So which team are you on? Demos? Republicans? Why do we have such a team orientation to our politics? And why does it always seem to come down to two “sides”? Given the sheer number of issues it is ludicrous to think that only two different viewpoints could adequately represent everyone. However, it seems we believe it is adequate. And when it comes to voting or working on the issues, it is one team vs. the other. In my experience it is best to have differing viewpoints to work together in order to come up with the “best” solution. Differing opinions help spot strengths and weaknesses of a given approach. However in our current political environment that is anathema. Since it would require acknowledging the other side has valid points.

So how do we get away from this? Well I suggest that the government should not be supporting the political party system. First it should no longer keep citizens that join one party from joining others. In fact the government should not care. There should be one method for getting candidates on the ballot, and the parties should adhere to that method. In other words the general election would just be a set of valid candidates hopefully with a well-communicated platform. If parties want to participate in the primary system, they should pay to defray any additional costs and provide a list of their members to be given ballots. So at that time a given voter may have multiple party ballots.

Without this we instill an idea that we are divided into two teams, and lose the fact that we are all affected by the same problems. Slinging “pithy” statements and expending energy to denigrate the “other team” may be fun entertainment but do little good. We often think using these tactics will help “our” team “win”. However, this tendency toward win-lose just makes us all lose out. Putting this thinking to an end will weaken the idea that candidates should work in the interest of the party and hopefully get them focused on solving real issues.

A Madman has spoken…

What do we export? This is a question we need to answer. For many years we have had foreign policies driven by our strategic needs in the Cold War. The success of policy was determined by measuring the influence of the Soviet Union. Effectively we were exporting US influence in the world. However, since the fall of the Berlin Wall our goals have been less focused, moving from critical event to critical event without a driving goal. Here is a list of a few of these events:

• Stepping in between Iraq & Kuwait
• Joining a UN effort in Somalia
• Going into Haiti to reinstall a democratically elected government
• Brokering a peace agreement in Bosnia
• Attacking Yugoslavia to stop actions in Kosovo

I am certain everyone reading this has an opinion about the success or failure of each action. Determining the success of the combination of these actions would be difficult at best. We need a new measuring stick to determine how effective our foreign policy really is. I suggest two basic units of measure, the first is an average standard of living (outside the US) and the second is the number of countries that give all their citizens the rights of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion and due process. This allows us to measure our ability to export freedom and prosperity.

The Bush administration has made a good first step in this direction. After taking a close look at our foreign aid programs, they want to increase the total amount of aid granted. And, direct that aid only to governments moving toward freedom and economic prosperity. The next challenge is seeing how we can change other aid (i.e. military) and other foreign policies to also meet the same goals.

If we can create foreign policy that increases the standard of living and personal freedom worldwide we will benefit dramatically. This would create a more stable world facilitating free trade and exchanging ideas. These are the key elements that made the amazing prosperity of the 90’s possible. I for one would like to see us focus on making the future even brighter.

A Madman has spoken…

We are now bringing prisoners captured in the war on terrorism to Guantanamo Bay. We now must come to terms with how we dispense justice to these prisoners.

Since our country stands for freedom and justice, this will be the most telling of times. We must guard against our desire for speedy vengeance, and make certain we follow our highest ideals. It is really simple, you see, as the attacks of Sept 11 were an attack on our way of life, of our ideas of freedom, tolerance and justice. If we falter from these in pursuit of the terrorists, we have lost something.

When we do bring our attackers to trial, it should be in an open court with all their rights being observed. As brutal and unjust as their attacks were, we must show the world how a trial should be conducted. This will weaken those who say the US is the enemy. It would show other countries that holding secret tribunals is wrong. And most importantly it will show all of our children how justice is meant to be.

A Madman has spoken…

OK, I have to start this with a disclaimer: I am not, nor will I ever be, an economist and anything stated in here resembling economics is purely coincidental.

It has become quiet, but for a while our Congress and Senate were sniping at each other about an “economic stimulus” package. And listening to the rhetoric was becoming a bit tiresome. So here I am adding to it!

Basically the two sides were claiming they knew how to stimulate the economy. On the Democratic side, stimulating the economy meant spending more money on programs aimed at displaced workers and low-income families. The idea was that if these people spend money, it will stimulate the economy. On the Republican side, stimulus meant giving tax breaks to companies. This would allow companies to be able to afford more investment and provide jobs. And, of course, both sides were very good at claiming the other had it all wrong.

This is just the sort of partisan bickering that makes great short-term press and does not solve any real problems. It is quite simple – both sides are correct. Either one of the two methods will boost the economy.

This can be seen since either one will increase the amount of deficit the federal government runs, which means we are pumping extra dollars into the economy by borrowing them from our future. This has been done before and is (in my non-economically trained mind) a valid way of dealing with a short-term problem. But we must remember it has a cost and, therefore, plan on dealing with that as well.

This leaves us with three choices:

• one, weather this economy without resorting to a stimulus
• two, give tax breaks to business
• three, give support for displaced workers and low-income families.

Starting with the third, providing support for laid-off workers to bring them closer to the salaries they used to earn will keep them spending money and mitigate the drop in retail sales. This is good as long as we expect a recovery soon. If the recovery does not come, then we are faced with either stopping the support or running up larger deficits than we can really afford in the future.

Giving tax breaks to companies would allow companies to invest more and, therefore, potentially create more jobs. However, companies typically invest money for the largest payoff. If their customers do not have the money to buy, they are unlikely to invest in jobs that will still lose money. This would also lead to more deficits if the downturn is extended.

Of course, if we believe it will be a short downturn, then a stimulus package may not be necessary and would keep us from adding to the deficit spending that is likely to occur over the next several years.

If we do want to implement one of the two plans, we need to make sure that it is temporary and that its effects would occur in the fastest time.

I am always a bit pessimistic of Congress giving a “temporary” fiscal policy change. However, I find myself optimistic about the economic recovery and do not see a need for a stimulus.

A Madman has spoken…