"Take advantage of every opportunity to practice your communication skills so that when important occasions arise, you will have the gift, the style, the sharpness, the clarity, and the emotions to affect other people." -Jim Rohn
The short track skating events in the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics provided physical proof of the importance of anticipating a future opportunity before the start of the race. The difference between the gold medal and wiping out along the boards was often the critical timing and quality of the planned inside/outside pass of the unwary opponent.
Building upon our previous installment, we will begin addressing how you may best capitalize upon (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position. While we will address the other three topics of issues formation in coming installments, I believe we must first look to communicating the policy item(s) that will provide fuel for your long-term electoral victory and solidify your legacy. Put aside partisan rancor for a moment, and simply recognize prior patterns of success, because YOUR winning message MUST attract and embrace more than just your base to achieve 51% in November. If all YOU can address is YOUR base, join yesterday's goats.
Long before the November 1980 Presidential Election, Ronald Reagan had accurately identified several issues that would eventually boil over in the minds of Americans. Reagan did not hesitate to develop responses and solutions to those issues [among them (a) the malaise of international communism; (b) the hunger for patriotism; (c) the burden of excessive taxation; and (d) the breakdown of the family]. Not only did Ronald Reagan approach these--and other--topics with genuine optimism, compassion and practical solutions, but he faced an opponent ill-prepared to even enter the dialogue, as evidenced in the sharp contrast of televised debates and other public appearances. President Carter yielded the lead of incumbency for a lack of anticipating, preparing for, and developing superior solutions to the issues that would define the 1980s.
Again in 1994 we observed Speaker Newt Gingrich and his colleagues execute upon their accurate assessment, planning, and solutions to speed past the old, tired Congressional pack. As no group is immune to their own stagnation, 2006 & 2008 ushered in yet another era when future concerns [social, economic, demographic, international] were addressed with fresh faces and fresh solutions. This is not a partisan comment. Regardless of which party or philosophy you favor, you cannot escape the statistics noted in our prior installment that made the 111th Congressional majority look like a negative of the 104th Congressional majority.
Party is not the prime determinent. Each of these victorious years required bipartisan appeal to secure ballot box majorities. The pendelum always swings...YOU can be viewed as the People's Leader with a legacy to follow--or Yesterday's News devoid of new ideas and forgotten forever.
TODAY'S QUESTION: What are YOU as a candidate (whether incumbent or challenger) doing TODAY to identify, develop, communicate and execute the solutions to the issues/problems/concerns that will plague YOUR electorate beyond November into the years to come?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
VICTORY 2010: REVOLUTION, CONTRACT, CHANGE OR...
"Reforming public education, cutting property taxes, fixing adult and child protective services and funding our budget can all occur when Democrats and Republicans engage in consensus and cooperation - not cynicism and combat. "
- Texas Governor Rick Perry
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
- Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
As the two quotes above illustrate, even conservative leaders can have difficulty reaching consensus...on the merits of reaching consensus. More broadly, no single political party or grass roots movement has perfected nor obtained a monopoly on building consensus. Yet, electoral and legislative results of the past three decades underscore the importance of building and maintaining consensus throughout the political process, from ballot box to legislative chamber.
I am not attempting to dictate that one American political party is or has been superior to the other. Once we cut through the chest-beating rhetoric of cable news soundbites, town hall meetings, and grass roots rallies, we are left with the reality that the same American public ushered in the Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America, and Change We Can Believe In.
Mathematically, the 104th Congress (1994) elected 55 (R) and 45 (D) Senators; 228 (R) and 206 (D) Representatives. The 111th Congress (2008) elected 40 (R) and 58 (D) Senators; 178 (R) and 256 (D) Represenatives. Fourteen years did not see the entire demography of the nation shift politically, but instead followed a pendelum of social and fiscal policy. Just as midwestern union autoworkers rallied around Ronald Reagan when the economy necessitated strong fiscal leadership, families facing lost jobs and health care crises rallied about Barack Obama. People vote nationally and statewide for the economic, educational, and social policies that they view as most relevant to their own households. 1980, 1994, and 2008 demonstrated that one party more than the other delivered a message that resonated with greater than 50% of voters--plain and simple.
In future installments, we will be addressing how we may increase your share of your electorate by carefully examining and executing upon: (1) Issues upon which you hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (2) Issues upon which your opponents hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (3) Issues of current importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position; and (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position.
TODAY'S QUESTION: How will your campaign ensure that your message engenders the victorious spirit of 1980, 1994 and 2008?
- Texas Governor Rick Perry
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
- Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
As the two quotes above illustrate, even conservative leaders can have difficulty reaching consensus...on the merits of reaching consensus. More broadly, no single political party or grass roots movement has perfected nor obtained a monopoly on building consensus. Yet, electoral and legislative results of the past three decades underscore the importance of building and maintaining consensus throughout the political process, from ballot box to legislative chamber.
I am not attempting to dictate that one American political party is or has been superior to the other. Once we cut through the chest-beating rhetoric of cable news soundbites, town hall meetings, and grass roots rallies, we are left with the reality that the same American public ushered in the Reagan Revolution, the Contract with America, and Change We Can Believe In.
Mathematically, the 104th Congress (1994) elected 55 (R) and 45 (D) Senators; 228 (R) and 206 (D) Representatives. The 111th Congress (2008) elected 40 (R) and 58 (D) Senators; 178 (R) and 256 (D) Represenatives. Fourteen years did not see the entire demography of the nation shift politically, but instead followed a pendelum of social and fiscal policy. Just as midwestern union autoworkers rallied around Ronald Reagan when the economy necessitated strong fiscal leadership, families facing lost jobs and health care crises rallied about Barack Obama. People vote nationally and statewide for the economic, educational, and social policies that they view as most relevant to their own households. 1980, 1994, and 2008 demonstrated that one party more than the other delivered a message that resonated with greater than 50% of voters--plain and simple.
In future installments, we will be addressing how we may increase your share of your electorate by carefully examining and executing upon: (1) Issues upon which you hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (2) Issues upon which your opponents hold very strong, well-defined, and possibly long-term positions; (3) Issues of current importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position; and (4) Issues of anticipated future importance for which you have not previously developed a well-defined position.
TODAY'S QUESTION: How will your campaign ensure that your message engenders the victorious spirit of 1980, 1994 and 2008?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
REDISCOVERY OF COMMON SENSE
"But I never thought it was my style or the words I used...It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation - from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery...of our values and our common sense..."
- Ronald Reagan: Farewell Address, Oval Office, January 11, 1989
Values and common sense are not partisan themes, but instead represent intergenerational principles that nearly all Americans hold as self-evident. Recent elections have produced victories that transcended party affiliation and polling. New Jersey's Chris Christie, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, and Massachusett's Scott Brown succeeded in communicating American values and common sense in a manner easily understood and rewarded by their respective electorates. Florida's Marco Rubio and Michigan's Mike Cox are likewise engaging in constructive, solution-oriented campaigns in 2010.
Each of these leaders has well understood that burdensome issues met with well-reasoned solutions may be communicated without partisan rancor so that a greater percentage of family men and women can intelligently discern and decide whom to elect as a leader.
As leaders and advisors of leaders, we must spend less time doling out red meat speeches to our loyal perennial base, and devote more of our time listening to, researching, and developing comprehensive solutions to challenges facing Independents and those outside of our traditional party tent. If we fail to constructively address a broader range of concerns than those that have served as solid sound bites, then we will find the 2010 election cycle underwhelming.
Not every issue must be met with "us-versus-them" rhetoric. As leaders we must be willing to identify issues that are currently garnering support for our opponents and develop competitive, cost-effective and realistic solutions that provide real choices to attract Independent voters whose loyalties are to values and common sense...not to elephants and donkeys. Or you cleave to base-pleasing positions largely ignored by Independents and lose the increasingly Independent electorate to an opponent willing to provide those solutions.
Principles of values and common sense must always undergird our policies, but the needs of our electorate and of our nation at large must always guide the comprehensive solutions that spring forth from our policies.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will you be leading a diverse electorate to victory and real family-focused solutions in that "shining city upon a hill", or will you be simply preaching to the choir in sound bites?
- Ronald Reagan: Farewell Address, Oval Office, January 11, 1989
Values and common sense are not partisan themes, but instead represent intergenerational principles that nearly all Americans hold as self-evident. Recent elections have produced victories that transcended party affiliation and polling. New Jersey's Chris Christie, Virginia's Bob McDonnell, and Massachusett's Scott Brown succeeded in communicating American values and common sense in a manner easily understood and rewarded by their respective electorates. Florida's Marco Rubio and Michigan's Mike Cox are likewise engaging in constructive, solution-oriented campaigns in 2010.
Each of these leaders has well understood that burdensome issues met with well-reasoned solutions may be communicated without partisan rancor so that a greater percentage of family men and women can intelligently discern and decide whom to elect as a leader.
As leaders and advisors of leaders, we must spend less time doling out red meat speeches to our loyal perennial base, and devote more of our time listening to, researching, and developing comprehensive solutions to challenges facing Independents and those outside of our traditional party tent. If we fail to constructively address a broader range of concerns than those that have served as solid sound bites, then we will find the 2010 election cycle underwhelming.
Not every issue must be met with "us-versus-them" rhetoric. As leaders we must be willing to identify issues that are currently garnering support for our opponents and develop competitive, cost-effective and realistic solutions that provide real choices to attract Independent voters whose loyalties are to values and common sense...not to elephants and donkeys. Or you cleave to base-pleasing positions largely ignored by Independents and lose the increasingly Independent electorate to an opponent willing to provide those solutions.
Principles of values and common sense must always undergird our policies, but the needs of our electorate and of our nation at large must always guide the comprehensive solutions that spring forth from our policies.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Will you be leading a diverse electorate to victory and real family-focused solutions in that "shining city upon a hill", or will you be simply preaching to the choir in sound bites?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
PRINCIPLES AND CHARACTER
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." - Ronald Reagan
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." -Ronald Reagan
One cannot deny that Ronald Reagan exemplified consistent adherence to conservative principles, among them free enterprise, states' rights, and democracy. President Reagan's consistent opposition to the insidious influences of socialism & communism domestically and abroad served to protect and project the nation's strength at home and infiltrated even the Iron Curtain.
Reagan also knew how to accomplish his objectives (strengthening our military) or to rein in and recast other's objectives (the 1983 Social Security Act with then-House Speaker Tip O'Neal) without compromising core principles, attacking an opponent's character, or being perceived by others as a man of narrow extremism. Those who didn't agree with his policy objectives could often still share a laugh or a frosty beverage with the congenial "Great Communicator."
Our 40th President knew that regardless of the policy and principled differences that he and others might have shared, his perpetual optimism and belief in the strength and character of America, Americans and American Free Enterprise would not allow him to devolve into petty partisan bickering. If he disagreed with someone, he said so openly and often with a smile.
Ronald Reagan could also acknowledge that Americans had more in common than what might separate them. Other than lunatic extremists and malcontents, a large majority of Americans love God, love their families, love freedom, embrace economic enterprise and are willing to join together and fight (and die, if necessary) to protect all four pillars. While standing up for his principles with character, Reagan focused his attention upon building a stronger America and world that would draw diverse people together instead of focusing upon meaningless differences that would drive neighbors apart.
Look around you...if you're a candidate, are you willing to faithfully represent and serve ALL the citizens of your district upon being elected --including those citizens who openly opposed you? Now THAT demonstrates your character. If you are a supporter of a candidate or a ballot measure, are you willing to engage in peaceful and respectful two-way (listening & speaking) dialogue with opponents of your candidate or ballot measure? THAT demonstrates your character.
Don't compromise your principles, but also don't forget how to be a neighbor, an American. Yelling, besmirching character, negatively stereotyping, and mischaracterizing positions with broad slogans may fan the flames of the already faithful, but will do NOTHING to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of the ever critical Independent voters. 50.1% looks a whole lot different than 49.9% the morning after Election Day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: In the hours that follow the closing of the polls, will you be receiving or will you be making the concessionary and congratulatory phone call? [Your connection with Independents will determine the outcome.]
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life." -Ronald Reagan
One cannot deny that Ronald Reagan exemplified consistent adherence to conservative principles, among them free enterprise, states' rights, and democracy. President Reagan's consistent opposition to the insidious influences of socialism & communism domestically and abroad served to protect and project the nation's strength at home and infiltrated even the Iron Curtain.
Reagan also knew how to accomplish his objectives (strengthening our military) or to rein in and recast other's objectives (the 1983 Social Security Act with then-House Speaker Tip O'Neal) without compromising core principles, attacking an opponent's character, or being perceived by others as a man of narrow extremism. Those who didn't agree with his policy objectives could often still share a laugh or a frosty beverage with the congenial "Great Communicator."
Our 40th President knew that regardless of the policy and principled differences that he and others might have shared, his perpetual optimism and belief in the strength and character of America, Americans and American Free Enterprise would not allow him to devolve into petty partisan bickering. If he disagreed with someone, he said so openly and often with a smile.
Ronald Reagan could also acknowledge that Americans had more in common than what might separate them. Other than lunatic extremists and malcontents, a large majority of Americans love God, love their families, love freedom, embrace economic enterprise and are willing to join together and fight (and die, if necessary) to protect all four pillars. While standing up for his principles with character, Reagan focused his attention upon building a stronger America and world that would draw diverse people together instead of focusing upon meaningless differences that would drive neighbors apart.
Look around you...if you're a candidate, are you willing to faithfully represent and serve ALL the citizens of your district upon being elected --including those citizens who openly opposed you? Now THAT demonstrates your character. If you are a supporter of a candidate or a ballot measure, are you willing to engage in peaceful and respectful two-way (listening & speaking) dialogue with opponents of your candidate or ballot measure? THAT demonstrates your character.
Don't compromise your principles, but also don't forget how to be a neighbor, an American. Yelling, besmirching character, negatively stereotyping, and mischaracterizing positions with broad slogans may fan the flames of the already faithful, but will do NOTHING to win the hearts and minds (and votes) of the ever critical Independent voters. 50.1% looks a whole lot different than 49.9% the morning after Election Day.
TODAY'S QUESTION: In the hours that follow the closing of the polls, will you be receiving or will you be making the concessionary and congratulatory phone call? [Your connection with Independents will determine the outcome.]
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
LIBERTY: FINISH THE RACE
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." -Ronald Reagan
"Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith." -Ronald Reagan
Many in the main-stream media will speak of the 2010 election cycle as the next significant opportunity for power to shift in government. That futuristic frame of reference ignores the more significant opportunity that citizens and elected officials have DAILY to speak up, dialogue, and take constructive action to tackle the pressing issues of our day. Today. Every day.
The state of the American economy may be one of the most pressing issues we face as a nation. Recessions occur cyclically regardless of which political party controls Congress or the Presidency, so I do not wish to devolve into a partisan finger-pointing exercise here. Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have served Presidents of both parties. Unemployment lines and lost healthcare benefits deny families the fullness of the American dream in Democratic and Republican households alike. Simply, persistent economic struggles in our nation threaten our Liberty.
Economic strife is the volcano that spews forth the oppressive lava of government largesse and regulation. If we are to prevent the overreaching of federal regulation and federal financial entitlement spending, we must restore fiscal discipline to the outflow of our federal tax dollars. We must restrain the federal knee-jerk impulse to raise additional revenue through taxation. We must guard against benignly-titled legislation and programs that further restrict our free markets, free movement, and innovation.
We let our guard down as a nation when we focus too much media attention on the lingering effects of mortgage-backed securities, corporate downsizing, and bank failures. If we allow our elected officials to act on the media hysteria, we end up with new regulations, new controls, and limits on free market freedoms that kill entrepreneurship and innovation. One need only look back as far as the post-Enron media-frenzy to recognize the Sarbanes-Oxley framework that emerged from that event.
Our elected officials in every era--and especially our current era--must put partisanship aside to come together to craft fiscally-responsible, low-regulation solutions that will encourage free market entrepreneurship and innovation; reward research and development of new products and technologies; employ the hardworking men and women who welcome the workplace opportunities that full employment brings. Do not allow the mainstream media to lull our elected officials into building a Big Brother state.
Taxation, regulation, and unrestrained handouts will NOT strengthen our Nation and safeguard our Liberty.
We MUST do everything that can be done to restore our economic vitality in a responsible manner, so that those who come after us can recognize that we finished the race, kept them free, and kept our Faith.
TODAY'S QUESTION: As an elected official who represents ALL the citizens [regardless of party], can you put aside partisanship to build consensus toward restraining aimless taxation and regulation, to instead strengthen free market innovation that leads to increased employment and economic prosperity for America?
"Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith." -Ronald Reagan
Many in the main-stream media will speak of the 2010 election cycle as the next significant opportunity for power to shift in government. That futuristic frame of reference ignores the more significant opportunity that citizens and elected officials have DAILY to speak up, dialogue, and take constructive action to tackle the pressing issues of our day. Today. Every day.
The state of the American economy may be one of the most pressing issues we face as a nation. Recessions occur cyclically regardless of which political party controls Congress or the Presidency, so I do not wish to devolve into a partisan finger-pointing exercise here. Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have served Presidents of both parties. Unemployment lines and lost healthcare benefits deny families the fullness of the American dream in Democratic and Republican households alike. Simply, persistent economic struggles in our nation threaten our Liberty.
Economic strife is the volcano that spews forth the oppressive lava of government largesse and regulation. If we are to prevent the overreaching of federal regulation and federal financial entitlement spending, we must restore fiscal discipline to the outflow of our federal tax dollars. We must restrain the federal knee-jerk impulse to raise additional revenue through taxation. We must guard against benignly-titled legislation and programs that further restrict our free markets, free movement, and innovation.
We let our guard down as a nation when we focus too much media attention on the lingering effects of mortgage-backed securities, corporate downsizing, and bank failures. If we allow our elected officials to act on the media hysteria, we end up with new regulations, new controls, and limits on free market freedoms that kill entrepreneurship and innovation. One need only look back as far as the post-Enron media-frenzy to recognize the Sarbanes-Oxley framework that emerged from that event.
Our elected officials in every era--and especially our current era--must put partisanship aside to come together to craft fiscally-responsible, low-regulation solutions that will encourage free market entrepreneurship and innovation; reward research and development of new products and technologies; employ the hardworking men and women who welcome the workplace opportunities that full employment brings. Do not allow the mainstream media to lull our elected officials into building a Big Brother state.
Taxation, regulation, and unrestrained handouts will NOT strengthen our Nation and safeguard our Liberty.
We MUST do everything that can be done to restore our economic vitality in a responsible manner, so that those who come after us can recognize that we finished the race, kept them free, and kept our Faith.
TODAY'S QUESTION: As an elected official who represents ALL the citizens [regardless of party], can you put aside partisanship to build consensus toward restraining aimless taxation and regulation, to instead strengthen free market innovation that leads to increased employment and economic prosperity for America?
Monday, December 7, 2009
UNANIMOUS CONSENT: VICTORY WITH HONOR
"You give me your shield of victory,
And your right hand sustains me;
You stoop down to make me great."
-Psalm 18
"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They were wrong."
And your right hand sustains me;
You stoop down to make me great."
-Psalm 18
-Ronald Reagan
Today, as every day, I thank our veterans and active duty and reserve service members. No just war is entered into casually or without gut-wrenching deliberation given to the certain peril of our nation's sons & daughters, fathers & mothers, brothers & sisters. The entry into the Pacific theater that followed the bombing at Pearl Harbor and the horrific bombing of that September 11th both necessitated that our nation do "what we had to do." Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia, Somalia and the first Gulf War were no less challenging. America always leads when called to action.
When our last Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces sent my brother, sister and brother-in-law to fight the War on Terror, along with hundreds of thousands of our brave service members, I believed (and still believe) that his decision was guided by wise counsel from above, sincere counsel from military leaders, and studied counsel from civilian leaders. Partisanship does not and cannot enter into the decision to deploy troops to safeguard the security of our Great Nation and its global security interests. Thus, I will likewise support the decision of the leaders who will redeploy my sister next year. I do not allow partisanship to enter into an arena where consensus is required to save lives.
War is expensive, but defeat is far more expensive. Peace is preferred, but passivity in the face of terrorism weakens a nation. We will eventually depart militarily from Afghanistan and Iraq, and our Nation will do so victoriously with Honor.
Thus, I move for unanimous consent...on the issue of the successful, fully-funded, fully-resourced prosecution of the War on Terror and full aftercare for our brave veterans upon their return. We are not a nation of warmongers, so we must trust our military leadership when they lead our troops toward victory. Save the partisan put-downs for debates over pork barrell projects!
There is no time for filibusters, holds, and delay on decisions that provide adequate reinforcements, armor, provisions, vehicles, artillery, and veterans benefits. We all can appreciate meaningful debate and the yearning for peace sooner than later, but God help the member of Congress whose partisan delay tactic allows one more soldier, sailor or marine to lay dying on the foreign battlefield for want of armor, ammunition, or reinforcements. That brave service member did NOT volunteer to become a partisan pawn in a cable news sound bite --he/she volunteered to protect our nation and bring home Victory with Honor.
TODAY'S QUESTION: Can we put aside petty partisanship on matters of successfully prosecuting and provisioning the War on Terror until the victory has been concluded and our troops have safely returned?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
FOR THERE IS MUCH WORK TO BE DONE
"He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.'" [Matthew 25:20-21]
"...[B]ut rather labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with one in need...[And] be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ." [Ephesians 4:28, 32]
"...[B]ut rather labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with one in need...[And] be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ." [Ephesians 4:28, 32]
***
What if we could invest in Americans, reduce waste, increase GDP, and improve family morale with a philosophical shift in the administration of taxpayer funded unemployment benefits? Would Congress have the courage to take action?
The recent extension of unemployment benefits is but another chapter in an economic saga for which the end has yet to be written. Among the unemployed are many skilled and talented job seekers eager to return to gainful employment. The economic meltdown's domino effect has led many breadwinners to lose their previously "secure" positions, despite dedicated their dedicated service to their former employer, coupled with specialized technical training and/or post-graduate education.
The recent extension of unemployment benefits is but another chapter in an economic saga for which the end has yet to be written. Among the unemployed are many skilled and talented job seekers eager to return to gainful employment. The economic meltdown's domino effect has led many breadwinners to lose their previously "secure" positions, despite dedicated their dedicated service to their former employer, coupled with specialized technical training and/or post-graduate education.
As the unanimous Senate vote and earlier overwhelmingly bipartisan 331-83 House of Representatives vote suggest, no God-loving person would want to see their neighbor's family starve or lose their home simply as a collateral result of a layoff. Yet I would put forth that there would be a more effective manner in which these taxpayer dollars could be transferred from the federal coffers to the family budgets.
If one were to agree that a majority of unemployed men and women possess the strong American work ethic and derive dignity and self-esteem from actively engaging in productive and creative work, then might there be a better manner to pay out these taxpayer-funded benefits?
Among the unemployed are skilled architects, engineers, and building trades. Are there not schools, government buildings, hospitals, and housing projects in needs of expansion, maintenance, or repair?
Among the unemployed are skilled technology professionals. Are there not public schools, state universities, government agencies, hospitals, and the military in need of networking & cabling, software design & programming, data mining, and hardware deployment?
Among the unemployed are skilled teachers, counselors, and administrators. Are there not at-risk children (pre-K through high school) who could benefit from the caring, compassionate attention that additional educators and specialists could bring to challenged & underfunded public school systems?
...and so forth...
I think we would be hard pressed to find able-bodied Americans who wouldn't trade the hours of stress, loneliness, and uncertainty for the engagement of familiar or new meaningful contribution to the economy. So long as we've made the decision, through our Legislative and Executive Branches to spend taxpayer funds to support families through a prolonged period of unemployment, can't we at least structure such a program to produce a return on our investment instead of simply a government-funded benefit?
TODAY'S QUESTION: How can Congress restructure future unemployment compensation legislation to produce the greatest return to our nation on the meaningful and necessary investment of taxpayer funds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
