more effective than any government program. A sliding scale based on total income level would look like this:

Income (in thousands of dollars); (Percentage Tax)
$25-50 (5%)
50-75 (6%)
75-100 (7%)
100-200 (8%)
200+ (10%)

This scale does not mean that an individual making $250,000 per year must give $25,000 (10%) to charity. What it means is that the first $25K of income is charity tax free, the next $25K is taxed at 5% (for a total of $1250), the next $25K at 6% ($1500), and so on. So, using the above example, an individual earning $250K would pay a total of $17,500 ($1250 + 1500 + 1750 + 8000 + 5000) in charity tax. That amounts to only 7% of the $250K in total income.

Along with the new charity tax, fierce penalties for charity fraud would be written into law. Individuals who are caught trying to beat the system would be fined and jailed.

The end result would be amazing. Not only would charities help the Americans who need help, but instead of a government program throwing money at a problem it will be Americans helping Americans (and foreigners). Anyone who has ever been involved in charity work knows what a special relationship this is, and how beneficial it is for all parties involved.

The influx of funding to charities would also boost the industry, opening new possibilities for philanthropy and allowing anyone with a good idea on how to help people make it a reality. Charities would continue to strive for excellence and compete for dollars, and Americans could choose how their contribution improved their community, country, or the world.

American taxpayers deserve a good return on their investment. Let charities and fellow Americans take care of each other, and let the government take care of funding things like infrastructure, military and security, and public education. This is the kind of honest change we need.

Investing Incentive

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Reading the ideas on tax reform in the previous might have accountants and tax attorneys crying "foul." But there is no cause for concern.

The government has done some things well when it comes to the tax code. Because the wealthy financial sector has so much pull in Washington, several good ideas have made their way into the tax code regarding passive and portfolio income. These incentives encourage Americans to invest in certain ventures that would otherwise be too risky or unprofitable. Depreciation, depletion, intangible drilling costs, IRAs, Keogh Plans, TICs--there is a vast list of investment activities and incentives that avoid absurd taxation.

The problem is that most Americans cannot afford and/or do not understand the benefits of these investments. Having a "money" curriculum in our public schools, beginning in elementary school and lasting through high school, will help our citizens understand the advantages and importance of saving and investing. But what about the cost?

As it stands now, the average American pays so much in fees and taxes that investing--while still crucial to one's financial well-being and retirement--does not feel like it is worth the effort. Furthermore, those who do invest regularly tend to do so in very limited ways and for very specific things, such as retirement accounts, college funds, or saving for a down payment on a home. Very few Americans have a steady stream of passive income. This needs to change.

One of the keys to having more time to spend with family and take care of the most important things in life is having the financial resources to do so. As is demonstrated in recent books such as "The Two Income Trap," our current system makes it very difficult to live in a good neighborhood with decent schools unless both parents have a job. Combine this fact with the shorter vacations and longer hours our country works, and there is little time left for family.

A great way to start fixing this problem is to make the first $25,000 of passive and portfolio income tax free. This means that a couple could earn up to $50,000 in passive income without paying a penny in taxes. Maintaining current tax incentive laws along with this new deduction would result in an explosion of investment by Americans, and would create a whole new investment industry for the low-income investor.

Taking this a step further, the capital gains tax would be reduced to a 10% for short-term (12 month) and 5% for long-term (more than 1 year). Again, no taxes would be paid until that $25K threshold is exceeded. Passive income would be taxed at the 20% flat rate, but the $25K tax-free rule would be combined with all the current deductions for passive income, making it easy to earn extremely high returns while paying little or nothing in taxes. These new policies would allow Americans earning a modest income to start putting their money to work instead of working so hard for their money.

The economic benefits of this plan would be extensive. More investing would allow companies to be more creative and take more risks. Finding the necessary funding to translate good ideas into profitable ventures would be easier. Middle and lower-middle class Americans could generate helpful, steady streams of income. The market surges would bring in vast amounts of foreign capital, strengthening the dollar and keeping more and better jobs in the United States. And, after a few years of lean tax revenues, the growth in the economy would actually create a surplus and allow us to pay down the national debt.

We need to become a country of long-term thinkers. In today's market economy, long-term thinking also brings about short-term results. How? Making investing more attractive will flood money into the markets, giving companies more money to hire and pay workers, research new technologies to create new jobs and new industries, and boosting profit-sharing. If we educate our citizens properly and "incentivize" investing, Americans will learn to leverage their individual capital for gain while at the same time pouring money into the companies and entrepreneurs that keep America's economy ahead of its competitors.

The flip-side of this policy is disastrous. If we continue to make investing so complicated and expensive--keeping it out of the reach of middle-class America--we are in danger of losing our status as the world's preeminent economic power and losing our valuable technology and financial sector jobs to foreign markets.

So why haven't we done this yet? Because elections are based largely on unemployment rates, and incumbent politicians know they can earn votes by mortgaging our future to create temporary, superficial job-growth. Also, the wealthy financial sector, lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians already know the loopholes of the system, so there is no need for them to change it--even though these proposed changes would benefit them as well.

Let's learn to think long-term and support honest change in our tax system.

Tax Returns

This entry continues the series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Taxes themselves are not the problem. When the colonists revolted against the British Empire, they were not opposed to the idea of paying taxes. They were opposed to the idea of paying taxes without getting anything in return.

Americans have always been relatively smart with their money. This is because we live in a quasi-capitalist society that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship. I do not believe the frustrations many feel about taxes are simply because we do not want to pay taxes. I think Americans see the value in things like a strong military, public education, and infrastructure.

The real problem is that we are not getting a good return on our investment.

Despite the huge amounts of money flowing into the federal government, our education system is a mess, we have too many extraneous laws and government institutions, and we have a tax code that is overly-complicated and unfair.

Instead of squabbling over tax-bracket percentages, marriage penalties or deductions, and the moratorium on the estate tax, we need to shift the conversation to wholesale reform of the tax code.

I heard a great interview with a U.S. Postal Service worker on the radio the other day. He was explaining why the price of stamps is increasing again. "We have too many supervisors," he said. "There are too many people who are not doing anything and are getting paid."

Government institutions have the luxury of knowing that they have no competition. The USPS (United States Postal Service) will exist for as long as the laws of the nation support its existence, regardless of how poorly it is run. Inefficiency is actually rewarded, because in most government programs, your budget is based on how much you spend. This means that finishing the year under budget often means that your budget is cut. Conversely, a government organization that consistently fails to meet budget expectations will retain a high budget or even win a budget increase.

Does this sound like an efficient system? No wonder Americans do not feel like they are getting a good return on their investment in the federal government.

The solution is clear. If we lower tax rates to a reasonable level for all of our citizens, we will see long-term growth, and force government to cut its waste. Over the period of a decade, federal tax revenue will actually increase, allowing the government pay down our ridiculous national debt, which is now at about $8.85 trillion and continues to balloon.

As it currently stands, the tax system's loopholes allow two individuals with the same income to pay substantially different amounts in taxes. This is not fair, and I believe it is unconstitutional. Why? Because our freedom to spend our money as we choose is one of our basic rights as Americans. If John and Sally both make $100, and Sally has to pay $30 in taxes while John's creative accountant structures his finances so that he only has to pay $5 in taxes, this is unfair.

All human beings require the three basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. We can assume that a portion of everyone's income goes to fulfilling these needs. The remainder of income is left to spend on choices--things like recreation, investments, charity, or upgrades to the basic needs. Because John and Sally live in the same country under the same laws, we will also assume that they receive the same freedoms and protections from these laws. Taking more from Sally in taxes, however, eliminates a higher percentage of her income, leaving her with a much more limited opportunity to make choices. This is, in essence, taking more of her freedom.

We need a simple tax system that takes 20% of active income from every citizen. No more deductions, penalties, or credits. Every American knows that $1 out of every $5 they earn is going to the federal government, and must budget accordingly.

Taking this a step further, the first $25,000 of income is not taxed. This means that when you receive your paycheck--if your salary is $25K or less--no taxes are withheld. The process of paying taxes only so that the government can return them to you is inefficient. Individuals making more than $25K could choose to amortize their payments over the course of the year or to begin paying 20% after they have earned their first $25K.

Think about how easy it would be to prepare a tax return. No deductions, no filing jointly, no dependents, no credits, no penalties--no loopholes. Everyone pays 20% of their active income over $25,000.

Imagine the one page, ten minute tax form that you could fill out during a coffee break. Instead of sending the government money at the end of the tax year or getting a refund, each citizen simply pays as they go. While it feels good to receive a refund at the end of the year, the fact is that all you are getting is money that was yours to begin with. This means that the government was holding your money all year. Banks have to pay interest to do that. Conversely, when individuals underpay, they are withholding money from the government. All of this breeds inefficiency and requires a larger IRS, opening the door for more mistakes, more loopholes, and more wasted money.

Let's stop squabbling over tax reform and demand an entirely new policy.

Failure to Comply

This entry continues the series exploring ideas for improvements to our federal tax system.

The previous entry touched on the immensity of the federal tax code. That it was 16,485 pages in March of 2006 (by now it is longer) is astonishing in and of itself, but it is not just its length that makes it so ridiculous.

The complexity of the code is the real issue. As noted in the previous entry, Americans spend $265 billion on compliance costs in 2005. Federal tax revenue was around $1.2 trillion. That means that 22% extra was spent on complying with the tax code. So the real cost of taxes is much higher than the number on a tax return.

It is not just business paying for the absurdly high compliance costs. As consumers and employees, businesses pass expenses along to us anyway--but individuals totaled 44% of the $265 billion spent on compliance in 2005. Stack on top of that an average of 25 hours spent working on compliance, and it is easy to see that the government should actually be paying us to determine what it costs to pay our taxes.

And it is not just inefficient for the taxpayers. The government wastes vast amounts of time and resources on compliance. But because tax codes are so complex and so vast, even Uncle Sam has a hard time getting it right.

Here's a true story to support my case. While it concerns state taxes, it demonstrates the absurdity of our tax laws. Last year, after sending my state tax return, I received a letter indicating that I owed another $42 in taxes. There was no explanation for this assessment, just a dollar figure and a date. Since I do my own taxes, I went back and reviewed my information, and checked it again with the tax software I used to compute taxes. According to my hand calculation and the software, I had paid the correct amount.

I decided to send a letter explaining why I believed I did not owe another $42 in taxes, and included copies of my federal and state returns. Several weeks later, I received another bill, this time for $43.71, because I now owed interest on my late payment. Thinking it best to cut my losses and pay the state, I sent my check for the full amount.

Two weeks later, the state must have finally figured out that my calculations were correct, because they sent me a check back for just over $44--the amount I paid plus the interest they owed me.

I would like to think that this is rare occurrence, but because my tax return was relatively uncomplicated, the only logical conclusion is that these things happen frequently.

So who benefits from this mess of a tax code? The wealthy lawyers and accountants who earn their living helping the rest of us comply with the system. Furthermore, the wealthiest Americans are able to take advantage of all the loopholes and end-up paying a lower percentage than middle-class Americans.

This must stop. Two people with the same income should pay the same in taxes. It should not be the better accountant or lawyer who determines what we owe the government. In this age of instant information, we ought to be able to look at a simple form a the end of the year, sign our name, and write our check or receive or refund. There should not be 40-plus page tax returns, forms with more abbreviations than anyone can remember, or huge governmental organizations spending millions of tax dollars on trying to figure out if each citizen is actually paying what they owe.

It is time to streamline the system and the process. The government benefits from the mystery of the tax code--most of us do not realize how or how much we actually pay--and it allows them to perpetuate the failing programs and offices that put more dollars into politicians' pockets.

Americans deserve a tax code that is simple, fair, logical, and requires the government to demonstrate fiscal restraint.

Taxation Nation

This entry is the first of a series exploring improvements to the federal tax system.

Nearly every activity of our day is taxed. Waking up to the alarm clock, turning on the light, and taking a shower all include utility taxes. Driving to work? Gasoline taxes are outrageous in some states. Settling into your desk chair at the office costs both you and your employer. On the way home from work, that stop at the grocery store probably costs you sales tax. Call your spouse to say you are running a bit late and add cell phone taxes to your day. Walk in the front door of your house and put your change in the piggy bank, because you are probably paying property tax. Renting? Your landlord is passing the cost of taxes along to you. And whether you watch CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ESPN, or Lifetime, you are paying taxes on your cable or satellite service. Even the money sitting in your savings account is being taxed.

There are so many taxes and so many tax laws that Americans have no idea how or how much they pay in taxes every day, and this is exactly how government wants it. In March of 2006, according the United States Government Printing Office (another drain on your income), the tax code totaled 16,845 pages. It is so long, and so exhaustive, that no one can truly grasp all of intricacies. Back in 1976, when the code was substantially shorter, President Jimmy Carter said, "Our income-tax system is a disgrace to the human race."

The Tax Foundation estimated the cost of compliance with the federal income tax system to be $265 billion in 2005. What this means is that, on top of the approximately $1.2 trillion in income tax businesses and individuals coughed-up, another 22% was spent on making sure we paid the proper amount. To put it another way, if the system garnered 30% of income in taxes, it cost another 22 cents on every dollar to pay them. That would mean that 52 cents of every buck earned in 2005 went towards the tax system.

And that is just for federal income taxes. Stack state, local, excise--all the other taxes on top--and Americans are paying the majority of their income in taxes and compliance costs.

President John F. Kennedy wanted to lower tax rates in order to increase tax revenues. Citing actual studies (a simple procedure our government usually fails to follow), JFK determined that lowering tax rates would bring about more growth, resulting in higher revenues within just a few years. Almost fifty years later, we still have not learned this lesson.

What it comes down to is this: Americans are paying over 40% of their income in taxes. This is ten percent higher than the rates in 1960. Republican or Democrat, both parties have increased the size of government since World War II. Stack another 20-plus percent on for compliance costs, and we are working from January until July just to pay for our tax burden.

But businesses pay a huge chunk of our taxes, right? Wrong. For businesses, taxes are just another expense. In order for businesses to survive, these expenses are passed along to employees, consumers, and shareholders. Taxing businesses is just another way for the government to tax you.

Fortunately, the solutions to this issue are uncomplicated and well-researched. All we need to do is simplify the tax code and cut tax rates. Unfortunately, we have to find politicians who are willing to embrace the common sense reasoning of taxes.

Best Practices

This entry is the final in the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

Politicians throw around the term "best practice" quite a bit. The idea is to find a program that works and adopt it as policy. It is really a business term, and refers to companies altering their methods--based on what their competitors or other businesses are doing--in order to increase efficiency.

For the federal government, this usually means taking a state or local program and making it a national program.

This is a disastrous concept to apply to education. While common sense ideas like raising teacher wages and constructing and rehabbing schools to meet modern standards should be applied across the board, specific education policies must be determined by states and districts.

The reason for this is very simple. Demographics have a huge impact on how children learn, and a California senator knows little about how a child in Detroit needs to be educated, while a Michigan congressman would struggle to understand the complexities of the immigrant culture in Los Angeles. "Best practices" are very different in Los Angeles and Detroit. Furthermore, localizing school policy would empower parents and teachers within districts, giving them a louder voice and an incentive to be more involved.

Is bilingual education a good idea? What about gender segregation? Should phonics be part of every grade school curriculum? The answer to all three of these questions is another question: What will work best for your district? If states really got smart, they could even design part of their education plans around their economies, supplying better employees for businesses and giving students a better chance at getting and holding jobs.

The federal government would be wise to spend their education budget in the following ways:

1) Increase teacher salary. Make the starting salary about 50% higher than it currently is (to about $45,000), and continue driving it up at a rate that outpaces inflation.

2) Build and maintain higher quality education facilities. Technology, buildings, books and supplies--all of these are essential to education.

3) Give states money for the express purpose of conducting concise, meaningful research in order to discover what the "best practices" are for their districts. It is time for some serious research to be conducted by the brightest minds in the field.

4) Cut nearly every other program included the federal education budget. Give the money to states, put the issue in their hands, and allow voters to impact education locally, where they can see the fruits of their labor.

Following these four guidelines--along with holding parents accountable for their children--will bring about better teachers, better schools, and better curriculum. And a tax increase would not be necessary to fund these simple programs.

Now, all that said, there is one subject that I firmly believe must be taught in every school: money. Simple classes, starting in grade school, that cover topics such as balance sheets, saving and investing, the impact of debt, the rewards of compound interest (and its dangers in credit cards), and retirement plans--all of this would help Americans out of bad debt and give each citizen the necessary knowledge to make decent financial decisions.

I am not so naive as to say that these classes will turn Americans into financial geniuses, but with a basic education on how money works our citizens would become more responsible for their finances and could be justifiably held accountable for their finances. As it stands now, the poor get poorer as they ring up debt and throw money away on rent while the wealthy get richer by purchasing more apartment complexes.

All of these ideas about improving education come back to the same principle of giving every citizen a chance to achieve success. Without a proper education, this will never be possible.

A Real Test of Achievement

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

We know that the federal government is wasting education funding (see previous entry). So how should the money be spent? What can we do to improve the quality of education in America?

To be honest, I am not completely sure. I am not an education expert. I have spent many years in outdoor education and several years as a coach--so I am an educator--but I do not work within the public school system.

But I am sure about a few changes that need to be made.

Every election cycle voters put education at or near the top of their priority list in the polls. We know, as a nation, that this is a critical issue. And when we hear politicians telling us how much they are spending on education, we assume that this money is helping the situation. In the last entry, this myth was debunked. Spending for the sake of spending does nothing but waste valuable taxpayer resources.

Teachers are the key to education. Sounds simple, right? But with all of the money we spend on education, teacher salaries are in comparative decline. In 1940, teacher pay was comparable to that of other professional careers. From 1996-2003, inflation-adjusted teacher pay rose 0.8%, while other college-educated professionals saw an inflation-adjusted 12% increase.

The average starting pay for a teacher is about $30,000. Computer programmers, accountants, and registered nurses start off at about $45,000. As bad as this statistic is, overall average pay is even worse. Teachers earn more than 50% less than their bachelor-degree holding counterparts in other professions.

Obviously, teaching is about more than money. But salaries are not just dollars, they are a measure of gratitude and achievement. Ask just about any employee, a raise is the best way to communicate appreciation. By paying them so little, we are telling teachers we are ungrateful for them. Not only this, but laws have stripped them of their ability to choose a curriculum, control their classrooms, and discipline their students.

We are failing this test. As a nation, we have sent a clear message that we do not value our teaching professionals. What incentive do they have to perform well, other than the kindness of their hearts?

A dramatic increase in teacher pay is one of the first steps to improving the education system. Let's stop wasting money on failing programs and start investing on our most important education resource--our teachers.

Educonomics

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

In order for the education system to improve, it will take more than just encouraging parents to be involved. There are some basic issues that must be addressed, that, when examined with an eye on basic laws of economics, make no sense.

It has become taboo for a lawmaker to even suggest cutting education spending. As noted in the last entry, "No Child Left Behind" has brought with it a 137% increase in federal education spending, and there is no clear evidence that the program is successful.

This should not be a surprise. A few years ago Professor Eric Hanushek, Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Rochester, directed a comprehensive study of the relationship between funding and performance in education. The study found no correlation between spending and success.

In fact, states where per-pupil spending is less than half that of others consistently find themselves at the top of the list for test results.

That said, now would be a good time to note that I do not believe a standardized multiple choice exam is much of a measure of a child's education. Having worked in a college education department that earned a perfect score (one of only two colleges in that entire state to do so) from state accreditors, I can tell you that any cutting-edge education professional would agree that standardized tests have little to do with a child's education.

So why have we mired ourselves in laws that force teachers to spend their entire year teaching material on exams that do not really measure how well a child is learning? Because spending more and talking tough about testing and results sounds good to voters.

While the reason for this mess may not surprise you, it should sicken you. The undeniable truth is that the federal government has taken little interest in researching what programs actually work. In fact, serious studies for our nation's education programs either do not exist or suggest that the programs are under-performing. Remember the big debate about "Head Start" at the end of Clinton's administration? Funding was boosted for the program, even though the government's own GAO (General Accounting Office) warned that no study had been done to evaluate "Head Start."

Title I is another failed government experiment. Meant to improve achievement among low-income students, Title I is the major funding arm of "No Child Left Behind." But as the Center on Reinventing Public Education points out, the program has two major flaws: 1) the complexity and mismanagement of district allocation practices and accounting procedures make it difficult to determine where spending is going; 2) the law itself is easily side-stepped. The result? Title I is not improving education for low-income students. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this program--which was started more than forty years ago in 1965--is failing, and has always failed. And yet we not only continue the program, we boost its funding.

We are spending--in real dollars adjusted for inflation--nearly three times per-pupil what we were spending in 1965. Not only do we continue to fund failing programs, we reward them by boosting funding. It is an amazing fact that the federal government has failed to sit down with the best education minds in the country and determine, through research, what steps we should take to repair our most vital public function.

We do not just need education reform. We need an education revolution. We need to scrap nearly every federal program and re-examine the issue. We need to stop doing what sounds good, and do what works. And, as voters, we need to demand this change.

Account-Ability

This entry continues the series exploring solutions to the education crisis.

A professor studying education methods visited a school in a southwest Los Angeles district. In one of the classrooms, a teacher worked with all but two of her students, who sat in the back of the classroom with their desks facing the wall. The two boys were talking to one another, completely disinterested with what was going on around them.

The professor asked the teacher about the two boys. She replied, "We made a deal. I let them do whatever they want in the back of the classroom as long as they don't disrupt the rest of the class." Dumbfounded, the professor pressed the teacher about her decision to give-up on two of her students. She went on to explain that, while she hated the idea of ignoring two young men in need of an education, they had been so disruptive that the choice was either to separate them from the rest of the group or sacrifice the needs of the entire class. "I don't have a choice," she said. "I hate that this how it has to be, but there's nothing else I can do."

This is a true story. Disruptive students can dominant and destroy a classroom atmosphere, and current laws give teachers little, if any, power to deal with these children. The idea is that the school system should be good enough to "fix" these kids and convince them that an education is in their best interest. The trouble is, if a teacher chooses to spend his or her time and energy trying to save these children, it is at the expense of the rest of the class.

For the most part, teachers are hard-working, committed individuals. They have to be. They have one of the most difficult--if not the most difficult--jobs in our society, and they receive very little compensation. They are willing to go the extra mile to help students and parents get the best education possible.

But they can do nothing for a child who is convinced that school is not important.

This attitude is partly cultural, but it comes from the home. Parents who take no direct interest in their children's education are the cause of this problem, and they must be held accountable for the solution.

In order for our children to effectively learn, they must have a quality learning environment. Unfortunately, it is very easy to disrupt this environment and throw it into chaos, and teachers have little authority to prevent this. Children who are not taught respect at home will not respect their teachers, and this takes valuable resources away from the rest of the class and the teacher.

I submit that parents of children who are failing classes--either for grades or for having a destructive influence on the classroom atmosphere--should be fined. And I'm not talking about a bill in the mail or a ticket on a windshield, I'm talking about garnishing wages or other income. If a child is a failing a class or causing other children to fail, then that child's parent is failing at home and stealing from taxpayers, children, and the country the precious gift of an education. I am simply proposing that these parents refund some of the resources they cost the rest of us.

The fact is that teachers go out of their way to make sure students pass their classes. The difficulty level of curriculum is at an all-time low, and yet failure rates are still extremely high. In a properly-functioning education system, classes should get more difficult every year and each generation should be smarter than the previous one.

I will admit, fining people sounds extreme. But is it? Parents who neglect to spend even an hour or two with their children each week helping with homework, reviewing exams, or explaining the importance of education are costing the rest of the country billions of dollars and immeasurable value in wasted young minds.

"I don't have time," is sure to be an excuse from many of these parents. This is ridiculous. Turn off American Idol. Wake-up from the nap. Get off of the internet. If a parent does not have enough time or energy to invest a few minutes everyday in their child's future, that parent ought to pay a little extra so someone else can try to save our nation's children from illiteracy. Teachers go out of their way to help students, talk with parents, and maintain order in the classroom. We cannot allow reckless parenting to sap our precious education resources and sabotage our children's future.

I am certain this policy would help turn around our schools. It helps give teachers some leverage in the classroom. It forces parents to take an interest in their child's education, or to pay the schools enough to put their child in a special needs class so as to allow the other students an opportunity for a quality education. And it makes a clear statement that our children are more important than anything else--including our paychecks. It is sad that it has come to this point, but it is time to make a change.

Better education will not come from a politician's new plan. Instead of voting for a candidate to fix the system, it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the problem. Bad parenting costs the rest of us. It is time to recognize that government cannot solve the problem. It is time to hold ourselves accountable. It is time we lived our vote.

Parentally Challenged

This entry is the first of a series exploring solutions to the education crisis America faces.

What is our country's greatest resource? America is blessed with multitudinous natural riches, but history has shown that our people make us the greatest nation in the world. Our children, then, are our most important resource, as they determine the future of America's prosperity and success. It is time we focused squarely on this issue.

What sounds right and what is right are two very different things. Most of us would agree that a plan to send food to refugees of a civil war in Africa is a good idea, and it certainly sounds nice. But what if the food never reaches the refugees? What if the shipments are being intercepted and used as currency by the warlords to purchase more weapons and, ultimately, kill more people? What if the charity is actually part of the problem? Sadly, we know that this has happened on many occasions. It does not mean that sending food is a bad idea, it just means that it must be done wisely.

What does this have to do with education? Well, the next several entries discuss some very difficult topics and offer some very difficult solutions. Much of it may not sound good or fair, but I believe it is right for our country and its citizens.

Education spending has surged since the enactment of "No Child Left Behind." According to the Heritage Foundation, the bill is responsible for the 137% increase from 2001-2006. We are spending more on education than ever before, and we are achieving less. This is one of those cases where it sounds nice to say, "we need to spend more on education," but the reality is that spending does not equal results.

If we expect to see an improvement in our education program, the most important issue to address is that of parental involvement. The most powerful influence in a child's education is not at school, it's at home. Children whose parents are directly involved with their education do better in school and have a much greater chance at success in life.

What this means is that--no matter how much is spent on education and no matter how it is spent--without good parenting our children cannot succeed in school, and our country is doomed to fail along them.

One of my good friends and his wife are both teachers. While visiting with them recently, they both recounted several stories about the lack of parental involvement and how it impacts their students and schools. While this anecdotal evidence comes as no surprise considering the vast amounts of research that prove parental involvement is vital to a quality education, it is still shocking. Parents who were contacted because their children are failing classes are asked to come in and meet with the teachers. Many times, after scheduling a meeting, the parents do not show-up for it. What's worse, they do not call to say they are not coming or reschedule. They simply do not care enough.

Parents asked to spend a single hour helping their struggling children study on a weekend repeatedly fail to do so. It is no surprise that many children come to school not caring about their own education, because this attitude is merely a reflection of the atmosphere in their home.

It is preposterous to think that schools will do all the work of educating our children. Yet the same parents who do not show-up for meetings or help their children with their homework complain that "our schools are failing us" and often call superintendents and principals when their kids are held back or receive failing grades in their classes. They have enough energy to berate our teachers and educators but not the courage or strength to help their children succeed.

These people are wasting our most precious resource. Our children are being sacrificed by their own parents.

There is a solution. Many parents--and somewhat justifiably so--argue that they simply do not have time to help their children. While this is nothing more than an excuse, it is reflective of the fact that our government has made it very difficult for families to survive on a single income. Many of the problems facing America today are interconnected, and I will continue to discuss these connections throughout the blog. That said, there is nothing more important than our children, and we must put them first.

How do we force good parenting? How can we legislate parental involvement? It costs us billions and billions of wasted dollars in time, energy, and resources every year to try to save children from a poor education. I believe it is time we passed these costs directly onto those that are responsible for them. The next entry will discuss this concept.

Teaching Fairness

When I first decided to write this blog, I thought I needed to tackle the issue of taxation first. But as I consider the goal of finding the best ways to achieve the maximum in freedom and opportunity for America and Americans, something else jumps out at me.

Education is perhaps the most important component of providing citizens with an equal opportunity for success. In many cases, I believe privatization is essential to encourage efficiency. Without competition for its services, government can afford to be wasteful--and often is.

But public education is the only way to maintain freedom. Why? Because privatization will lead to the wealthy getting the best education. This is not just a problem because it is unfair. It is also a threat to freedom.

It is important for me to note that I am not against private schools, but I firmly believe that each taxpayer should contribute his or her fair share to the public education system.

The catalyst for nearly every revolution in history has been a large and widening rich-poor gap. When the poor are getting poorer and the socio-economic conditions seem to make upward mobility impossible, governments are in danger of losing control of their citizens.

When the poor no longer believe they have the opportunity for success, they lose hope. This leads to higher crime rates, a cyclical culture of poverty, and, eventually, revolution.

While the lower-class may always be at a disadvantage, a quality education helps level the field. America will be at its best when its citizens believe that the hardest-working, most creative individuals find success, regardless of their background.

In order for our public schools to begin meeting the demands of the nationwide and worldwide economy, many drastic changes are required. Better teachers, better schools, better supplies--these are all necessary elements of an improved education program, but the most vital ingredient may be positive parental involvement.

The next several entries in this blog will explore this issue and other solutions to our education crisis.

Equal Opportunity

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's a phrase we all know well. But what does it mean? How should we define freedom and equality in the United States?

After several posts that attempt to identify some of the problems with our political culture, it's time to turn the focus towards issues and solution-oriented thinking.

Several issues will be tackled in this blog. Topics such as abortion, taxation, education, and foreign policy will all be discussed in an honest, open-ended manner. But it is important to always keep in mind how each of these issues relates to the greater goal of achieving the maximum amount of freedom and success for America and Americans.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. One of the central concepts to the solutions proposed on this blog is the idea of accountability. Freedom cannot succeed without individuals taking responsibility for their actions.

Living in America does not equal the right to success. It does not mean that every citizen deserves their own house, drugs, playstation, computer, alcohol, or even job. What America does try to guarantee is that every individual--regardless of race background, gender, etc.--has the opportunity to express their freedom in any way they so chose that does not take freedom away from another citizen. The focus is on opportunity, not on outcome.

Right now, I believe our government is keeping us from opportunity. I believe our laws and our system makes it more difficult than it should be to raise a family, enjoy an income, plan for retirement, help one another, and pursue leisure activities. As this blog continues, each policy idea will contain elements that I believe will contribute to a greater opportunity for success, and will therefore demand a greater sense of responsibility to self, country, fellow citizens, and the world.

Spending Freedom

The elder George Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating in history in 1991, with some polls posting a staggering 89%. Everyone, it seemed, in the public and the press, was convinced that he would enjoy another four years in office without even leaving the White House to campaign.

By July, 1992, his approval rating was at 32%--the lowest in history at the time. What caused the free-fall? More than any other factor, a poor economic situation doomed his presidency and provided an opportunistic underdog (Bill Clinton) with the chance he needed to become the nation's 42nd president.

This trend is evident throughout our nation's history, and has become even more pronounced as economic indicators have become increasingly available with nearly up-to-the-second accuracy via today's world wide media. The perception is that our politicians--especially the President--have a huge impact on our economy.

But is this true? Do the President and the United States Congress really have control of our economy?

While laws and policy will always have some effect on the economy, the root of success in America is ingenuity. Intellectual property becomes increasingly valuable as a nation approaches her industrial capacity. At this point in our economic history, the United States has bested the greatest challenges of production and can now turn almost any good idea into a profitable business.

This is not to say that industry and production are no longer relevant. Market prices for essential resources will always impact business. Oil, gas, timber, steel, beef, produce...all of these remain essential components of a healthy economy. When prices for these resources fluctuate, the economy will react. And, while the government can help moderate these fluctuations, it cannot control OPEC, the emerald ash borer, overseas steel production, mad cow disease, and insect infestation. These are real economic makers and breakers, and they have little to do with the President and Congress.

It can be truly said that the chairperson of the Federal Reserve Board has a greater impact on our current economy than the President or Congress. If Clinton was such an economic genius, as many propose, why did we experience a recession in 1998? If Bush is such an economic dolt, as many suggest, why has he overseen rapid economic growth?

The worst aspect of the perceived relationship between incumbents and economy is the negative effect it has on long-term growth. Because the relationship between the unemployment rate and elections is so strong, incumbents implement policies that are focused on short-term growth to try to boost the economy right before elections. This sacrifices long-term growth and has a damaging overall effect on natural supply and demand.

We are wasting our time and money--and our freedom--when we vote for our pocketbooks.

A Dime's Worth of Difference

Are you a republican? Or are you democrat?

If you are pro-choice, then you must be a democrat, right? Wrong. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a pro-choice republican, and is the party's current front-runner for the 2008 presidential race. Two pro-life democrats have recently achieved success at the national level--Senator Bob Casey and Congressman Heath Shuler.

But republicans are for smaller government, and democrats want more federal programs, right? Not necessarily. Plenty of republicans support fat subsidies and welfare programs (Bush even signed a law extending welfare benefits) and a good chunk of democrats are fiscally conservative (Clinton slashed welfare while he was in office).

The elder George Bush raised taxes while he was running the country, while John F. Kennedy--a champion of the Democratic Party--favored lowering taxes to increase long-term growth and revenues.

So what's the difference between the parties?

The truth is that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. No matter who has been in power, spending has been increasing steadily, while performance has been in rapid decline. When was the last time the federal government passed a law that had a significant impact on your life? For the majority of mainstream America, it is difficult to answer this question.

Extremists and special interest groups divide the country with hot-button issues and soundbytes, leading to a perceived difference between the parties. But ask yourself this: when was the last time there was significant abortion reform? When was the last time the tax system received an overhaul? What recent education legislation has led to an improvement in our schools? Both parties voted for war in Iraq, isn't it likely that those who voted to engage in the conflict only switched sides because they felt it was popular?

Nothing is getting done. The parties read the polls, attempt to adjust their strategies to find votes, then pass watered-down, rhetoric-laden, paper-wasting legislation that only complicates our problems.

My republican friends love to talk about Bush's tax cuts and how he's shrinking government. But federal spending is at its highest level since World War II. And it's not just military spending. Democrats complain about cuts in benefits and programs under the Bush Administration, saying he has not compromised. But according to the Heritage Foundation, from 1998-2003, education spending increased 72%, community and regional development spending jumped 92%, and spending on medicaid and medicare went up 45% and 16%, respectively. All of these figures continue to rise. Aren't these issues supposed to be the backbone of the Democratic Party?

So who is making the decisions? Where is the reform? Sadly, special interest groups have the control. The Center for Responsive Politics offers some important insight into who holds the strings. The Republican Party receives its biggest support from the financial sector, single-issue groups, and miscellaneous businesses, in that order. The Democratic Party's top contributions come from single-issue groups, the financial sector, and lawyers and lobbyists, in that order.

What we can glean from these unfortunate statistics is that single-issue groups have a tremendous amount of power in our government, the financial sector is continuing to build loop-holes into our tax laws, and lawyers, lobbyists, and big business are getting their way. Which of these groups supports mainstream America?

We are being fooled into believing there are two sides to every issue. The truth is that reform is only happening on a micro-scale, benefiting only small, specific groups. We need macro, wholesale reform. We need honest change.

So are you a republican or a democrat? Now ask yourself this: does it make a difference?

Telling and Selling

This blog is the final of the series exploring why and how I believe America can achieve honest change.

There is a scientifically proven concept that demonstrates how a group can become more valuable than the sum of its parts. It is at the core of nearly every successful enterprise in the history of mankind, and it requires no equipment, college degree, or money to utilize its full potential. Yet, despite its availability, it is rarely used in American politics. It's called dialogue.

This word carries many meanings. It can be as simply defined as two or more people talking to each other. Phone conversations, business meetings, and even written words in a script fall into the category of dialogue. Politicians have even commented on a desire to "have a dialogue with the American people."

But I submit that there is very little real dialogue going on in government today, and nearly none in campaigning. So what is the form of communication preferred by our nation's leaders?

Telling and selling. Politicians tell you what to think, and if you aren't ready to agree with them, then they try to sell you on their ideas. There is almost no intercommunication (other than polls) between politicians and constituents and there is even an less reciprocal relationship between the parties.

The Co-Intelligence Institute is a nonprofit organization devoted to improving understanding and execution of dialogue. They define real, honest dialogue as "shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility." Communications theorist Ken Lebensold, who extrapolated the work of late quantum physicist David Bohm, defines two other types of communication.

- Antagonistic communication: Conversations that can't seem to move beyond conflict.
- Banal communication: Conversations which feel oppressive, boring, or depressing.

These two types of communication are driven by telling and selling, and seem to define the way our politicians interact with each other and the American people. Antagonistic communication occurs when individuals or groups refuse to acknowledge the validity of an different or opposing viewpoint. Banal communication is characterized by the avoidance of substance in conversation.

When was the last time you heard a politician say something that didn't fit into one of these two categories?

But let's ease off the politicians for a moment. The truth is that most of us spend a majority of our time telling and selling, rather than engaging in honest dialogue. Talk shows, the news, and lunchtime debates at work rarely include an effort to come-up with multi-layered solutions to today's complicated problems. Instead, we do exactly what our politicians do, and endeavor to "win" the argument.

But who's winning? Don't we still have a failing education system? Aren't tax laws still unfair and confusing? Doesn't foreign policy still seem to be a crapshoot?

If one party had the solutions to our problems, they would be solved by now. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have had control of both houses of congress, as well as the Presidency. We've had liberal and conservative courts. And yet, here we are, still complaining about education, taxes, and foreign affairs. Even when both parties come together on something (i.e. voting to invade Iraq) it seems to end in squabbling.

Here's a crazy idea: gather together the brightest minds on a subject, along with leaders from both parties, and a few accountants (money is always a factor) and lock them in a room--preferably without the press--until they arrive at a solution that makes sense to everyone. Then, if things don't seem to go as planned, call them back together, analyze the situation, maybe add or subtract a few voices, and reform.

This is how government is meant to work. In fact, this is the only way government actually works at all. It's time for us to expect real dialogue from our politicians and from ourselves. We need to stop telling and selling, and start using communication as an opportunity for reciprocal concept enhancement. After all, that's how the United States of America was born.

Tipping Point

This blog is a continuation of a series exploring why and how I believe America can achieve honest change.

What will it take for us to come together to make changes?

The first, and most important ingredient is unity. Note that unity does not require unison. We can be united as nation and still disagree on issues. We must, however, subjugate what we want to the greater good of the country. This is what the founders of the United States of America intended when they constructed what was the most limited government on the planet at its birth.

I believe we are coming to a tipping point in our political culture. As the country has become more deeply divided, the government has become less effective. The relationship is undeniable. Confirmation hearings that before were perfunctory are now huge ordeals. Filibusters, which used to be utilized only in extreme situations, have become commonplace. Neither party will let the other have any chance at real reform, and each party has increasingly radical ideas on reform.

A lot of people--both in the media and in the general population--are bashing the "Religious Right" recently. The fact is that, in politics, for every action there seems to be an equal and opposite reaction. This law was proven by the founders of our country, as they reacted to the crown's tightening grip on the colonies by revolting. Today, as the bickering and personal conflicts increase in our own political culture, so do the reactions. Therefore, groups with more extreme ideas, like the "Religious Right," gain power when they are criticized and attacked. The fact is, like nearly every demographic, the "Religious Right" just wants what is best for the country.

Now, do not mistake me. I am not supporting the "Religious Right" or their ideas. I am merely offering an example of what happens when we have an angry, attacking attitude towards a group of people. The end result, nearly always, is that the group gains strength and support.

In this way we have prevented ourselves from effective government. As the Republicans and Democrats have ceased to work together and have become increasingly focused on only allowing their own ideas to advance in lawmaking, the amount of compromise has plummeted. The result is that the only laws that are passed are watered-down versions of reform that carry bloated special interest benefits.

I believe that Americans are--generally--good. In fact, I believe that all people are generally good, and want what's best for their country. But we, as a nation, have become so focused on winning that we have forgotten the principles on which the nation was founded. Our politicians are merely a reflection of this attitude. So before we go placing all the blame on our politicians, consider this: How many times have you or do you make inflammatory remarks that are in no way constructive to America's growth? Before you answer, let me give you some example of comments (all of which I have heard several times) that serve only to divide the country:

- "Of course I didn't vote for Bush. What am I, stupid?"
- "The Republicans are dishonest and corrupt. Recent scandals prove it."
- "Democrats don't understand foreign policy or the economy. They just raise taxes and talk about peace."
- "Republicans don't care about minorities or the poor. They just support big business."
- "The Democrats just want more government. They are a party of socialists."

During the 2004 election, one of my friends was working for the Democrats in Wisconsin. He was calling voters and telling them that Bush's tax plan included "the largest tax increase on the middle class in history." This is completely dishonest. The fact is that the Bush tax plan cut taxes for everyone. By twisting percentages and using strictly theoretical arguments, it was legal for him to make that claim, even though it was false. Sadly, he said he earned a lot of supporters with that one line.

I have no doubt that the Republicans are guilty of the same practice.

Instead of discussing issues, we have become a nation that argues over generalizations.
Instead of attempting to find common ground, our focus is on pointing out why the other party's ideas are so ridiculous. This will never lead to effective government. The result of this kind of thinking will be an increase in power for special interests and the wealthy, and an ever-decreasing amount of sway for the individual voter.

But America is getting fed-up. We are starting to recognize that the results just aren't coming as promised. And we are growing tired of the bickering. I believe we are at a tipping point, and when the pendulum swings toward unity, we must be ready to demand honest, wholesale reform.

Faith in God, Faith in Man

This blog is a continuation of a series exploring why and how I believe we can achieve honest change in America.

It's interesting how quick we are to place blame on our "politicians" (myself included). The fact is that they are products of our voting and our lives as much as we are subject to their whims and errors. We have created the mess, and they have figured out how to thrive in it.

The Founding Fathers of this country were unmistakably religious. And, while I do NOT support a union of church and state, I do believe--if we truly want to understand America's identity--that we must examine what it was about religion that they felt was important enough to make "In God We Trust" the country's motto.

Please note that this is not a debate about religion. This is simply an examination of how religion is built into America's foundation. Fortunately, the founders left us some very telling clues.

The Great Seal of the United States has three Latin phrases on it. The first, "E pluribus unum," means, "Out of many, one." The second phrase reads, "Annuit coeptis," meaning, "He has smiled on our undertakings." And the third phrase, "Novus ordo seclorum," is translated, "A new order of the ages." Adding the motto, "In God We Trust" to this grouping we can start to examine some of the patterns of how religion wove its way into the creation of America. The first thing I notice is that three of the four phrases imply or directly denote the importance of unity: "In God We Trust," "He has smiled on our undertakings," and, of course, "Out of many, one." The Founding Fathers must have felt unity was an essential concept to our success. This would be a natural result of their unified faith in God, as well as a practical result of having just unified in order to win the Revolutionary War. But clearly, unity was an ingredient they felt defined and identified the America they knew and envisioned.

Combined with this concept of unity, there is a great sense of success. "He has smiled on our undertakings," and "A new order of the ages" are both phrases that infer the founders recognized achievement as an identifying characteristic of America.

The fact that these two concepts are both present on the Great Seal ties them together, forever linking America's success to her sense of unity. It was not just a great faith in God, but a great faith in man (specifically, fellow Americans) that inspired the founders to establish the United States of America. They believed each citizen's voice was valuable, and that collaboration and compromise would yield greater results than a single, dominant voice of a ruling establishment or ideology.

The Founding Fathers recognized that competing ideas, while difficult and sometimes unpleasant to deal with, can build on each other to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, when you combine the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke, you end up with a more practical and successful result than either of them could have achieved on their own. This involves an inherent faith in your fellow citizens to work for the greater good of the nation.

So how does this relate to America in 2007? Well, we are no longer a nation that is almost entirely Christian. This fact alone would tend to increase divisiveness, but it would also increase the possibility for reaching ever-greater heights through the fusion and refinement of competing ideas. But we must have faith in our fellow citizens--especially those with whom we disagree. The key to this achievement is a simple concept, though it can be difficult to practice: dialogue.

Only through unity and faith in one another will we be able to effect honest change. And I believe we, as a nation, are beginning to see that.

Why It Can Happen

This is the first blog of a series on why and how I believe we can have honest, significant change in America.

It's hard to feel good about the direction the country is going. The system is broken, and everyone knows it. Year after year we find ourselves disappointed with our leaders and laws.

Is there hope?

September 11, 2001 was a horrific day. It was a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude that struck deep into our hearts and tore the image of invulnerability that we have so long clung to as a nation. It affected all of us.

But it also revealed our character. Watching the news in the days that followed, it was not the images of planes crashing into buildings, nor towers crumbling to the ground, nor casualty statistics that held my attention. It was the rescue workers, the President, the charity—our country—that inspired me. I did not cry when the buildings fell. I did not cry when I learned that one of my friends was in the building and did not make it out--though I did grieve. But my eyes still well when I think of the image of a firefighter who was being interviewed after 16 hours of grueling, unrewarded rescue work. He wore a helmet with an American flag on it as he told the reporter (who looked twice as exhausted as the man covered in soot and sweat next to him) that he would not stop working until they had found everyone they could. “These colors don’t run,” he said, pointing to his helmet.

Millions upon millions of dollars in charity poured in for the families that were directly affected by the tragedy. Volunteers and service personnel worked tirelessly to provide immediate assistance and then to stabilize the lives of the victims’ families. Rescuers and construction workers sifted through the rubble to find survivors, and then toiled to clean-up the remnants of once-great buildings and return normalcy to the city of New York and the Pentagon.

And, whether you like him or not, we were all proud of our President for going out to the disaster site. Against the stern counsel of the Secret Service, George W. Bush went to the remains of the towers, stood on a pile of rubble and shook hands with those rescuers. He spoke through a megaphone and inspired their efforts. He helped unite a country.

It just didn’t last.

The Broken Record

Government cannot solve all our problems. We know this, of course. Yet, in the last hundred years, we have been told time and time again that—if we vote for the right candidate—we are sure to enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and happiness.

These claims have created a crisis. A divergent reality is fabricated every election. Even as we witness the failure of government in education, social issues, economics—the list is as extensive as our mountains of laws—we are promised that these issues will disappear if we simply vote for the right candidate or the right party.

The result is a complicated network of lies that, to be sure, no one understands. This is an astounding fact. We have written so many laws, over-analyzed so many malfunctions, mired so many important issues in layer upon layer of politics that we have no idea what all of the problems are.

But it will happen again in 2008. The presidential election will bring a new group of politicians who will all claim that their plans will be the turning point for our failing system. And even though we know it won't happen, many of us will believe that the right person can repair the damage of more than a hundred years of over-legislation, over-taxation, and under-performance.

Do not listen to the rhetoric. Only wholesale changes to our government can effect the change we need. It will not take a revolution, but it will take revolutionary ideas. Think for yourself, and look beneath the surface of the soundbytes to find the real issues.

Will a new education plan fix public education? Are the standardized tests ruining children's opportunity to learn? Is a change in curriculum going to suddenly infuse American students with the same math and science talent of their Asian counterparts?

Deep down, we all know the answer to all of these questions is "NO." But we want to believe the change can happen with the right person leading our country. The truth is that the whole system needs to be changed. A revolution in philosophy is required--not new ideas, just better ones. And this same concept applies to all of our issues, not just education. Foreign policy, taxation, welfare, abortion, drugs, poverty--all of these subjects deserve a fresh look, and that's what this blog will offer.

Vote with Your Life

This blog is all about Americans coming together to ignite wholesale changes to the way we think about government, politics, and freedom.

It is built on a very simple, very powerful premise: we must live the way we want our country to be. America's identity is its people, and our lives--more than our words--will help us reshape the United States. There is no replacement for honesty, integrity, and moral courage. Without these virtues none of our policy matters, for we cannot be sure of its validity if we cannot trust it.

I believe we have lost sight of the real issues, and become mired in the arguments. "Agitative" politics are the order of the day. The media, politicians, and advertisers use our deep desire to see America thrive as a weapon against us by focusing on inflammatory pieces of issues without ever exploring the heart of the matter. This blog is meant to inspire real dialogue--within ourselves and with each other--and encourage us to improve the way we live in order to benefit ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country.