Does the Department of Education Need to be Eliminated?

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The order directs the department to reduce its size and transfer many of its responsibilities to states and other federal agencies. Programs like student loans, Pell Grants, and funding for students with disabilities should continue, but their administration might be shifted to other agencies over time. The move has sparked concerns about potential disruptions in federal education funding and services, especially for low-income and special-needs students.

In addition, President Trump has withheld funding for numerous federal agencies, as well as personnel cuts that Impact the operational effectiveness of those agencies. His initiatives to eliminate DEI have resulted in threats to various educational institutions that have been deemed in violation of his desire. His major targets have been high profile schools like Columbia. However, a number of regional universities are under investigation for discrimination tied to DEI programs.

While purportedly looking for a better investment, the Trump administration has lost sight of the fact that education isn’t about return on the dollar in test score numbers, but it is about children. Cuts to food and support programs should consider what happens when a child is hungry. The impact of housing support on living arrangements also impacts a student’s learning motivation. Our system of education is broken! Many children are in fact “left behind”. Education is good for the affluent, fair for the middle class, and substandard for people struggling to make ends meet. That is why 54% of Americans function a less than a 6^th grade level. With an overall literacy rate of 79%, the United States ranks 36^th. Most developed nations have literacy rates of 96% (National Literacy Institute, 2024-2025 Literacy Statistics).

Many of our competing countries, e.g., Finland, Canada, Japan, support early education with universal health and food support programs as well as support for counselors, mental health, basic human needs. Unfortunately, the United States is focused on outcomes through money spent of developing standardized tests. We often spend money to determine outcomes without providing adequate support for actual education. We don’t invest in teachers. Salaries are poor. Requirements for licensure are often costly and frequently not reimbursed by the school districts. Attracting college students to these poor paying teaching jobs has become increasingly difficult. Differences in taxing districts impact whether a school district invests in education or barely gets by. Wealthy districts can excel. Poor districts barely make their budget guidelines.

Too often, the United States has turned what should be an investment in humankind into a business venture. Spending more money doesn’t guarantee a better product. Our founding fathers stressed the need for a literate populace if their model democracy was going to survive. America has failed to maintain the gains in education achieved over the 20th century. The amount of money spent on buildings, extra-curricular activities and mandated curriculums has changed the focus from basic skills and understanding of our system of government to looking good on paper.

Downsizing with the intent to eliminate the Department of Education is as unfounded as most other downsizing initiatives underway under the Trump administration. There is no doubt that there is waste in our federal bureaucracies. This waste should be eliminated. However, the chainsaw approach offered by the Trump administration can do only what a chain saw does. The cuts are crude and dangerous. What is needed is a careful review of programs by independent experts. The recommendation then needs to be reviewed by Congress and their determination passed on to the Executive Branch.

The United States is not a business being run for profit. Although, in recent years it often looks like our elected representatives are there only to make money for themselves. The United States government is a service funded by the taxpayer for all American citizens.

Money and the VOTE

Election laws in the United States are designed to ensure fair and transparent voting processes. They cover aspects like voter registration, accessibility, campaign finance. States have the primary authority to set election rules, but federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, provide overarching protection. These election laws strictly prohibit voter buying, which refers to offering money or other incentives to influence someone’s vote. Under 18 U.S. Code § 597, it is illegal to make expenditures to influence voting, whether to encourage someone to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote for or against a specific candidate. Violations can result in fines or imprisonment.

State laws vary, but no state allows payments to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. Some states, like Wisconsin, even prohibit payments for simply turning out to vote.

There have been allegations that Elon Musk may have violated campaign finance laws by offering monetary incentives to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential election. These payments were tied to signing a petition supporting the Constitution. You could argue that such payments were intended to influence voter registration and voting behavior. If this is the case, such actions could potentially breach federal laws prohibiting payments for voter registration or voting.

In addition, Musk also has been a major donor to political campaigns, such as the current Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Here his donations and advocacy have sparked debates about the ethics of such involvement. Musk also has ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which has allowed him to amplify his political views and influence public discourse. His financial backing and public endorsements have positioned him as a key figure in certain political movements.

Musk’s interactions with senators and representatives have also sparked significant debate. Reports suggest that Musk has used his wealth and political action committees to exert pressure on lawmakers. He has reportedly threatened to fund primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose certain agendas. With his involvement in federal government restructuring, he has drawn criticism from both parties, with some senators expressing concerns about his unelected authority and its impact on their constituents.

However, it’s worth noting that legal experts are divided on whether these actions constitute outright violations or merely exploit loopholes in the law. The situation underscores the complexities of campaign finance regulations and the influence of wealth in politics.

Yet buying votes is strictly illegal. It involves offering money or resources to voters in exchange for their votes. This practice undermines democracy and as noted earlier, is punishable by fines or imprisonment under U.S. law.

The influence of money in politics has been a long-standing concern, and it raises tough questions about fairness and representation. When financial power overshadows the voices of everyday citizens, it can appear that the democratic process is being undermined. Since 2010, The Supreme Court Case, commonly referred to as Citizen’s United, has caused a major political upheaval. However, that is a topic for another blog.

But democracy is resilient. Grassroots movements, campaign finance reforms, and public awareness can all push back against these challenges. What measures do you think could help restore balance?

Where is the Pushback?

Where’s the pushback from Congress in response to President Donald Trump’s defiance of the courts and disregard for the Constitution? While actual Republican pushback has come from Elizabeth Chaney and Adam Kinzinger, and a few active Senators, most elected senators and representatives in both parties appear to have little appetite for pushback. Democrats, where are your leaders? OAC, Pete Buttigieg, a few others, and independent Bernie Sanders should be supported by more of you. Where are the real Republicans? Your party has been taken over by Trump supporters. The executive power that Trump claims is not real. His “MANDATE” is far from a mandate. A full 36 percent of eligible voters did not cast a ballot. That is a larger percentage than either Trump or Harris received. Push back!! Don’t let the judicial branch attempt to carry the load! Trump’s actions are not something new. Consider Andrew Jackson, known as the people’s president, and the pushback from his political opponents.

In 1834, Henry Clay led a revolt against President Andrew Jackson. President Jackson had started defying court directives and Congress. In 1832, Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. In this case the state of Georgia attempted to impose laws on the Cherokee Nation. The Court upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokees. Jackson did not like the decision and refused to accept its directive. Most often Jackson is quoted as saying, “Jon Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson personal stance was part of his broader Indian policy which eventually led to the Trail of Tears.

Then in 1834, Jackson opposed the Second Bank of the United States as presented by Congress. Jackson viewed the bank as unconstitutional and corrupt, favoring state banks and a decentralized financial system. His stance led to the infamous “Bank War,” where he vetoed the renewal of the Bank of the United States’ charter and redirected federal funds to state banks, often called “pet banks.” Jackson claimed that as president he could judge the constitutionality of a central bank, ignoring the 1819 Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that the Bank of the United States was legal. This was a defining moment of his presidency. Senator Henry Clay viewed Jackson’s actions as outside his executive authority. Clay moved to have Jackson censored by Congress. In 1834 the Senate formally censured Jackson. In 1837 the Senate, now dominated by Jackson supporters, voted to remove the censure from the Senate record. Although Clay’s efforts failed, his argument helped shape limits on executive powers. Jackson’s personal beliefs regarding the central bank are the likely cause of the Panic of 1837, our first major depression.

Where is the Henry Clay or Daniel Webster of our generation? Webster said, “I am committed… to the Constitution of the country…. And I am committed against everything, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it…; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government itself.” Which Senators today will protect the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution?

President Trump’s Executive Orders—Why?

Part 2

Introduction

During his first days in office President Trump signed over 50 executive orders. As of this writing there are now over 100 orders! While new presidents start their terms with executive orders, the extent and direction of President Trump’s orders is “Trumpian.” In Part 2 I will continue to discuss selected executive orders, consider why they were signed, present the positives and negatives of each order, and consider the unforeseen consequences, good and bad. With over 100 orders to choose from this will take some time!

Federal Hiring Freeze

Signed January 20, 2025, this executive order is similar to the order President Trump signed on January 23, 2017. This executive order is aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce. The order is aimed at halting the hiring of federal civilian employees across the executive branch. Agencies can hire no more than one new employee for every four who leave. Immigration enforcement, public safety, military, and law enforcement are exempt from the hiring restrictions. Agencies are directed to develop plans for large-scale reductions in force, and identify nonessential functions including diversity initiatives for cuts. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, oversees the efficiency measures and coordinates with agency heads. Federal employees have been offered incentives to resign.

The order also directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan to reduce the federal workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.

Why?

President Trump signed the 2025 hiring freeze order to reduce the size of the federal government’s workforce and cut down on government spending. Candidate Trump had regularly made statements promising to reduce government spending and waste. This order fulfills his promise to his political base. This hiring freeze is part of a broader effort to improve efficiency and reduce costs within the federal government.

Positives

The primary goal of the hiring freeze is to reduce government spending. By not filling vacant positions, the government can save on salaries and benefits. The hiring freeze could streamline government operations. The freeze may lead to better utilization of current employees and potentially uncover inefficiencies. With fewer resources, agencies may be encouraged to find innovative solutions to maintain service levels. This can lead to the adoption of new technologies and processes that improve overall efficiency.

Negatives

While these potential benefits exist, it’s important to consider the broader implications and challenges that may arise from such a policy. The freeze has had various impacts, including staffing shortages in agencies like the IRS and the National Park Service, which rely heavily on seasonal workers. Critics argue that such measures can disrupt agency operations and potentially increase costs in the long run.

The hiring freeze has also led to the rescinding of job offers for many candidates, including those who had already received offers from federal agencies like the IRS. This creates uncertainty and financial instability for those affected. Agencies like the IRS and FDIC are facing challenges in fulfilling their duties due to the hiring freeze. The IRS, for example, may struggle to process tax returns efficiently, potentially leading to delays in tax refunds. The FDIC’s ability to ensure the stability of the banking system is also compromised, increasing the risk of bank failures and weakening consumer protections.

The hiring freeze has led to a decrease in efficiency and morale among existing federal employees. With fewer staff members to handle the workload, employees may experience increased stress and burnout, which can negatively impact their performance and overall job satisfaction. The freeze may have long-term consequences for the federal workforce, including a potential loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as experienced employees retire or leave for other opportunities. This can hinder the government’s ability to effectively serve the public and address emerging challenges.

Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid

Signed January 20, 2025, this directive mandates a comprehensive review of all U.S. foreign assistance programs to ensure they align with American interests and values. The order includes a 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds while these reviews are conducted. The reviews are to be carried out by the department and agency heads responsible under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The executive order aims to assess the efficiency and consistency of foreign assistance programs with U.S. foreign policy. Based on the review recommendations, the department and agency heads responsible, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will decide whether to continue, modify, or discontinue each foreign assistance program. The Secretary of State has the authority to waive the pause for specific programs if necessary.

Why?

President Trump believes that the U.S. foreign aid programs are not aligned with American interests and values. He has argued that these programs often destabilized world peace by promoting ideas contrary to harmonious and stable relations within and among countries. The executive order aimed to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance was fully aligned with the President’s foreign policy and provided a value return for the American people. The administration emphasized the need to review and realign foreign assistance to protect America’s investment and focus on national interests.

Positives

The order is designed to ensure that foreign aid programs are aligned with American interests and values, promoting a more coherent and strategic approach to foreign assistance. By pausing new obligations and disbursements for a comprehensive review, the order aims to improve the efficiency and accountability of foreign aid programs. This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and provide a return for the American people. The order emphasizes the importance of focusing on national interests and protecting America’s investment in foreign assistance. This approach aims to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

Negatives

The 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds has caused significant disruptions to ongoing aid programs. This has affected millions of people worldwide who rely on U.S. funds for essential services such as food, healthcare, and economic development. The executive order has led to job losses for tens of thousands of Americans and non-Americans working in the international development sector. This includes employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private contractors.

Private contractors working with USAID have faced financial burdens due to unpaid invoices and the sudden halt in funding. This has affected their ability to sustain operations and fulfill commitments to subcontractors, suppliers, and employees. Contractors and organizations that rely on their proven track record of reliability to secure future government contracts face reputational risks due to the uncertainty surrounding funding and the potential cancellation of contracts.

The pause in foreign aid has had severe consequences for vulnerable populations in developing countries. The executive order has led to the cessation of programs that support the rights and well-being of these communities. The disruption of aid programs and the potential withdrawal of U.S. support from international development efforts could lead to increased instability in regions that rely on U.S. assistance for stability and development.

We the People: Our Founding Fathers—How Would They View MAGA and President Elect Trump?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

Through analysis of writings and other historical documents, it is possible to predict what historical figures might think of current events, but it is important to remember that their views were shaped by the events of their times. However, while much has changed over the past 250 years, a person’s character will likely remain unchanged. The following is a brief study of what a select number of our early historical figures may think about our soon to be Trump presidency. These suppositions are based on a review of the opinions of these historical figures. As I examined their views, I was at times surprised by their positions.

George Washington

Our first President had strong views regarding the Presidency and politics. He made a clear choice not to be elected as a king. He did not support political party affiliation. As the first President, he was not part of any political party! He believed that political parties created division. This division was detrimental to the goals of the nation, often serving party goals over national well-being. Washington believed in individual liberties and national freedom. These values would be best protected by a strong central government. It is likely that Washington would have been supportive of President elect Trump’s plans for economic growth and a reduction of government overreach. On the other hand, it is likely that Washington would have found Trump’s attempt at greater centralization of power in the executive branch as an overreach of presidential power. Washington was a strong supporter of checks and balances, as well as protection of civil liberties as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Washington would likely have been opposed to the elimination or reduction of power in the Department of Education. Washington, along with many others, believed that if democracy was to survive, the nation needed an informed electorate. Therefore, informed voters would demand accountability with a focus on real concerns. Politicians would need to be more responsive to the electorate’s concerns rather than focusing on self-preservation and the party line. A good education is about empowering voters to think critically. Education can empower citizens to make informed decisions and then hold elected officials accountable.

Benedict Arnold

While considered a traitor to the American Revolution, General Arnold was one of Washington’s top military leaders. Arnold’s betrayal was motivated by his personal feelings of a lack of recognition and personal ambition. It is likely that he would find some aspects of Trump’s nationalist and populist rhetoric appealing. Trump’s portrayal as a strong leader and outsider would likely be appealing to Arnold based on his own experiences. Still, it would be difficult to know how Arnold would view Trump’s efforts to centralize power in the presidency.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was an intellectual who valued reason, liberty and civil virtue. He was known for his pragmatic approach to governance. He had a strong belief in a balance of power to protect individual freedom. As with Washington’s view, Franklin would have supported Trump’s economic vision and desire to reduce government overreach. Both goals fit with his belief in individual enterprise and a government focused on protecting citizen’s rights. Like Washington, it is likely that Franklin would have been concerned about Trump’s possible overreach with an emphasis on centralized power. Franklin, as exhibited in his support of the Constitution, was a strong advocate of checks and balances and the protection of civil liberties. In addition, Franklin’s experience in diplomacy and international relations would probably cause him to be concerned about Trump’s America First and isolationist policies. Franklin would also have been concerned about the intense party loyalty not the interests of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s views are enshrined in what we now call Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson believed in individual rights, a limited federal government, and the agrarian community. State’s rights were paramount over the rights of the federal government. Jefferson would likely appreciate Trump’s state rights views and his focus on economic development. However, like many of his contemporaries, he would be troubled by Trump’s focus on centralized power with executive overreach. As seen in his words in the Constitution, Jefferson was a firm believer in checks and balances.

Aaron Burr

Aaron Burr is a unique figure in early American politics. He served as the third Vice President under Thomas Jefferson. Burr was ambitious and often challenged the status quo of his time. It is very likely that Burr would appreciate Trump as an outsider who has challenged the status quo. His own alleged attempt to form an army and seize control of portions of America within the new Louisiana Territory would likely provide a positive view of Trump’s January 6 demonstration.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton is considered one of the Founding Fathers and was the first Secretary of the Treasury. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton favored a strong central government with a powerful executive branch. Some of his views may have come from serving as George Washington’s chief aid. He believed that a strong government was necessary to control the nation’s finances and support its economic growth. In his view he would likely support Trump’s focus on economic growth and reduction of government restrictions on business. Still, he would also find Trump’s belief in centralized power as an executive overreach. Hamilton believed in a balanced government. He may also have been concerned with Trump’s policies that could increase national debt and undermine the government.

John Jay

Jay was a Founding Father who was responsible for much of the Bill of Rights. He was also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay believed in a strong central government, diplomacy, and the rule of law. His views on Trump would likely be mixed. Jay would probably support Trump’s nationalism and economic protectionism. However, Jay would likely have concerns for Trump’s rhetoric and the potential he has shown for undermining democratic institutions– particularly the Supreme Court.

James Monroe

Monroe was the fifth President. His presidency was known for its strong stance on American sovereignty and his efforts to limit European influence in the Western Hemisphere. His strong stance created what has become known as the Monroe Doctrine. While given Monroe’s strong feeling on national sovereignty and protectionism, he would likely support Trump’s positions in these areas. However, like his predecessors, Monroe would find Trump’s divisive language, and his statements undermining democratic institutions, a major concern. Monroe valued unity and stability of government over party.

James Madison

Madison is often called the Father of the Constitution. It is evident from his writings that he was a strong advocate of a balanced government, using checks and balances of power. He believed in individual rights and a healthy federal system. Again, Madison would likely have a concern over Trump’s rhetoric. The divisive nature of his dialog and his willingness to attack democratic institutions, would be counter to his belief in unity and stability in government.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was perhaps one of the most significant figures in America’s history. As John Adams said: “[W]ithout the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Adams was probably correct. Paine published Common Sense in 1776. Over 500,000 copies were produced in a time when the population of the British colonies was less than 2.5 million. The percentage of readers is greater than the percentage who watch our Super Bowl! It is likely that Paine would not approve of much in Trump’s proposal for governance over the next four years. He would find Trump’s desire for a leaner and less intrusive government a positive position. However, he would likely be vehemently opposed to Trump’s focus on centralized power. Every American should read Paine’s Common Sense. It is as applicable to today’s world as it was in his. This champion of liberty would view Donald Trump and MAGA as a force to be resisted.

Synthesis

As I stated in the Introduction, it is difficult to know what any historical figure might think of modern society. However, personal values probably would not change. Of the ten early American leaders, it is interesting that all ten might support Trump’s general assumptions regarding protection of American sovereignty and his economic positions. However, at least eight would all be concerned about his apparent disregard for the democratic foundations of this country. Of course, this is a logical conclusion since these men were instrumental in creating the United State of America. Burr and Arnold would more likely be supportive of Trump. However, their own ambitions were their downfall. Both were concerned about their own well-being and legacy. It is no wonder that given Trump’s personality, they would likely find much of his agenda palatable.

Conclusions

It would serve us all well if we took time to reexamine the materials left behind by our early leaders. They did not agree on many things but were able to find common values. These men wrote some of the most enduring pieces of literature in our historic time. Thomas Paine’s works were widely disseminated and read by other prominent Americans. The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights carry their message in precise language. Over the years our own institutions of government have often failed to live up to the vision that was behind the written words. America needs to focus more on providing an education that includes lessons on our early history, not just rote memorization, but an engaged dialog that allows for evaluation and individual interpretations.

America’s Future—A Land Owned by Billionaires and Corporations?

A Land of Opportunity and a Good Life for Everyone?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

With the election of Donald Trump as our 47^th President and his plans for America’s future, it is time to evaluate what “America, the Land of Opportunity” meant, what is means today, and what it could be in the future. For many of our ancestors, America was a land of opportunity. But what did that mean? Many immigrants came to this country to find a better life. Economic stability was a goal. Land, housing, food, and an occupation that would allow for a comfortable standard of living were achievable goals. That dream has continued to be the focus of many Americans and new immigrants. As a 3^rd generation descendant of a Swiss immigrant, I know that my grandparents achieved this dream. My parents were also able to offer the same opportunity to me. I have hopefully provided the same for my children. America, since its founding, has become a nation that has grown economically strong. Along with this prosperity, the focus of many of our dreams has changed from wanting our basic needs satisfied to accumulating material wealth. Our government and business leaders view our strength in the Domestic National Product (DNP) reports, where America is number 1 at $29 trillion. But the question might be, is the DNP and our quest for material wealth really what makes a nation great? Can President Trump’s plans make us great again? Aren’t we already the greatest nation if we use the DNP as our measure? Did the average American not know about our country status? In their vote for Donald Trump, many Americans did not feel that the nation was the greatest (MAGA) on Earth!

Other Measures of National Success

Despite the MAGA vote, many Americans often view our nation as one of the greatest. A critical evaluation will show that there are other countries that do a better job with health care, education, and in general, a standard of living. Some other measures where the United States does not fare as well include:

Human Development Index: This index includes life expectancy, education level, and per capital income. In this index, America ranks relatively high with a score of .927 out of 1. The world average is .6. The strength of this index is that it goes beyond domestic national product. The admitted weakness is that it does not consider income inequality, economic opportunities, and health beyond longevity.

Gini Coefficient This statistic measures income inequality. America does poorly on this measure, receiving a score of 39.8 out of a possible 100. Zero means perfect equality in income and 100 means totally unequal. The best score goes to Sweden at 25. It is followed by Japan, then Germany and Canada.

Happy Planet Index This index measures sustainable well-being, considering life expectancy, well-being, inequality, and ecological footprint. America ranks very low on this index at 121 out of 180 countries. The variables that bring our rating down include too many poor people, and a low sense of well-being. Our life expectancy beyond 60 is low, and the percentage of people making less than the median wage is high.

Social Progress Index This index measures social and environmental factors such as basic human needs, foundations of well-being, and economic opportunities. Again, America does not fare well. We are ranked number 25 out of 170 countries. Our scores in the human needs area, well-being, and economic opportunity are low. Countries at the top of the list include Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, and Switzerland.

Environmental Performance Index This index ranks countries based on their environmental health and ecosystem vitality, using air quality, water resources, and biodiversity measures. On this index, America ranks 43rd out of 180 countries. The variables include our air quality, problems with water quality and resources, and biodiversity. The best performances are the countries of Denmark, United Kingdom, Finland, Malta, Luxembourg, and Austria.

What Makes Americans Happy?

This is a difficult question. While it can be different for everyone, there are some common variables that most Americans value.

Strong Relationships Most Americans put family, friends, and their community high on the list of important things.

Good Health This biological reality is essential to a happy life. The ability to have access to good healthcare, a good diet, and exercise are critical.

Balance Between Life and Work While work had for decades been seen as the most important part of providing a secure future, today many young people seek a balance between their personal life and their work.

Financial Stability A steady job provides the greatest feeling of financial stability. The work pay must be enough to meet basic needs without constant stress over how to make the next payments.

Purpose It is important to most people that they have an identified purpose in life. That purpose allows them to work toward personal goals and gives a sense of accomplishment.

Personal Freedom Americans believe it is important to that we can say what we want without fear of punishment. We need to know that we have free will and while we are free to make choices, there is the realization that there are also consequences.

A Positive Environment We all want to live in a safe community. We strive to have clean and friendly neighborhoods.

A Desire for Leisure As noted above there is a need to balance work with life. Most Americans want to enjoy leisure time, whether it is watching a sporting event, participating in a sporting activity, or engaging in other type of activities such as painting, music, or collecting.

Shared Community and Cultural Values Most Americans want to be part of a community of like-minded individuals. These people share cultural and social values and create a feeling of happiness.

What Can Make America Great Again?

The Trump campaign focused on the desires of the American people. The champaign’s primary focus has been on the increased cost of living, fear of crime, and displacement and unfair treatment caused by uncontrolled immigration. These variables address many of the deficiencies in the American happy dream. The need to address these deficiencies is evident when considering measures beyond the GNP.

It may not be obvious, but it appears that much of the decline in happiness and our low scores on the indices beyond the GNP are the result of policy decisions made following WWII. President Eisenhower, in his final address as President, said to be weary of the military industrial complex. He saw economic growth and power in this military industrial arena. What he likely did not foresee was that big business and wealthy capitalists would eventually replace small businesses and middle-class Americans as the controlling interest in this country. President Nixon took two professions and turned their focus to a business model. What we now have is a for-profit health care system as well as a legal profession where many larger firms care more about their bottom line than justice!

It is obvious that many Americans think longingly about the good old days of individual freedom, economic prosperity, and family. However, the current environment, controlled by the quest for the dollar, has left many Americans struggling to achieve the American dream. The gap between a working-class income and the profits achieved by large corporations and the ultra-rich has become ridiculous. I guess if you believe that President Trump, who has surrounded himself with millionaires and billionaires, will make America great, then I have concerns for your dreams.

America needs policies that control the growth of mega corporations and ask the very rich to contribute to the well-being of the country that has made them wealthy. Pay needs to be improved to allow for a consistent standard of living. Health insurance should be overhauled to reflect the best models in other countries. Education, a foundation of our democracy, must be provided to all without being filled with political and religious mandates. School districts should have equality in funding regardless of their locations.

If we can achieve these few, (but politically complicated) goals, Americans will improve in the non-GNP indices as Americans again realize the value of family, a steady and adequate income, and a sense of belonging to a community that is not threatening, but welcoming.

Is It Time to Rethink Our Method of Democratic Governance?

This is NOT 1776!

Is It Time to Rethink Our Method of Democratic Governance?

This is NOT 1776!

Introduction

For many years I have been concerned about the gridlock in government created by “runaway” political dogmatism. I have also been concerned about the election of Presidents who receive the win through the electoral college, but do not have the support of most voting Americans. Our founding fathers believed in majority rule, and several of them (including Washington, Hamilton and John Adams) cautioned about allowing political parties to have too much power. The system created in the 18^th Century worked for many decades, but it has had its flaws. Today those flaws need to be addressed. The following is a proposal to change parts of the system that may be flawed.

The Electoral College—The Facts

Consider the electoral college and the issue of minority presidencies. There have been forty-six presidents, of which five presidents have been minority presidents—John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald J. Trump. A majority president is the candidate who gets the largest percentage of support from the electorate, not the candidate who gets over 50% of the vote. Each election of a minority president has an interesting story. The election in November 2024 may also produce a minority president.

The system as we know it was a compromise by our founding fathers in 1788. (Prior to 1788 the President was elected by the Congress.) The young nation was clearly a representative democratic republic. A modification of this concept was the compromise between giving the people the vote but keeping the actual election in the hands of electors. The unstated belief was that many voters did not have the knowledge to cast intelligent ballots. Instead, the better educated electors would select the president. Voters would cast ballots for a candidate, but the actual vote would go to the electors who pledged to vote for a specific candidate.

This flawed system has survived despite over 700 attempts to amend this part of the Constitution. Just four years ago, following the January 6 demonstration at the Capitol, a Gallop poll found that 61% of Americans favored abolishing the Electoral College. This raises the question:

Why should we abolish the Electoral College?

First, the Electoral College of the 21^st Century gives too much power to a few “swing states.” Over the years certain states have garnered the reputation of being either Republican or Democratic. For instance, California and Illinois are generally considered to be in the Democratic camp. Texas is seen as Republican. There are eleven states labeled as “swing” states, meaning the vote could go either Republican or Democratic.

A democracy says that each person has a vote. In America there are more than 330 million people. Of that number, 230 million are eligible to vote. The actual turnout has ranged from a low of just over 50% to a high of just over 80%. During the past two elections, turnout has been around 60%. That equates to around 138 million actual votes. Yet only 538 electors actually vote for the president. That is not a good ratio! Even Donald Trump has said, “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million vote and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win”

Why Should We Keep the Electoral College?

On the other hand, a popular vote has its problems. Some voters and areas of the country do not have an equal chance to be heard. There is a belief in a “tyranny of the majority.” There is some merit in the belief that farmers and factory workers might not be heard over the urban demands of those in metropolitan areas. For example, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, it is worth noting that she did not win the rural vote. Her popular vote was bolstered by urban areas on the east and west coasts. Perhaps electoral votes should be divided by the percentage of the popular vote that each candidate receives?

In an argument mentioned earlier, the founding fathers were wary of the electorate. They feared an uneducated and uninformed voter. The belief, as expressed by Alexander Hamilton, was that better educated electors would ensure that only qualified individuals would be elected President. Given the current presidential contest, some may question whether Hamilton’s belief is always true!

Congressional Reform

The other issue is a dysfunctional Congress. The current Congress has gotten very little accomplished, primarily due to partisan politics. The ‘party” is more important than the interest of the country. Or perhaps each party believes that only they have the right answer to what is good for the country. John Adams warned early leaders that political parties might one day be a hindrance to good government. Unfortunately, he was correct.

It doesn’t have to be that way. The government established by the founding fathers has stood the test of time. The answer to the gridlock is relatively simple. Each person elected to Congress needs to listen to others’ opinions regardless of party affiliation. A good debater understands both sides of an argument. When this understanding occurs, a middle ground is often discovered.

In researching this piece, I was surprised to learn that the House has been looking at reform for several years. And the Senate has actually enacted reforms. Although, they have not gone far enough to solve the problems. For example, in 1975, the Senate changed the rules on voting to end a filibuster from two-thirds to three-fifths. Later, the exempted judicial and executive branch nominees from filibusters. In the House, the seniority system on committee chairs was replaced by a majority caucus vote. In 2019 the House created a Select Committee on Modernization of Congress, co-chaired by a Republican and Democrat. The purpose of this committee was to bring Congress into the 21^st Century. The Committee mission was renewed in 2021, and the co-chairs established the “Fix Congress Caucus.” The Committee recommended over 200 reforms which have been adopted.

Despite the reforms the idea that Republican and Democrats are enemies has held sway over the past decade. Opposing members are viewed as combatants rather than colleagues. National problems are lost to party politics.

Derek Kilmer, a Democrat and co-chair of the committee, has proposed a way to improve rapport among House members. He has recommended a bipartisan retreat at the beginning of every Congressional session with mandatory attendance. In addition, he has suggested that all committee meetings start with a planning session so that members can begin to trust and respect each other. He hopes that it will allow members to get to know each other as people, not an enemy from some other party. Unfortunately, Representative Kilmer is retiring!

Kilmer’s proposed plan is perhaps impossible, as most recent House and Senate leaders seem to think their job is to keep the parties apart so that there is a clear distinction between goals. This is an important election strategy. Recent leadership seems to prove this point.

Conclusions

Both problems can be solved. However, the will of the people must be more forceful than it is today! Unfortunately, our founding father’s concern over the lack of an informed electorate is still an issue today. Many Americans either fail to take an interest in learning about political issues, or only listen to a very focused and small number of information sources. An amendment to the Constitution to change the Electoral College system is only possible when Americans vote for representation who want this to happen, and then casts ballots at state elections to support the amendment. The dysfunction in Congress should be viewed the same way. Americans need to recruit and elect people who share their values. Political parties shouldn’t be making the selections. This year’s election cycle is representative of voters focused on a small number of biased sources which are working to make their candidate your choice!

Thoughts from the Middle

It’s Not the Age, It’s the Character that Counts

Robert James Fischer

We all age differently. Some have arthritis, others can still play pickleball at 85. Age isn’t really a factor in politics. If cognitive abilities remain, other physical diminishments really are of little consequence. And even with slowed cognitive abilities, good decisions can be made. But, considering all the information that an older person has gathered, it sometimes takes extra time to retrieve specific information.

On the other hand, character is something that is well defined before the end of our teen years. People who do not develop accepted societal values will likely not develop them as they age. In practice, those people learn how to mask their weaknesses. They often become con artists or are involved in other non-socially unacceptable behavior. Moral people tend to continue to care for others. They use their strong societal values to improve society rather than looking to their own needs.

Why does this matter in the political arena? Over the years, history has shown that those who have served our country with policies that have improved life for our people have been persons with strong positive values— Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, J. Kennedy, Obama and Biden, to name only a few. On the other hand, some who have served did not possess the character to sacrifice their own well-being for our nation. They were more interested in serving their own interests—for example, Burr, A. Johnson, Harding, Agnew, Nixon, and now Trump. Thankfully, a much shorter list!

History does teach us lessons if we would only pay attention. Not that long ago the presidency of Richard Nixon taught a nation a hard lesson on personal greed. Many Americans are too young to remember the Watergate scandal and the treachery behind Nixon’s desire for power. There are many similarities between Tricky Dick and Donald Trump. America needs to understand that persons like Nixon and Trump may make grand statements about their love of America, but they are only using citizens to maintain power and stroke their own egos. As a recent pundit remarked. There are millions of Americans who are in need. They are looking for someone to lead them out of poverty. Person’s such as Nixon and Trump prey on this desire and promise a better way. They want your vote to maintain their own power and stroke their ego.

In the coming months Americans will need to decide whether or not character counts. History tells us that it does. In November don’t let the false belief that age is a problem cloud your judgement. Biden may be a few years older than Trump. But they are both old men! The real choice is about character. Who has shown a love of country and an ability to compromise? Remember that Biden was friends with John McCain! Who cares more about their own ego and maintaining power? Consider the fact check that Trump’s own cabinet and vice president don’t want him back in office.

The choice is clear!!