How we got here, and how to keep it going. The long view.

       Prior to the Baby Boom, America was much like any other civilized country.  We had multiple generations living under one roof, many industrialists making the lion's share of the money, and the working poor staying that way.  Something changed with the second world war though.

       The Deaths

       So in looking at the lovely chart compiled by our friends at Wikipedia, you will note some statistical oddities.  First, that Allied civilian deaths far outstrip military ones.  That says something for how the Axis fought.  Next, you will see that Axis military deaths far exceeded civilian ones.  That says something about how we fought.

       But this is all academic to the point.  Due to our remote location, (relative to Europe) and our late entry to the war, and frankly our technological advantage, we lost relatively few people.  The numbers to reference to see this are the deaths as a percentage of the country's 1939 population.  Of all the major powers in the world, we lost the lowest percentage of our population.

       This had an immediate impact on our country.  (On a  historic timeline).  The low number of American civilian deaths, compared to the rest of the world players, meant that when the post-war world needed goods manufactured, we were the only ones left who could do the job.  When the needs of the world outpaced our workforce, we effectively doubled it, by re-adding women.  (They got a taste of the working world during the war and apparently enjoyed it)

       Suddenly, (in historic terms), every generation was living separate from each other, there was the option for both partners to work, and a relatively high amount of wealth for working-class families, compared with the rest of the world.  So in historic terms, what our grandparents, parents, and ourselves experienced was a brief period of unusually high prosperity.

       WWII eliminated the competition, essentially.  While I would not advocate the same method of doing this today; this is what we need to do, as a country.  How do we put ourselves ahead?  Unlike the mid-east we do not have a monopoly on a scarce good.  Unlike China and India, we do not have so many laborers that it is cheaper to hand build, as opposed to automation.  (Also we mostly enforce our environmental laws...)  Our advantage is our inventiveness,  When you take in all the ideas of the world, and put them together in one place, it is a natural fit.  Yet, we are not the clear-cut technology leaders that we should be.

       So here is my suggestion.  The President (Obama as of the writing of this article) has recently suggested that community college be "Free".  Again, that word is misused, but I have been shouting that same idea at anyone who can hear (and writing it down for those who can't) for decades.  I would not limit this to community college, though.  But there is one single condition...

       The only taxpayer funded post secondary schooling you could get, would be things that benefit the country.  (I know, that sounds socialist, but hear me out).  No one is saying you can't get that degree in underwater basket-weaving, you just have to pay your own way.  If you want Joe and Jane taxpayer to foot the bill, you need to pick a field in which there is either an essential need, or one that would improve the competitiveness of America, in the international market.

       This would eliminate the need for protectionist policies, as it would draw business here.  It would also provide a benefit to taxpayers.  (unlike most government programs).  Even those who can't, or who choose not to, go to college would benefit, as the available jobs would be better, due to the influx of manufacturing, and technology.

     

Despotism and you

       By now you have either watched, heard, heard clips of, or analysis of, or read the transcript of , the President's State of the Union address.  I will not address here the finer points of it.  Nor will I list the parts I disagree, or agree with.  I am using this space to point out something that should scare the hell out of you.

       The President of the United States of America is charged with, and sworn to, upholding our laws.  The backbone of our republic, is that our elected officials will voice our wishes, and vote them into law, in congress.  For good or ill, congress is the vox populi.  So it is important to understand that the voice of congress, is the voice of the people.  Maybe not each individual's voice, but as a people.

"America does not stand still, and neither will I, so wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."

-President Obama-

(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address-full-text/)

       At the outset this sounds good.  Sounds like a man fed up with congressional inaction, and honestly, who isn't?  But who is he to say what will or will not expand opportunity?  Also, when  a President uses an executive order, it is typically for something like: pardoning someone, protecting a marsh, or getting something done in an emergency, not setting policy.

       Now I have seen it quoted that this President has used fewer executive orders than any in recent history.  I don't doubt that.  But when he says he intends to bypass the due process of law, on things that require it, such as economic policy, we are going down the wrong path as a country if we do not challenge him on that.

       So when our President says that this will be a year of action, with or without congresses' consent; when he says that he will use executive orders, and any other means at his disposal to get things done, even if congress does not cooperate; when he makes it clear that he knows better than the people of this country what is best for the people of this country; what separates him from a despot?

Hopefully this was just the grandstanding of a lame duck, wanting to make things better.  Hopefully these were the words of a frustrated man who realizes he doesn't have the time left in office to do the things he wanted to do.  Hopefully he was merely angry at not just the Republicans who have not cooperated, but also his own party which failed to support him on many issues.  But that is really my point.  When your own party does not get behind you, you need to consider that you may be wrong.

When the President attempts to enact policy, without congressional approval, should that carry the full weight of law?  That is not an executive order.  That is a Royal Decree.