These are going to be the colors for my brother's forthcoming wedding (Congratulations, James!), but that isn't why I'm sharing them tonight.  After looking over what was said at the State of the Union Address last night, it has me thinking about what I think should happen.  Here's my tri-color strategy for improving America with our current government.

White:  We start with a blank slate, taking all the bills pending off the table as America neither wants nor can afford them.  The issues remain salient, but anything that will be passed will require real communication involving both parties as well as the people themselves.  Call it a white flag of truce or surrender, but there is something better to be found, and I know this Congress lacks the resolve now to carry forward with anything discussed previously.

Green:  People need more green in their pockets, and since we have an administration that is committed to being involved, why not involve one of their favorite items:  green technologies.  Use green technologies to upgrade the national infrastructure, revitalize our industry, and create both blue collar and white collar jobs so people can have some green in their pocket.  Wall Street does not create wealth.  Jobs, small businesses, and factories do.

Black:  After spending to create jobs, focus on getting this nation into the black.  Now that the debt ceiling is about to rise to $14.1 trillion dollars, we absolutely must get this down or America will be bankrupt.  This is not a partisan issue; it is a national security issue.  Cut all other spending and allocate toward debt reduction.

This isn't what I think will happen, but if Congress and the President had vision and a willingness to work together for the good of America, this is the best I can imagine they could accomplish together.
 
 
For those who haven't already heard, there was a landmark decision reached today by the United States Supreme Court in the case Citizens United v. FEC.  What was being contested was whether or not corporations, unions, and other entities would be permitted to spend money in support or opposition of a given candidate and at what time.  After McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, limits had been placed upon this type of political speech reinforcing a precendent going back to the Austin case from the late seventies.  The decision made today by a 5-4 majority essentially tears down these provisions and allows these actors to make such political statements as they desire.

I find myself very conflicted about this.  It is a ruling that I think is both correct in fact, but terrible in practice for what it will mean.  The First Amendment clearly guarantees freedom of speech in political matters, and to suggest that any entity be deprived that right seems injurious to the public will.  I understand and agree with that logic.  However, I also see that making this decision will have the functional impact of making our system even more afloat with money than it already has been.

Starting with the 2010 midterm elections, it is now inevitable that you will see corporations spending millions of dollars nationwide in their own campaigns to defeat opponents of their policies.  While these contributions will not be made to the candidates directly, it is frightfully easy to imagine how candidates could become surrogates for the forces seeking their retention or removal.

When we have a government spending trillions of dollars, investments of millions will be smart and easy for corporate donors, but impossible for individuals to match.  Even the most vigorous of campaigns cannot compete on an individual basis with this spending, and so our decisions will be invariably shaped by who spends most, not who is most right.  This is a consequence of free speech, and yet, when the airwaves are drowned out by the attack ads, I wonder how free speech has become if it must always be paid for so dearly.

While I agree with the ruling, I think this stresses the need for reform to get money out of politics.  Lawmakers should come together, for the protection of themselves and this republic, and institute fair rules for campaigns that end these ludicrous displays where we spend billions bashing each other.  I look at the English system as an example.  Everyone who can collect enough signatures is on the ballot; there are publicly aired debates, a campaign of substance, and it is all finished within six weeks.

I want people talking about ideas, and want to hear from candidates themselves.  I think most Americans feel likewise.  I hope that someone, somewhere, shows a willingness to give us that.  If not, I fear terribly, as those interests that can buy elections, I seriously doubt will be willing to stop at that point.  Be they left or right, having money in these quantities is not healthy for America.
 
 
One thing that you learn very quickly in politics is that there is always an us and a them.  Depending upon where you are, your team members change, but that there is presented an irrevocable split is inevitable.  We love things where they hate things.  We're for the good where they are for corruption.  We are right; they are wrong.

Needless to say, if you're someone more concerned with results than insults this probably is not the most effective way to accomplish things.  As I have the opportunity to talk to more people, I find that this is one of the many reasons why people stopped listening to politics and simply walked away.

If you listen to candidate stump speeches, you'll see this very easily.  There are certain catch phrases and groups that you're allowed to villify.  They think this, so they are bad.  That doesn't work for me; I like to understand why people think what they think, and then I find it much easier to talk to them about what I think and why I think it.  Respect and dignity, two simple values lacking from our discourse.

As I get involved with local politics, nowhere do I find this division more poignant than in the contest between business and labor.  The irony of it is that they both like attacking each other for the same basic offense.  Business gets angry with labor when they want better pay and benefits because their profit margin gets cut.  Conversely, labor gets mad when business is making money and their cut isn't large enough.  So, they attack one another and ask government to play referee.

The truth is if they looked past the rhetoric, they would see an opportunity.  A business that treats its workers well will have loyalty, higher productivity, and more commitment.  These days, since many employees are shareholders in their company anyway, there has never been more incentive to have shared success.  The same applies in reverse.  Unions should know that if a business grows and expands that there will be more opportunities to bring in more workers and promote from within.  If instead of asking government to pick a favorite they could work together, they would see that the challenge isn't between them, but between the companies without.

This is a lesson Pittsburgh desperately needs to learn, and I believe it has begun to do so.  The fight of the future isn't between labor and business, but between our businesses and those in other places in this nation and the world.  We need to stop attacking one another, and see there is a way forward where everyone benefits.  Smarter government would help.  Cut regulation, taxation, and red tape for business, but with the understanding that the employees will benefit also.  There will be more money, more room for expansion, and more to go around.

Balance is the key, and a willingness to understand that us and them is something different today.  Us is all of us, because we cannot have economic renewal if no one can even afford to purchase the products we create.
 
 
Sometimes I feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole, where everything is upside down and nothing makes sense.

I firmly believe in the idea that solutions to issues should be local and that acting thusly would create not just smaller, but more efficient government.  While I think that can be the case, what I am learning bit by bit is that, in fact, the opposite is often true.  It shouldn't surprise me; it makes sense that corruption would be easier to create when everyone knows each other.

We often rant about the size and scope of the federal government, but I learned an amazing fact today.  Taken in sum, the local and state governments in our nation would dwarf the size of the feds in terms of both numbers employed and expenditure.

Take Allegheny County.  I know their budget was in the $770 million range.  Plus, the City of Pittsburgh, plus the municipalities, plus the authorities, plus the school districts.  Add all these up and you'd have several billion dollars, spread across numerous governments that we barely know and most often ignore.  That scares me.

I'm learning how it works and two things strike me.  One, it will be much harder to reform things locally than it would be to fix DC.  Two, it is more important than that, for as much as I care about the national issues, the process is broken in our own backyard.  Contracts and candidates.  Authorities you never hear about.  And no one even knows what to ask.

To take on the system, I think you might have to expose it all.  You would make many enemies and few friends, but you would have the respect of people who wanted to know what was real.  I hope there are enough who feel that way, like I do.

For now, I will have to leave this as abstract as possible because I cannot explain all the relationships, and I am trying to understand myself.  I can tell you one thing:  The Point will be a gamechanger.
 
 
Last night, I was at a meeting with a number of progressives.  Unlike many of the people whom I know, I try to actively consider viewpoints that run counter to my own, and am proud to have friends who disagree vigorously with me.  Debate and discussion is such an important part of the political process, and though I usually find myself arguing, I find myself learning more for the conversations that I have.

What I am learning that for as much dissatisfaction as exists on the right, the left is equally displeased with how things are going in Washington.  I talked to people who were angry about a President who ran a campaign promising transparency, ending a war, and helping the economy, and who saw either no results or outright lies.  They were angry, and much as conservatives felt betrayed by some Republicans, they were progressives who felt betrayed by the Democrats.

It leads me to wonder who represents the people.  It has almost become such that the political class just represents itself and the donors who perpetuate their success.  While money has always bought influence, it is hard to find any time where it was so blatant, unapologetic, and cynical as today.  We need reform.

Whatever your views, we need people to step up who are not part of the process.  I believe this can only succeed if we begin taking power back for ourselves as citizens.  Huge government allows for huge corruption, and whether you believe the state should be larger or smaller, I think everyone can agree that when politicians have to actually face and know their constituents, they will be held more accountable.

Decentralization of power is becoming ever more important in my mind, and I'm determined to help wherever I can to make this happen.
 
 
I read an interesting article in the Financial Times today talking about the new role of America in the world.  Countries that are nominal democracies such as India and Brazil gladly line up with China as partners, looking for something different than they once did.  I am not so naive to believe international politics is about anything more than power, but when you look at the geopolitical situation, and bring it back home, you have to wonder.

America has spent much blood and treasure in the world.  Some of the motives were pure, some were not.  But in sum, for all the missteps, we created a world where the idea of freedom was possible and desired.  We have an idea where people would prosper in liberty rather than toil under authority.  Even now, we find that battle happens daily under our own shores as we have a government that seems more concerned with the interests of the few rather than the benefit of the many.  But, I ask now, what would we become as Americans?

I have a vision of a nation that finds prosperity through liberty.  Democracy means nothing where people don't have the chance to think and decide things on their own freely.  We have celebrated that ideal for too long, not recognizing that democracy without the idea of individual freedom is just a rubber stamp for mob rule.  I am not claiming any country is that, but I also know democracy alone will not make the world safer or better.

We live in a dangerous world, and to pretend otherwise is folly.  America, for our benefit, security, and our own people must look to its own.  That we depend on other nations for so much of our resources and industry is a threat to our security.  Moreover, it is foolish.  We have people here who want to work, who are industrious and willing, and ample natural resources to produce for all our needs and be the great traders of the world.  What we lack is leadership that shows the vision how we can take those resources, take our very best beliefs, and build a future both prosperous and just.

It is not the responsibility of one man, one party, one government, or one state to do this.  Instead, I think of this as our mission to share together, where we can find and create the America of our imagination.  There is no other place in the world that can do this, or desires to do this.  They would have wealth, but what about justice?  They would equality, but what about plenty?  What about the individual?

It is this conflict that will define this decade, and this century.  Will humanity chart a course whereby we choose to become a social organism, sublimating our desires and skills to some larger created purpose by a fortunate elite?  Or, will we choose freedom, ushering in an era where the innovations we create serve to allow each man, woman, and child, a chance to better their lives?

The world seems to be making their choice.  We must begin making ours.  Liberty or security?