Trump issues executive order ending family separations
June 20, 2018
This event — June 20, 2018 — represents a fabulous ‘photo op’ for Trump, and it results in a Pyrrhic victory for oppressed and victimized mothers and their minor children who are fleeing horrific conditions in their homelands of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala -the so-called Northern Triangle.
Read between the lines of Trump’s Executive Order and you will find little change in the draconian American policy of abusing and torturing women and children.
Trump and his administration have embraced a tactical wholesale approach to focus, apprehend and detain the most vulnerable – and least dangerous – people who seek asylum in the U.S.
Trump has – and continues to – proclaim that “..most immigrant families and minors from Central America who arrive unlawfully at the border cannot be detained together or removed together – only released. These are crippling loopholes that cause family separation which we don’t want.”
Probably not true, and even if true, completely irrelevant.
Statistics tell us that: (1) Immigrants who come to United States seeking asylum from horrible conditions in their countries of origin are generally women with minor children who pose little to no criminal or other risk to the U.S.; (2) Immigrants who come to the U.S. seeking work to support families left behind in their country of origin are predominantly men who strive to make enough money to send for the rest of their family to bring them into a positive environment.
Yes, each of these scenarios illustrates a likely violation of current U.S. immigration laws.
However, let’s not lose sight that the foundation of immigration laws of the U.S. is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sometimes known as the McCarran–Walter Act. Yes, 1952.
Parts of that Act remain in place today. It has been amended several times and was modified substantially by the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. Yes, 1965.
No doubt, there exist a small percentage of people who illegally enter the U.S. with nefarious intent. It seems that most of these ‘bad actors’ do not travel with children; are not female; and do not enter over the southern border.
If Trump — and his band of complicit Republican cronies – really desire to improve our national security through better immigration strategy and policy, they need to focus on fact-based, root cause analysis, and to invest in solutions which utilize “evidence-based targeting,” an approach which uses objective data to focus limited resources toward those individuals who pose the highest risk of danger to the U.S.
Evidence-Based Targeting is a strategic approach which requires planning; careful research; and a blind approach to race, religion, gender, national origin or other irrelevant factors.
Yes, Mr. Trump, we are in lock-step with you on secure borders. We – even those of us who are not registered Republicans – demand secure borders and we want to have modern policies and procedures in place which keep bad actors out of the U.S.
That said, we need to ask you to stop acting as a bully, stop picking on defenseless women and children, and start focusing on Evidence-Based Targeting to help protect our domestic security.
And, concurrently, it would be really great if you could work with Congress to modernize that 1952 McCarran–Walter Act which probably made sense back then, but seems to need some tweaks to address the huge demographic changes which have occurred since then.
Please, Mr. Trump: Stop the puerile ‘Beavis & Butt-Head’ rhetoric and start acting like a leader.
The Art of the Deal Gone Bad
June 10, 2018
It seems wherever we look, Donald Trump’s appalling behavior sets a new and very low standard upon which to measure the 21st Century version of The Ugly American.
His most recent tweets about Canadian PM Trudeau which followed Trump’s rude early departure from the G-7 meeting are deplorable.
Then, he sent his thugs Kudlow and Navarro off to reinforce the message in harsh, scorched-earth fashion.
Said Navarro on Sunday, June 10, 2018: “All Justin Trudeau had to do was take the win. President Trump did the courtesy to Justin Trudeau to travel up to Quebec for that summit. He had other things, bigger things on his plate in Singapore. And what did Trudeau do? As soon as the plane took off from Canadian airspace, Trudeau stuck our president in the back. That will not stand.”
Trump did a courtesy? Hello? Red meat to the Trump base; An insult to everyone else who lives on Planet Earth.
Donald Trump said what Canada has “done to our dairy farm workers is a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And our farmers in Wisconsin and New York State are being put out of business, our dairy farmers.”
Trump has gone on to tell us that “Canada charges the U.S. a 270% tariff on Dairy Products! They didn’t tell you that, did they? Not fair to our farmers!”
No, they didn’t because it’s just not true. There is one specific dairy product which has ignited this Tempest in a Teapot, a product which exists in surplus due to overcapacity in the U.S. dairy industry.
The product at the center of the dispute is ultra-filtered milk, which is used to make cheese and yogurt.
It is not governed by any tariffs under NAFTA, because it essentially did not exist when NAFTA was originally negotiated. The U.S. dairy industry has been selling surplus ultra-filtered milk — duty-free — to Canadian processors. And that is part of the root problem for Canadian dairy farmers.
Never heard of ultra-filtered milk? Neither had I.
Ultra-filtered milk (sometimes called diafiltered milk) is generally a byproduct of butter production after the milk fat has been removed to provide the basic ingredient for butter.
It is a sub-classification of milk protein concentrate which is created by passing the remaining low- or no-fat milk under pressure through a thin, porous membrane to separate the components of milk according to their size. Ultra-filtration allows the smaller lactose, water, mineral, and vitamin molecules to pass through the membrane, while the larger protein molecules are retained and concentrated. The removal of water and lactose reduces the volume of milk, significantly lowering storage and transportation costs.
In 2016, the U.S. dairy industry sold about $133 Million of ultra-filtered milk to dairy product producers in Canada, a rounding error on the total trade transactions between the U.S. and Canada.
The federal U.S. Trade Representative reported a U.S. $12.5 Billion trade surplus for goods and services with Canada in 2016, exporting $320.1 Billion and importing $307.6 Billion. (The reported U.S. surplus was $8.4 Billion in 2017).
Meanwhile, the man who affirmed that he would faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and would — to the best of his ability — preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States has given us clear and irrefutable evidence that his abilities are deficient, inadequate, unacceptable, inferior and dreadful. Or, perhaps he is an untruthful traitor.
Either way, he has put our entire world in danger of a real world war.
Donald Trump and Insider Trading
May 31, 2018
Martha Stewart served prison time for a conviction on insider trading.
There is a cadre of Trump Insiders who are privy to Mr. Trump’s rants which roil the financial markets, some of whom are getting rich off of their advance information of what he will say or do.
Donald Trump’s frequently irrational, generally unpredictable — and often arbitrary and capricious — tweets, pronouncements and actions have proven to significantly move financial markets, often creating a whipsaw effect.
Today – May 31, 2018 – Mr. Trump allowed tariffs to be enacted on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, Mexico and the E.U. on the grounds that such materials are being imported into the United States “in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”
There is no credible evidence that steel and/or aluminum imported into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and/or the E.U. pose any threat to the national security of the U.S. In fact, there is no credible evidence that such imports pose any threat to the U.S. domestic economy.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s action today to impose tariffs on imports from our closest allies was apparently not expected in the financial markets, leading to a 1% drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
We now have several data points relating to financial market response to irrational actions by President Trump which clearly represent huge arbitrage opportunities for Trump insiders.
The ‘out-of-right-field’ announcement in early March 2018 by Mr. Trump that the U.S. would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports precipitated an almost immediate 500 point drop in the DJI.
It’s bad enough that Trump’s actions pose a tremendous risk to the entire U.S. society and our economy.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) needs to reign in this illegal behavior by Mr. Trump, and to charge those insiders who are illegally profiting in the financial markets from advance knowledge of what sort of disruptive, arbitrary and capricious pronouncements President Trump will make in the near term.
Hillary is her own worst enemy
May 24, 2018
Hillary Clinton has consistently refused to use alternative facts to describe her own actions and behavior. She pays her bills. She has never gone bankrupt. She stayed with Bill despite some bumps in the road. She is the mother of an extraordinary emerging world leader.
Above all, Hillary does not dwell on the past. She learns from the past, and she offers productive solutions for the future.
And, she is a very smart, highly-educated, incredibly experienced and assertive female who represents the very essence of the threat described in Spencer Johnson’s book, “Who Moved My Cheese?”
Donald Trump built his reputation – and his empire — on his larger-than-life persona as the ‘Great White Leader’. He wants the world to see him as ‘a man’s man’ who will lead the loyal believers back to 1957 when America reached its apogee.
Donald wants the world to believe he is both clairvoyant and razor-focused on his vision of restoring the world to his vision of how it ought to be.
Yet, Trump’s sense of self-worth is continually at risk. When Trump feels imbalanced, he reacts impulsively and defensively, constructing a self-justifying story that doesn’t depend on facts and always directs the blame to others.
A consensus of psychiatrists and psychologists have determined that Trump’s mental instability and pattern of violence –bullying words, aggressive actions and denials of truth — are dangerous and have already caused unprecedented anxiety and stress across the nation.
Meanwhile, although Hillary is her own worst enemy, Trump is the greatest threat to the viable and productive future of the U.S. – and the entire world – that we have seen since the 1940’s.
America’s Teachers
April 12, 2018
America’s teachers have notoriously been underpaid relative to their peer group. The excuses include, (a) Flexibility; (b) Summers off; (c) a profession dominated by women (and we all know that women earn about 80% of what men earn for comparable experience in similar jobs).
If I were a young person approaching college graduation, I might look at starting salary, and projections for advancement over the course of my career.
If I did that, teaching would not likely be on my list of job choices.
According to a study published by US News and World Report looking at the best jobs for 2018 college graduates, there are dozens of opportunities which absolutely blow away starting salaries for teachers, which seem to be in the $38k range.
One random example is an entry level Financial Analyst in the area of investment banking, private banking and the securities industry. The highest paid in the financial analyst profession work in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, New York City, and San Luis Obispo, California. The Stamford /Bridgeport, CT area also pays well, as does the city of Salem, Oregon.
San Francisco $141,840
New York City $133,130
San Luis Obispo, CA $120,750
Bridgeport (Stamford), CT $120,520
Salem, Oregon $120,150
These are median starting salaries for newly minted graduates. What’s most egregious about this?
On a really good day, financial analysts provide zero economic value-added to our overall economy and society; on a bad day, they can cause catastrophic damage. Financial analysts produce no tangible outputs; they endeavor to discover and exploit financial opportunities to benefit their firm and its clients at the expense of other individuals.
Teachers bring value every day, yet they are generally under-respected and certainly, under-compensated. Teachers are the mechanism by which we build future intellectual capital to benefit future generations in and across the U.S.
Some may argue that this example attempts to pit Capitalism against Socialism: Nice try on that one!
Pure capitalism relies on the premise that private capital, invested strategically, adds value to the overall economy and society, while providing a fair and reasonable profit to the capitalist(s).
Pure socialism requires a government controlled population of workers to both plan and operate the system; true socialism requires government control of all economic as well as political and public affairs.
By levying fair and reasonable income taxes on excess or suspicious profits, a nation is able to re-invest those taxes into strategic and forward-focused programs and initiatives, such things as: bridges; tunnels; airports; rail rapid transit; healthcare research and innovations; and public education – including teacher quality and teacher compensation.
Teachers need to re-focus their compensation and resource allocation argument toward pure economics.
It strikes me that the message needs to be: “High quality, well-compensated teachers who are provided with appropriate and needed classroom resources help to shape and create the next generation of high-performance, highly motivated and productive citizens our nation will need to ensure future economic and political success.
There is no substitute for a ready and reliable supply of intellectual capital waiting in the wings to take charge in the coming decades.”
Paul Ryan Announces Retirement
April 11, 2018
April, 11, 2018: Paul Ryan announced his plan to retire from Congress in January 2019, at the end of his current term, and further stated that he will not run for re-election.
Ryan said that he is proud of the accomplishments which occurred during his 20 years of service in Congress, although he regrets that ‘they were unable to achieve Entitlement Reform’ during his tenure in office. Despite his vocal regrets, he is planning to leave Washington in January 2019 with some of the most generous and egregious entitlements remaining in the U.S.
It has been said that Ryan’s remaining goal (‘Entitlement Reform’) is razor focused on cutting federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs as a way to temper extraordinary increases in the federal deficit.
These increases in the deficit were willfully enacted as a component of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a result of rare, curious, wild and crazy tax cuts combined with wild and crazy spending increases, at a point in our economic cycle which begs for caution and restraint.
Paul Ryan said that he is extremely pleased to have played a significant role in the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which he considers to be a highlight of his service in Washington.
Background on Jobs:
Since 2010, the U.S. economy has supported the creation of almost 17.5 Million jobs, leading to a November 2017 unemployment rate of 4.1%, a 17-year low. (Perspective: Unemployment reached 15% toward the end of 2009; many economists agree that “full-employment” occurs when the unemployment rate is at 5% or lower.)
Hundreds of U.S companies have been looking to hire workers for skilled positions to help them meet growing demand for their products and services. These jobs are often called “family wage jobs” because they provide compensation and benefits sufficient to support a family in the local economy.
The number of job openings in the U.S. (October 2017) remained at the 6 Million level, marginally lower than at the end of 2016. (Perspective: When the Great Recession was at its worst in 2009, job openings fell to 2.2 million, an all-time low.)
Average hourly earnings had risen just 2.5% over the 12 month period ending in October 2017, helping to support the theory that a significant skills gap continues to impede hiring for family wage jobs which typically require advanced reading, math and computer skills.
In addition to the dilemma of finding skilled workers in shrinking regional labor market pools (“skills gap”), hiring managers and economic development experts also report obstacles cited by job seekers such as: transportation (including long commutes); day care/child care; and noncompetitive wage rates.
Despite these documented facts, Paul Ryan, many members of Congress and President Trump actively and enthusiastically supported “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” of 2017, telling us – among other things, “Our legislation is focused entirely on growing our economy, bringing jobs back to our local communities, increasing paychecks for our workers…”
At a point in time when we had apparently reached full employment; when some 6 Million higher-skilled, family wage jobs were unfilled, at least 2 questions remained unanswered:
– Other than engaging in war, or the innovative programs launched in the 1930’s (CCC, WPA, etc.), has the federal government ever succeeded in an effort to create sustainable private sector employment?
– If new family wage jobs are created, who would be available to fill them?
Background on the tax side:
When George W. Bush (POTUS 43) took office in January 2001, he inherited a federal budget from his predecessor.
Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) 9/30/2001 resulted in revenues of $2.39 Trillion and expenditures of $2.23 Trillion, resulting in a budget surplus of $0.15 Trillion. FYE 2001 federal debt held by the public was $3.34 Trillion, representing 31.7% of GDP.
Fast forward to his final full year in office (FYE 9/30/08), Bush watched over a federal budget which included revenues of $2.52 Trillion and expenditures of $2.98 Trillion.
That left a FYE deficit of $458.6 Billion, which (combined with prior deficit spending) resulted in total federal debt of $9.99 Trillion at FYE (9/30/08), representing 67.7% of GDP.
The federal budget for FY 2009 was developed by then-president Bush, submitted to Congress, and inherited by Obama (POTUS 44). The actual federal revenues for FY 2009 were $2.10 Trillion; expenditures were $3.52 Trillion. That left a 2009 FYE deficit of $1.41 Trillion, which (combined with prior deficit spending) resulted in total federal debt of $11.88 Trillion at FYE (9/30/09), representing 82.4% of GDP.
Most reasonable people will agree that a newly elected President who inherits a spending plan from his predecessor should not be given credit for its success or failure.
POTUS 44 (Obama) presided over 7 years of steady economic growth in the U.S., and under his watch, the close of FY 2017 budget reflects an increase of total federal debt to $14.67 Trillion, which was a numerical increase, but which represented a relative decrease to 76.3% of GDP.
Not great, but a clear improvement over what Obama inherited from Bush.
Some economists have suggested a 60% ceiling for publicly held debt vs. GDP which seems to make sense.
Although policies enacted during the Obama administration did reduce the ratio for 82% to 76%, we have a long way to go.
The correct way to address this situation is through tax policy reform designed to create balanced federal budgets, focused on reducing federal deficits.
That is not what our Congress has approved, and what President Trump signed into law just prior to Christmas 2017.
Most recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (4/10/2018) estimates that the combined effect of the 2017 tax cuts and the March 2018 budget-busting spending bill is sending the annual federal deficit toward the $1 Trillion mark in 2019.
The CBO report says our nation’s current $21 Trillion debt would spike to more than $33 Trillion in 10 years, with debt held by investors spiking to levels that would come close to equaling the size of the economy, reaching levels that many economists fear could spark a debt crisis.
CBO says economic growth from the tax cuts will add 0.7 percent on average to the nation’s economic output over the coming decade. Those effects will only partially offset the deficit cost of the tax cuts.
The administration had promised the cuts would pay for themselves.
Best I can see, only Robert Reich has focused on the Real Facts, and who would listen to a guy like Reich, who has degrees from Yale, Oxford, Dartmouth — clearly a left-wing Liberal Snowflake….
As interim Pres. Trump tweeted today, “We are with you, Paul!”
Trump’s Accidental Legacy
April 1, 2018
A half century ago, the Baby Boomer generation entered adulthood with plenty of energy and commitment to help make our world safer and better. As they set forth to establish families of their own, careers and all of the rest, they faced some unexpected head winds. The rapidity of technological change combined with growing economic and social divides put extraordinary pressure on these young families, and they became self-absorbed.
The direct socioeconomic impacts of American suburbanization didn’t really begin to take hold until the 1970’s. The resulting economic and racial segregation shielded the next generation(s) of middle class young people growing up in suburbia, away from their less affluent peers who were left behind in urban neighborhoods. They lost touch with each other, not able to see common ground.
Somehow, things have begun to change for the positive.
Maybe Trump’s legacy will be as the unconscious ‘uniter’ of the people of good will — Americans who reject corruption, self-dealing and bullying — who regardless of hair color, height, weight, economics, gender, race, skin tone, religion, sexual orientation, learning and/or mobility differences, and many more… — refuse to participate in the Trump Swamp.
This emerging generation, evidenced by the Parkland students, are showing signs of unity under a new paradigm of The American Dream, where the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are honestly and equitably recognized and applied.
To date, Trump has certainly distinguished himself as the polar opposite of genuine American values.
While it’s still too early to celebrate any victories, I am betting on the young people who have taken an active role in the March For Our Lives movement — and the millions of their supporters (average age 48!) — to continue to energize and inspire the vast majority of U.S. citizens and residents who want to see common sense prevail.
Common Sense Legislation?
March 12, 2018
This Old Walrus just doesn’t get it. We don’t rely on the Mattachine Society to write legislation on sodomy with young boys. We don’t (usually) weigh in with the Russian Mafia to write our laws on money laundering. So, why is it that the NRA has become the singular expert – the ‘Go-to People’ – for all issues concerning firearms?
Over the past decade, or so, we’ve had enough mass murders in the U.S. to spot some common ingredients: (a) Perpetrator is an under-25 white male; (b) He is angry, isolated and/or socially challenged (often described in retrospect as ‘mentally disturbed’); and (c) The weapon of choice is an AR-15 (or equal), accompanied by high-capacity magazines.
Young men mature physically much faster than they mature mentally and emotionally. A typical 18 to 20 Y.O. male physically looks like an adult, but just hasn’t attained the emotional and mental maturity that post-25 year old adults generally possess.
There is a ton of research which supports the notion that changes in cognitive abilities occurring in males between ages 18 and 25 are essentially a continued process of brain development that start during puberty. At age 18, a young man is roughly halfway through the entire stage of development. The prefrontal cortex doesn’t have nearly the functional capacity at age 18 as it does at age 25.
It is unfortunate that Congress passed legislation in 1996 which effectively precludes the CDC from conducting research on the causes of gun violence (the Dickey Amendment).
There is some colloquial evidence that people who act out their Rambo fantasies are angry, isolated and/or socially challenged, and there may be a preventable linkage between male brain development and assault weapons, but until qualitative research is conducted, we really won’t know.
Meanwhile, there seem to be a couple of simple interventions which we could enact tomorrow that would put this issue on ‘pause’ until some qualitative research can be conducted:
- Ban the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic military-style assault weapons in the U.S.;
- Ban the manufacture, sale or possession of magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and outlaw devices like bump stocks that make weapons more deadly;
- Institute universal background checks and close loopholes that let too many people slip through the cracks and purchase firearms despite being a threat to themselves or others;
- No weapons for suspected terrorists, domestic abusers, or individuals convicted of hate crimes;
- Impose a three-day waiting period for the purchase of all firearms, and raise the minimum age for buying those weapons to 21;
- Institute a Gun Violence Restraining Order that allows law enforcement to confiscate weapons from individuals who are deemed dangerous to themselves or others.
These are common-sense solutions to help reduce gun violence in all communities across the U.S. – including accidents, suicides, domestic violence, mass shootings, and acts of terrorism. Most of these reforms are supported by a majority of Americans – not just Democrats or Republicans, but ALL Americans.
And, once we have obtained high-quality qualitative research on the causes of gun violence, our elected officials will be in a much better position to adapt and/or modify these interim interventions to reflect data-driven conclusions on the causes of gun violence in the U.S.
What are we waiting for?
AR-15 & Assault Weapons: Did You Know?
February 19, 2018
Public calls to action for our Congress to ban ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’ (a.k.a. ’semiautomatic military style weapons’) are nothing new.
Way back in 1989, a known criminal bearing a Chinese-made AK-47 rifle shot and killed five schoolchildren and wounded 32 others on the grounds of an elementary school in Stockton, CA. Following this incident, President George H. W. Bush signed an executive order (the Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle Ban) banning importation of assault weapons.
Several other massacres occurred in following years. In October 1991, an unemployed drifter who had been discharged for cause from the U.S. Merchant Marine drove his pickup truck through the window at a cafeteria in Killeen, TX. He jumped out with 2 semi-automatic pistols with high capacity magazines, opened fire, shot and killed 23 people, and wounded 27 others. After several years of political posturing, the Texas State Rifle Association convinced legislators to follow the ‘good guy with a gun’ model, and in 1995, then Texas Governor George W. Bush signed a concealed carry law, opening Texas up to thousands of armed citizens walking the streets.
An incident on July 1, 1993 in San Francisco is often cited as the tipping point for introduction of legislation by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) intended to respond to public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon”, as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a “large capacity ammunition feeding device”.
In the San Francisco massacre, the shooter – wielding modified semiautomatic pistols equipped with high-capacity magazines — killed eight people and wounded six.
In November 1993, Feinstein’s proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. By the time it worked its way through the legislative process and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the NRA and other gun industry advocates managed to get the law watered down, and to include a sunset provision on the proposed ban on ‘assault weapons’ to expire after 10 years.
Titled the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (a.k.a. Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994)), it did ban semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The legislation passed in September 1994 with a sunset provision for the assault weapon ban section. The law expired on September 13, 2004.
That Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semiautomatic assault weapons” as defined by the Act. Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. The Act also prohibited the transfer and possession of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” — defined as “any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition”.
My theory is that if the 1994 law was not allowed to expire, most – if not all – of the recent mass shootings in the U.S. would never have occurred. Best I can tell, each and every perpetrator involved in one of these massacres has had a seriously aberrant personality, mental illness or other anti-social or delusional characteristics.
Just imagine if there were no ‘Rambo-style’ weapons available for these folks to acquire – legally or on the black market. Perhaps they would have taken out their frustrations and aggression through a different channel?
Let’s double down and demand that Congress update, strengthen and reauthorize the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, this time with no sunset provision.
Dianne Feinstein: We are counting on you!
Elected Officials
July 10, 2012
Back in 1776, our founding fathers felt that it was a good idea to have elected officials represent their constituents to do “the work of the people”.
There have been a number of transformational changes which have occurred over the last 236 years in our society, our economy and in technology.
Yet, we have not really stopped for a strategic planning session to see if our Federal (State & Local) governments are structured to meet the demands and needs of our current global society.
Is anyone else thinking that it might be time for some re-engineering in how our public sector is configured to give us optimum results at the most reasonable cost?
walrus51 