Check This Out

This is something a marketing consultant friend showed me. It is a 2D barcode, and if you take a picture with your cell phone, it will supposedly take you to this site. It was simple for me to generate.

I hear that these are all the rage in the Far East and Europe, and are slowly catching on here in North America. This is the future, folks. This is how we'll do our web browsing.

Wow. This is, believe it or not, my url for this blog. I kid you not.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

New! Sense In Politics Book Being Written

Almost since the beginning of this blog, I have thought often of compiling the ideas we have discussed and putting them in book form. It became one of those dreams to do "in the future," as something to do when I got the gumption. I guess I had had made authoring a book a mountain to be surmounted, and so put off writing it.

But as I reviewed the blog posts, I also realized I couldn't just lift substantial portions of the posts and try to make them fit in. Most of the ideas we addressed were specific to the moment, and they were not current to the problems we face now. I also felt I needed to develop the idea for "Practical Conservatism" a lot better than I did in the blog. My ideas of focusing on ideas that work is infused throughout the blog, but I needed to devote an entire section to explaining the whole political philosophy.

About a month ago, I finally decided the time had come to start the book. I entitled it "Sense In Politics: 8 Commonsense Steps To An All American Agenda." I have finished the Intro and one of the ten chapters, and am now working on the chapter on foreign policy and defense.

Those of you who have followed the blog for years know that I sometimes advocated ideas which were not a part of conservative dogma. I also explored new ideas which I thought might provide fresh perspective to stale debates. I will also sprinkle such ideas in the book as well.

What do I intend to do with the book? Well, it is with the same intention I started the blog. I wish to contribute to the national discourse by adding my ideas of focusing on results to fix a problem. I also felt that if we could take these ideas and fuse them with the conservative dialog, it would add even more to the national agenda.

While the cynic in you might think this is just another run of the mill generic political book, I will tell you that it offers refreshing ideas among the same ones you have grown tired of hearing. I will speak of ideas which have been brought forward before, but have not yet been generally accepted in national politics. But they are ideas which make sense, and which engage the imagination. For example, I don't think most Americans get excited thinking about our energy future with ethanol and other "green" technology. I think they instinctively know it won't replace fossil fuels. Which is why I focus on another energy source which could cut our dependence on oil by a third in four years, create millions of American jobs, and restore us to innovation.

Many of us have read and heard many ideas put to us in piecemeal fashion which individually would be great policies if we would implement them. Ideas that have swirled around include whether to choose the flat tax or the Fair Tax (I'll address that in the book), how we can be energy independent in 10 years, how we can protect our environment while not subscribing to extreme viewpoints, and how we can preserve the social safety net while cutting the deficit and reigning in federal spending. I will take all of these ideas and put them into public policy ideas.

All in all, this book is forward thinking, pragmatic, realist, and proud of America's place in the world. Since I know Americans are the same way, I hope the ideas I put forth here will spark some new discussions. It is also conservative leaning, but it also tempers it with wisdom that other political groups might have valid ideas we shouldn't immediately discount. I even dare to dream that some of the ideas published here might work their way into public policy.

Since I am not working on the book constantly, I do not know when it could be done. I am shooting for before year's end when I will seek out a publisher (I'll probably self publish through Amazon). I am not planning on it being a big book, either. It will be between 120-150 pp. long.

It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but also daunting. I have never written a book before, so I am going through first time author jitters. But it is liberating to write on ideas you have thought about for quite some time, and now you can formulate it in such a way that others might understand and (hopefully) be persuaded. I dare say most authors dream of their books becoming best sellers, and I am one of them. But even if it only sells a few, I know it will be an accomplishment of which I can be proud to have finished.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Way Not Considered

Just last week, a Washington State court ruled that our state government is not living up to it's constitutional responsibility to fully fund education. This decision is already sending ripples all through our cash strapped state government.

The court defined what full funding means. It's when the children are given all the means at their disposal to be educated to succeed in our current society. And the models the state has been using to fund education up to now date back to the 1970s. This doesn't account for the widespread use of computers, the Internet in learning, and many different special education programs which have emerged since then.

I don't think anyone has yet a clear idea of what it would mean if we fulfilled this constitutional duty the way the court has defined it. For sure, it would mean the state would need to raise billions of dollars more every year, and good luck with that when you try and govern a state that has voted down most tax increases in the last decade.

The state, in my view, needs to put a long term plan in place that can fulfill these responsibilities or it will have to appeal the decision. They can also drag their feet, as politicians are good at doing. :-)

But I'd like to take a slightly different tack and propose something I think would help mitigate the high costs of education- higher education that is. Recently the University of Washington announced it would be raising tuition by 30% to make up for the cuts the state has made to higher education. And it looks as though more tuition hikes are on the horizon. More and more, families are finding the dream of a college education for their kids to be more and more out of their reach. The average family is saving less for college as they tighten their belts in this poor economy.

But is the dream of a college education dead for the average student? I hardly think so. There are alternatives that I think the state and municipalities and even more colleges should aggressively pursue. I think they need to pour more money into community colleges and distance learning programs, as this is slowly becoming the inexpensive way to obtain a degree. I call it 'tailored distance learning.'

I can say from experience that this form of education is viable for obtaining a degree. Some colleges allow you to earn degrees solely through testing and gaining credits, and also gaining credits from life experiences and internships. You can also creatively use these strategies and attendance at a local community college to ultimately go toward earning your degree.

They say that at the U of Washington average tuition is now around $7000+ per year. A young man I know used the strategies above to gain his fully accredited BS in Business Administration in less than six months for a total cost of $5000. Sounds like a hoax, I know, but he isn't the only one who is doing it. I know of naval officers, a CPA, and a teacher who used these strategies to gain their degree, and all of them have mentioned how it benefited them financially and professionally.

In my view, to reign in the costs of higher education, we need to have an entirely new focus. In today's virtual world, why is it that more institutions of higher learning haven't developed more virtual classrooms and lectures? Why are we stuck in this paradigm that a student needs to live in an expensive dorm, pay for expensive books, and spend a semester listening to lectures in order to gain the requisite 3 or 5 credits? Heck, I earned 5 credits in Humanities by taking the CLEP test one afternoon. This saved me weeks and hundreds of dollars. And colleges do accept this as valid proof of knowledge.

I think the US can save untold billions if it seriously undertook such a revolution in higher education. Tuition costs would go way down, there wouldn't be waiting lists for available housing, and professors would be able to leverage their time to teach more students using the email and Internet. One such college, Excelsior College in Albany, NY, uses nothing but the web and email to teach and communicate with students. They don't have a traditional campus, housing or buildings. Yet their students are actively serving in the military, or any other profession, and they are from all around the world. They have pioneered the concept of a virtual college, and turned the traditional idea of college on it's head. Instead of bringing the student to the college, they bring the college to the student, with amazingly cheaper results.

Other colleges, such as Thomas Edison State College, Charter Oak State College, and the University of Phoenix have followed in it's footsteps and are popularizing the idea of distance learning for use in obtaining your degree. And slowly students are becoming aware of the alternatives open to them. More and more are starting to use such tests as CLEP and Dantes to gain credits, but most aren't aware of the extent they could use these toward their degree. Others are now also taking online classes, and saving lots of money that would otherwise be spent on housing and added tuition costs.

These students are still a minority, yet if we wish to permanently reduce the spiraling costs of higher education and fulfill the dream that every child would have the ability to go to college, then we need to make this knowledge available to all students.

Here's a few ideas to help us get started:

1. The Federal and State governments need to coordinate a comprehensive plan for higher education based on the 21st century realities.

2. This plan should provide for shifting more money from the state university systems to the community college system. This is where the average American can right now afford, so I say we provide these local colleges with the best campuses and equipment they need.

3. Institutions of higher learning should also start developing better programs for distance learning. Further funding should be tied to this criteria. Their counseling offices should include whether the student would be better served studying remotely and communicating with their instructors via email or video conferencing.

4. There should also be more of an emphasis on tailoring the education plan to the needs of the student. If the student feels that they need to learn History from a Harvard professor, then they should be able to learn and transfer those credits to their "home" college. What this allows is a richer educational experience that is not tied to just the institution that will confer your degree. This is already being done in the colleges mentioned above.

These are just a few ideas, to be sure, but I passionately believe that if we start emphasizing distance learning more and offering this choice to the students, then the problems of overcrowding and prohibitive costs will slow or even decline.

Think about. Seriously.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

A Tried and True Health Care Reform

We are in the middle of a long fight with our elected officials over the issue of universal health coverage. It seems to me that we, the people, are winning this fight, for now we are hearing prominent Democrats waver on the universal option, which drew the most ire from constituents. They are now putting forward modified forms of the same plan, and are even turning their attention to a health care provider that is one of the largest employers in my state: Group Health Cooperative.

GHC is a patient owned health care facility, along the lines of a credit union. Anyone can become a voting member, which will give you a say in setting policies for Group Health. It is renowned for it's quality of medical care, and for pioneering medical innovations you don't find much of anywhere else. The doctors are generally on salary, instead of being paid per patient, which give them less of an incentive to see as many as possible. They also extensively use Electronic Medical Records, which the Obama Administration would like to see enacted in it's health care reform bill. It also allows the ability to fill prescriptions online and then they can mail it to you. Another feature you are given is the ability to securely email your doctors and nurses.

The New York Times last month ran this article on Group Health, and tells how it is being looked at as a model for health care reform. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/health/policy/07coop.html?_r=1

I don't see why we can't use a similar model as this on a nationwide basis.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Voters Are Angry Over Government

This morning I read this commentary by a member of the Ripon Society, a centrist Republican group, and to me it reflects in words why people are angry. He states the very reason when he mentions Senator Specter's town hall meeting, when he referred to the questioners not by a name but by a number. We are just a number to him. How impersonal.

Government loses the consent of the governed when it ignores our desires. The Democrats think all this opposition is manufactured. If they ignore it, then it could come back to bite them.

IMO, this year's health care debate looks very much like the health care debate of 1993-94. And if this year's Dems continue in this path, next year's elections could be a boon again for Republicans. I think some of them know this, which is why we are now hearing from key Democrats that the public option will not be in the final draft. Support for a public option bit them before, and, judging from public reaction now, it could bite them again.

Here's the text of the CNN article.

Editor's note: Lou Zickar is the editor of the Ripon Forum, a centrist Republican journal of political thought published by the Ripon Society. He is a former aide to Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas.

(CNN) -- The biggest political story of the month so far is clearly the populist rage on display at town halls across the country. Democrats say this rage is manufactured; Republicans say it is real.

What can't be debated is that it is drawing a lot of attention, perhaps none more so than the town hall that Sen. Arlen Specter held in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday of this past week.

I know something about that part of the state. I used to work for Bob Walker, who represented that area for 20 years in the House of Representatives. In 1988, I was a member of the advance team that coordinated a Bush-Quayle bus caravan that traveled throughout the region.

To this day, I still have vivid memories of Dan Quayle throwing a perfect spiral in the gymnasium of Lebanon High School. The ball was caught, no words were misspelled, and all was right in that little corner of the Republican world.

The other thing I remember from that time were the people of Lebanon. They were, and I assume they still are, like the other Pennsylvanians I met and got to know -- decent, hardworking Americans who loved their families, cared about their communities and believed in the future of our nation.

In the few years I spent working on Bob Walker's staff, I have to admit that I never saw anything like the anger that was directed at Specter the other day. That said, I can't say that I'm all that surprised at the level of intensity. Lebanon is a very conservative town, and its residents are clearly concerned about some of the plans being proposed by Specter and his newfound Democratic allies in Washington, D.C.

Still, what surprised me the most was not the attitude that area residents displayed toward Specter. It was, rather, the attitude he displayed toward them.

I've been to many political events over the years -- from rallies in Pennsylvania to town halls in Texas. But I've never been to one where a politician addressed people by a number and not their name. And yet that is exactly what Specter did. People had to take a number if they wanted to ask a question. When their turn was up, he called out the number instead of recognizing them by name.

At a time when many Americans are concerned that the federal government is going to take over the nation's health care system and turn it into one big DMV where people have to stand in line to see a doctor, Specter unwittingly played right into their fears. In doing so, he also gave his Democratic opponent a ready-made tag line in the primary next year: "I'm Joe Sestak -- you'll never be a number to me."

Truth be told, it's a tag line that would also work for his probable opponent in the general election, Republican Pat Toomey, should both of them make it that far. For the fact of the matter is, even though the American people have strikingly different views on what government should do, most, if not all, Americans believe that government should be on their side.

Bill Clinton believed this. "We need a new government for a new century," he stated in his Second Inaugural, "humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves."

Even Ronald Reagan believed this. In his First Inaugural Address -- the same speech in which he famously stated that, "Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem" -- he also expressed his core belief that limited government has a role to play and has a basic obligation to the American people. "It is not my intention to do away with government," he stated. "It is, rather, to make it work."

Unfortunately, the potential for government to play a positive role seems to have been forgotten in recent years. From the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina under George W. Bush to the massive growth of the federal bureaucracy under President Obama, Americans are left to wonder: Whatever happened to the concept of making government work?

And yet, this question is more important now than perhaps ever before. Times are tough. Budgets are tight. Families are seeing a good chunk of their paychecks being used to fund government at all levels.

In Pennsylvania alone, the average resident pays more than $10,000 each year in federal, state and local taxes combined, according to the Tax Foundation. What are taxpayers getting for their investment in return? If they were in Lebanon this past week, it would have earned them the privilege of being recognized by their senator as a number, instead of their name.

Which leads to a final question: Is it any wonder that people are angry?





Until next time, this is Statesman.

Seattle Times: Myths, Truths About Canada Care

So in the midst of the national debate on a government option for health care, attention inevitably turns to our neighbor to the north. Canada has been a model both for the Right and Left to prove their points on government run health care. And as usual certain disinformation has been spread by both sides as to what actually goes on.

This morning's Seattle Times had an article stating the truths and the myths of CanadaCare. It was remarkably balanced and acknowledged that it had it's shortcomings, while showing just what it costs to maintain this. What struck me in the article was when they said that the average Canadian pays twice what the average American pays in sales taxes to maintain the health care system. However, I have also known people from Alberta who tell me that they don't pay taxes on the health care system: it is shouldered by the oil taxes.

I also thought it was interesting that the average Canadian still has private insurance to pay for such things as eye exams and dental visits. But the benefit they feel for having such a health care system is that you won't go broke as most here do because they aren't faced with a crippling medical bill. That is an advantage.

While I am against the public option that the president is proposing, I am not opposed to the government streamlining the system and possibly adding a public option. I am more in favor of the Swiss system and the Canadian system, where doctors work for themselves, unlike in England where they work for the government.

Switzerland in particular has an interesting system. It combines public and private options together. You are required to purchase health insurance, but for emergencies to the hospital you are not required to pay for it. Maternity and childbirth are free as well, you just pay for the hospital bed. But for routine visits you must have insurance before you visit with your physician. To me that makes sense, for it mixes the free market and a public option together, and makes them work.

I think what we need, and this is what is cited in the article, is a single payer agency that coordinates paperwork. Doctors say that most of their time and their staff's time is spent on paperwork for the appropriate insurance company. I think we should at least adopt an idea where there is a single medical clearing house, perhaps a quasi government corporation which would require all HMOs and insurance providers be registered with it, and the physicians just refer the paperwork to the agency. This could possibly be better done on the state level then at the federal level. Hmmm... have to give that one more thought.

Anyway, here is the link to the article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2009506926_canahealth21.html.

Until next time, this is Statesman.

Fourth of July Reflections

So the Fourth of July is upon us again- and once more our thoughts turn to celebrations. Although to many of us it is an excuse to party, in the back of our minds we still remember what the day is all about.

Most of us know the story if we paid attention in History class: a band of brave men who didn’t like how the King of England was treating them decided they wanted to have their own country and so they signed a document called the Declaration of Independence and our nation was born. Or something like that.

But kidding aside, it is a day we all take pride in. We celebrate in our own ways the liberties we have in this country. And sometimes we love this country and it’s liberties like we do a relative: we love them yet take them for granted.

It is a day that is not about politics or our government, but about freedom and America and the flag. It is a day that even the most jaded of us are unashamedly American. It is a day when we wave and wear our team’s colors of Red, White, and Blue. It is a day in which differences aside, we celebrate one thing together: that we are Americans.

I know that since I was kid I have always associated the Fourth of July with certain activities and foods. You know, perhaps a picnic would be in order or a barbecue. Certainly watermelon or fried chicken would be involved and definitely potato salad. And sometimes we would be invited out to a friend’s house on the lake, and we would spend the entire afternoon swimming. Fireworks would then be planned as the grand finale to a fabulous day.

And often a thought would float through my mind as I eat the special food and swim and have fun- I think of the many sacrifices we make to keep our liberties vibrant. Each of us serve our country and make our mark on liberty in our own ways, some of us choose to pay the ultimate sacrifice. Even in the little things we can serve our country: working our farms that feed the world, manufacturing the goods that the world wants, or it could be when we inform ourselves as citizens or defend our rights in our courts of law. Some of our fellow countrymen chose to serve in places such as the Argonne Forest, Iwo Jima, Vietnam, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every day we choose to live our lives and serve we tell the story of freedom.

We have had well over 200 Fourth of Julys since our independence was declared. Yet the day never seems to grow old for us, for we know deep down we are celebrating something special. Yes, we may look forward to being with friends and family and plan a large fireworks display, but we also know that we are commemorating the deeds of 55 brave men, whose deeds that day changed not just America, but the world.