This is how I see it playing out. As vouchers are handed out, companies would create bargain schools for the amount the voucher is worth. These schools would have the bare minimum, since profit needs to be made. At the same time, better private schools would form for those with the means to pay much beyond the voucher. The setup can basically be seen in higher education. Nearly all of the top schools are private and very expensive. Public schools are not represented at national rankings until outside of the top 10. People who can afford to pay going to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and other universities have a distinct advantage in almost every point over those attending state public universities.

Current regional school districts are not a good solution, either. They create a geocentric body based on the level of wealth in the neighborhood, resulting in disparity in the quality of education. At the time I attended high school, I was fortunate enough to attend a school with a full International Baccalaureate program. This gave me a great advantage not only on applying to university, but in getting a good education at all. Finances need to be pooled into a general fund and distributed to schools based on student population and urban density.

Each child, in a rich or poor neighborhood, should have access to the same level of education. Our current system does not provide this, and vouchers are only a worse solution.

But this funding is not the only problem with public schools. They seem to have gotten off track of providing basic education, and instead spend inordinate sums of money on new computer labs or, frequently, sports. I have seen schools where classes take place in temporary trailers while the football stadium is rebuilt. I understand that sports are good, but I believe they can be moved outside of the main school budget to a semi-autonomous league that funds itself. I don’t have a problem with athletics, and athletics should be encouraged, but not at the cost of education. An outside-school athletic association could provide the extra-curricular sport events. In any event, schools need to return to the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics. We need to have our students on par with international education standards.

No failing student should be squeezed out the door because the district couldn’t afford to teach them properly. Their resistance should not prevent them from having to pass higher level algebra. If they fail, there is no excuse to let them continue on. Invest more money into education. Expand schools. Trim the fat from their curriculum.

Teachers, as well, need reform. While I certainly appreciate the choices and efforts made by teachers, the tenure and benefits they receive are crippling the school budgets. There is a wide disparity between beginning teachers paid poorly and those with union-guaranteed benefits. I usually support unions, but the one in question has taken things too far. I celebrate teachers, I wish I could be a teacher, and the good ones should be rewarded, but in an overall scenario where schools are strapped for income, they have to adjust their expectations.

We have several points of reform in funding and focus. Properly paid teachers with a strict curriculum of the basic subjects, students held accountable, transparent investment of money outside of “luxury” items such as expensive and fairly useless computer labs (which are also generally out of date within a year or two), pushing failing students on, spending on sporting fields, etc.

There are two more solutions I have in my head. First, the curriculum of school should be the elementary school teaching basics, junior high and the first two years of high school concentrating on more challenging topics like algebra, trigonometry, history and social programs, etc. The final two years of high school can be reserved for more vocational training, such as use of computers, mechanics, art, and other programs. The second major change would be completely ditching textbooks in favor of eReaders such as the Kindle or Nook. I know I have just said that investment in computers should be curbed, but eBooks are something entirely different. A typical eReader costs a bit over $100, which is not that much more than one textbook. If a student had a eReader throughout their education, the money saved on updating textbooks by the millions would give schools a lot more money to work with.

We have to be willing to make cuts that will sometimes hurt. Parents need to be part of the education process, watching and guiding the students when they fail to perform. Schools need to meet the needs of students, such as after-school tutoring. Districts must be funded sufficiently, but watched with transparency. No student should pass without a proper understanding of the topic. Extra funds can build additional schools, even at a cheap rate. In short, education needs to be hard. It should not coddle either the student or the teacher. The ones wearing letterman jackets should be the academic elite.

The hole here is having a local clinic, especially in both urban and rural areas. This would be a place for non-emergency medical care, and hell, first aid for emergency care. A clinic takes the stress off of regional hospitals and provides services that hospitals can/do not because they are beneath that level of care. They speed up treatment by getting medical cases handled closer to home, instead of many miles away as can be the case in rural areas. Many countries use clinics extensively as part of their medical network, and save hospital congestion and costs. In my own experience, with the Berkeley Free Clinic, I’ve gone in for several things… TB and other tests, an allergic reaction, some other minor problems. Their testing is free or cheap and their treatments fast. Without it, I would have had to go to my doctor and give my $45 co-pay for a test, or go to a hospital for an allergy, which is ridiculous. It also caters to providing vaccinations and care to the homeless who have no other health care options and would normally be treated by a hospital at cost and dumped back on the street.

A health clinic does not mean a free clinic. The Berkeley clinic is able to extend services to those without health care or on the streets from several sources, but a clinic can be no more complicated than a simple office. Public health care costs are a boogey-man, but savings from hospital costs and improvement in patient care is well worth the investment. The quality of health care does not need be the highest quality; a low cost and shared responsibility by young doctors and nurses should be able to provide for the care on a clinic level.

That system works. Our current no-option does not. Clinics work in urban areas, in suburban areas, and even in rural or non-urban areas, with minimal staff. Funding needs to go there. Common medications need to be made available. Treat the neighborhood so the community can be stronger.

The path to changing our system to be in any scale based on syndicalism is a slow one. It works best in small companies, and is not an overnight transition, nor a salvation for the working person. It requires dedication, proof of concept, and a complicated change to corporate philosophy.

A syndicate is not entirely different from a corporation. The main difference is in who holds the stock. In a small or family-owned company, the groundwork for a syndicate is already there; employees have a rather good say in how the company runs, and decisions are based on consensus. Starting a new company as a syndicate is an ideal platform, and this is where the “revolution” begins. Even small companies can reform their business to this model. The downside is eventual lack of capital from going public, but the plus side is much better pay and the workers re-investing in their jobs. When they are responsible for the income, their income is based on the good of the company, workers will vote on how much to pay, and how much to invest. We can see a return to investment banking on a more stable basis.

Various syndicates existing now have employee wages much higher than the national average. Of course, any type of business can start and fail, but a syndicate has more control over how the income is reinvested. Prying control of a corporation from those owning stock, however, may be impossible. There is no quick fix, no instant solution. A few companies may convert, more start as syndicates or co-ops. Over a few generations, this business model may see more growth and be taken seriously by any company that is starting up. If worse is worse, a syndicate can always vote to change to a corporation. Happy, productive workers and a responsible company leadership, however, can not be bought. A syndicate has no need for a union, as worker control is built in. Corruption and waste from CEOs making absurd amounts of money is prevented (though of course, this lowers the field of potential CEOs and presidents, it turns out that some workers can handle the job without majoring in business).

The other part of my platform is reduced federalism. I don’t want someone from Chicago to determine immigration policy in California. On the other hand, I’d prefer a national average for education distribution. The essential line I draw is along social issues; these should be left to the states. Organization of a national militia/military, funding for utilitarian services, etc are the necessities of national government. This means a lower federal tax, but a higher state tax. Let the people realize that what really affects them is not the presidential election, but the governor and representatives and even their mayor or city council. These people can micromanage their territory in ways that the federal government can not. However, this is another change that has to come slowly, if at all.

These slow changes do not mean that the urge for progress should be stopped, just that we must use patience and build success upon success. Some model companies need to pioneer the way as successful syndicates or co-ops. Ideally, business schools should take notice of this. Worker income, safety, and benefits are on the table, and these need to be decided by the workers themselves, or let them move on. Similarly, authority to local governments needs to be put in their hands, and let them tailor policy to their constituency. None of this is easy, or even necessary, but to build upon our lifestyles, the power should be in our hands, at work and at local government.

Our recent move to bring Freedom to various countries, however, is something that I do challenge. We absolutely can not go into countries and expect democracy to take hold. Democracy developed naturally in the West over hundreds of years of social development and declaration of rights. We can not expect to just knock a regime down and wait patiently for democracy to take over.

Most of the countries we try to bring democracy to have not developed the social structure and ideologies to support a democratic system. In these cases, we should instead aim to put a *stable* government in place, popularly elected or not. With nurturing, you can build industry, build education, build healthcare, and take a new step to a constitutional democracy.

Democracy can not work without an educated and equal population. It is far too easy for an attempt at democracy to play directly into the hands of cruel dictators, since the people don’t vote. Some may not even have the knowledge they can vote, or they could be coerced.

I do not advocate direct involvement with these states; I propose to offer aid instead to the regional organizations, such as the African Union. The health of those organizations can be used to end crisis events, without the need for Western interference. It is a more palatable to regional nations than some Western interference (as well as the Western powers not wanting to get involved).

The sociology of a country or region is a very important measure of what type of government to have. It is nice to say democracy and freedom and all, but it is disingenuous to assume that a country carved up across ethnic lines, with poverty, will be able to hold fair democratic elections. The complete failure of Afghanistan and Iraq show how this democracy and freedom is effectively thrown in our face. It just does not work – there are too many sectarian groups, too much internal conflict, too little agreement on a central organization. Parts of land fall aside. Warlords declare their effective leadership. No central power has the ability to enforce any protocols. The elections are corrupt. And our presence certainly is not appreciated. More draconian measures need to police effectively before progress can be made. We can not assume that we just plain know better.

Upon seeing the potential for the overthrow of long time dictators and frank enemies of the United States and other nations, Obama made the then-seemingly good natured move to provide them with a more equal playing field. Taking away Gaddafi’s air support and mechanized forces seemed, at the time, to be a way for us to get involved without actually being involved; we had invested no political capital and stood to gain a significant victory in the region and perhaps in other nations. The popular uprising promised many great things for both Libyans and the international community.

The unfortunate part of this is that Obama has been unwillingly but undeniably drawn into this trap. No one anywhere wanted the US to be involved in another armed conflict, certainly least of all Obama himself. The initial gesture of offering a no-fly zone was something we could and did easily do without being involved. Our unfortunate assumption, however, was that the people uprising would be numerous and equipped enough to handle fighting off Gaddafi’s remaining forces; this assumption is tragically based on almost nothing. After providing the no-fly zone, it became obvious that the, let’s say, rebels were still no match for the remaining Gaddafi military. After committing the initial force of action, we were committed to going a step further, and attacking ground targets. We were thus drawn in by escalation to the conflict – one we pinned much hope on the protesters and underestimated the gut of Gaddafi’s forces.

The truth is that the strength of the uprising never had the gumption to finish off the task. The initial wave and support were one thing – actually finding a fighting force that is trained and armed well enough to fight a military force is quite another. Thus, we find ourselves drawn in another step, allegedly providing arms and ground support. In the end, the rebel forces never had the strength to outlast Gaddafi, and we are in an awkward position of being partially engaged in something we have not the will or remaining strength to become involved in. Unless Gaddafi himself is removed from power – any by that I pretty much mean removed from this Earth – we must now either commit or bail out. Committing is something we can’t afford. Bailing out leaves pro-democracy forces out to dry, and stops dead any momentum the movement would have in other countries. This is a sad truth, and our only option. It isn’t something we have never done; we’ve left many militia outgunned and finding us not on their side. If Gaddafi can’t be removed, soon, it is a blow we must take. I think that makes clear what we need to do: give Libya no choice but to measure for a casket and find a new leader.

A popular debate in America – usually between people with no direct experience of the border, of the state of northern Mexico, and whose families immigrated just a few generations since – is immigration reform. What I propose is, instead, to reform what immigration is. Immigrants from our border are not a bad thing; they are put in a position where it is to violate the law, or nothing. In one month alone, in one city in northern Mexico, 3000 people were killed in violence from cartels.

Immigrating to the United States requires about $10,000 in fees, months of processing, complete medical exams, and other measures.

The average yearly income in Mexico is $10,000, and those most likely to immigrate make far less, especially since many pay for the crossing.

These immigrants can be something incredibly beneficial. What I am proposing is to tap the potential of the immigrants, instead of sticking a finger in a breaking dam. Immigrants can cause problems in large cities, but their population influx can get American industry plans, and the cities that depend on them, to revive.

What must be done? Well, I will admit it would be a tremendous job that we currently really can’t afford, but neither can we afford to poice the entire border. What has to be done is to make the best out of a bad situation. In simple terms, what I propose is making immigration far more streamlined and accessible for immigrants, and giving them the tools to become productive American citizens – no more leeching off of whatever part of the system they supposedly do. They will even generate extra tax.

So, the first step in this ambitious plan would be to have a diplomatic post in Mexico where immigrants can freely access what is needed for a work or living visa. One condition is that during the time of the visa, the immigrants undergo something similar to a community college dedicated to teaching language, laws, and trade skills, as well as completing a GED. I recognize that this would cost, but you’ve gotta spend money to make money.

After their visa is over and they get a GED, a smoother nationalization process would find cities with low populations and on the decline. With their GED and work lined up, they are prepared to be productive, taxpaying citizens – no more sending money back to their families or taking it with them during seasonal migrant labor.

This is a win for everyone involved. More citizens, more taxes, less use of tax money, better standards of living for the migrants, more US-based cheap labor for companies. No draconian border policy.

Helping this policy would be the legalization of marijuana and implementation of a good national ID card/RFF chip. These eliminate a lot of the illegal activity along the border.

I mean, private medical insurance definitely provides when you’re in need. They don’t restrict your choice of doctors (provided the doctor is on their health plan) or pool money (aside from the part most employers deduct from your paycheck when they buy their insurance packages) or cause a drain on the health care centers (except when they retroactively don’t cover a procedure) and they certainly don’t have death panels of bureaucrats (just the for-profit companies deciding what is covered) or ever deny services (except for pre-existing conditions, or any other excuse), and they are very friend and available to contact (provided a few hours to wait between asking to speak to managers).

The entire thing is ridiculous. Public money pays for hospitals and covers the bills not covered by insurance companies in a medical emergency (or pre-existing condition). No one is talking about privatizing health care… do people not understand the concept of public option? Yes, the government can create a competing health care program, but if it is competitive, that means you are already being vastly overcharged. At the very least, take a breath between declaring the government being murderous communists seeking to kill Americans and demanding that they provide you with vaccines every year and running both public hospitals and research institutes.

If you want the government out of your health care, don’t get vaccinated, don’t go to hospitals, don’t take any medications or practices that have been tested and/or developed at public institutes like university medical hospitals (I think that leaves you with the option of honey tea and grinding up leaves).

Face reality. Most Americans have absolutely no choice in their health care. Their employer must purchase an insurance package, and that’s what you have to deal with. Why do you trust a private company looking to maximize profit that answers to no one but their fellow for-profit companies more than the government, which is elected by the public and changes every few years, and is answerable to that election process and is not in the hands of one person, but has to answer to other government organizations as well. This is democracy giving you choice, not a company dictating whether you’re worth it.

However, I think Obama has horribly, horribly mistimed his proposal. The main problem is that in light of dealing with the economy and the wars, public healthcare is a hard sell. We are still in the recession, and Obama is juggling too many initiatives at once. The Dow is steadily just below 9500, which is good, but unemployment is high and we’re just getting into debt. Public option healthcare would be nice for the unemployed if it were already in place, but the startup costs just make it a stupid thing to be pushing in this economy.

Obama should have his focus on the economy at home. Some other stuff, yea, but not a major initiative that is unpopular before it even started. He’s blowing his popularity index, the novelty of his historic election is out the window, and all we hear is something most Americans are opposed to. He should be explaining and outlining economic recovery and stimulus and dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan.

If things don’t change substantially in the economy and war, Obama’s legacy could very well be minimalized by his being black and having a bad economy. If/when the Pubs come back in 2010, it will be his own fault, and getting anything done will be next to impossible.

Ideally (that is, originally), pork was meant to refer to a kind of “pet project” or special interest spending snuck into a larger budget or bill… and cutting out that kind of waste is a very good thing, I agree. However, there is a difference between public funding for some random useless application a senator promised someone, and money requested by a senator for a project that can bring jobs, promote security or health, or just further knowledge. Some of these things are worth the price… there are many studies that would have seemed useless, pointless, or stupid long ago that have revolutionized modern society.

For instance, in the ’30s, during the Great Depression, we spent billions (then-money) bombarding elements with neutrons, to see what would happen… the result was atomic power.

In this economy? I think that the bills passed should be done by the *states*, not the Feds. This would be much more efficient… perhaps the state could submit its own list of projects, and those are presented. Much more efficient than spending however many man-hours and spewing money as people debate minor details.

The Second Amendment serves no purpose at all in modern society. In fact, it serves a a disservice by being unclear and mucking up the entire issue. There are many things that make it downright retarded, but I’ll focus on two; technology and scope. Having said that, I’ll go in reverse order.

Scope. When the Constitution was written, there was no intent by the authors to have standing army. Defense was, in theory, to be done by the “well organized militia” stated in the Amendment. This ideology was reinforced by not harboring soldiers in times of war… the people were to be the defense. Novel idea for a sparsely populated agrarian society with no hostile borders, but… not quite applicable nowadays. We have well organized militia. Very well organized. So organized that they exist.

The other issue is technology. The aforementioned militia, at the time, were armed with muzzle-loading smoothbore rifles, and the occasional pistol. Firing times for a well trained shooter were 2-3 shots a minute. Not much in the way of crime as we know it. Many children were taught to shoot responsibly from a very young age (I mention his for a reason). Now, pretty much anyone can gain access to a semi-automatic rifle or pistol, and easily fire a few dozen rounds a minute. They’re cheap and have a simple point and click interface.

So, we have no need for a militia, given that we have a volunteer civilian military I would be all for a militia should a dictatorship come to power), and the technology has come so far as to make any legislature written at the time to be quite laughable. You might as well have an amendment in there restricting traffic speed to 15 mph, to stop them galloping horses.

Now is the part where I’m supposed to say that guns should be illegal, right?

Actually, I’m rather neutral. Being reasonable, I’m at odds with the nut jobs on both sides.

What I actually propose is that in order to own a gun, one would need a license. Said license would be attainable for free, after a safety, usage, and storage exam, which could need renewed every, say, 5 years. This isn’t to keep track of everyone, or even to help reduce crime by tracking people… it is simply to ensure that gun owners now what they are doing. And reduce crime. There isn’t really anything more sinister than an amateur radio license. Actually, less sinister, since there wouldn’t be a central database with everyone’s addresses.

I think that registering a gun, similar to a car’s VIN number, would be a good idea, though. This isn’t to restrict anything as much as it is to streamline criminal proceedings.

I would suggest a new legal process for adding prison time for “lethal intent”in cases where firearms are used in a crime, though. As far as making anything illegal, I don’t think that assault and high caliber rifles should be allowed. Handguns, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and other weapons would be acceptable.

The two sides need to reach compromise. This is a fair offer.