Fair Fouls

The Administration of the New Mexico State Fair, the Governor's Office and the Downs at Albuquerque made a grand mistake in the way they agreed to present a request for proposals (RFP) in 2011 for a new 25-year lease to own and operate a Racino at Expo New Mexico.

First, 30 days is just too little time to create a creative, thorough and thoughtful proposal of such complexity and duration. 60 to 90 days would have made much more sense.

Second, the Downs is intimately embedded in the culture of the Fairgrounds, especially the horse business which occupies a significant chunk of the Fairgrounds. Regardless of the change in the Governor's office in 2012 and the concomitant change in the General Manager's office at the State Fair, the culture of the horsemen hasn't changed. But the Downs logically shuffled their management to look much more Republican in the face of the state's Republican leadership and their notoriously highly politicized practices.

Third, the Downs has prepared sophisticated proposals over the past several years of how they would rearrange the Racino to better fit modern gambling with failing horse racing. So they have always been well prepared to deliver a new proposal at a moment's notice.

Where does that leave Laguna Development? They were dealt a weak hand.

This set of circumstances leaves the Interim General Manager who has to put on another Fair in two months in a weak economy and a lean staff, in a highly stressful position. I don't blame him, unless he is a complete political hack. Never met him. Probably never will. Hope he puts on a good Fair in 2012.

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

Frugal Apartheid?

The Tea Party Right Wing Press rails against “Green”building and infill development as tools for the Rich to conspire to oppress the Poor. Their mistake is not that Green building is more economical to own and operate than conventional construction, but the assumption that there is a upper-class bias and conspiracy to hurt the poor and working families in Albuquerque by "gentrification" under the guise of "green construction." Developers build in a regulated market and serve those who buy. Global climate change threatens the rich and poor alike in the desert Southwest. We need to change the rules of the market, empower the poor and work together to reduce our “ecological footprint” to create a greener, more frugal and more sustainable city. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we can hang together or we can hang alone.

The self-proclaimed defenders of the poor point out the systemic failures of conventional land development for working families in Albuquerque – they drive “jalopies” to their affordable houses on the suburban fringe of the city, far from their jobs across town or they live in old decaying houses in old decaying neighborhoods that are "ripe for redevelopment.". And the poor have to shop at cheap warehouse stores to live. “Drive‘till you qualify” is the formula today. But it costs a lot to drive every day to a low-wage job and to shop the cheap big boxes, and the price is rising. These are not problems caused by any “urbanism”new or old, but by the conventional suburban sprawl of Albuquerque and other post-War cities. If we talked about the total cost of housing and driving in the same breath, we could create a new city of opportunity. The Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago, www.cnt.org has developed such a formula.

In every American city today, there is a range of housing from 5-acre ranchitos to 1/10-acre townhouses and apartments. Even with that range across Albuquerque, we need to add more housing opportunities for ourselves, our children and our parents. No one can afford every house on the market. Along with McMansions and subsidized, 3-bedroom apartments for poor families, we need more small accessory apartments (for our mothers-in-law and children), new townhouses, new flats (aka condos) and new casitas for more households to enjoy the opportunity of convenience and even home ownership in a growing city with rising land values and growing wealth.

We shouldn’t sneer at the success of yuppies and empty-nesters and others who can afford to live Downtown or in EDo or Nob Hill and ride their bikes to buy a latte. Not everyone wants to live there with limited parking and too manytouristas. Some buyers want a 1-acre estate in Los Ranchos or Corrales. But most people would love to afford that Starbucks’ latte.

We need to keep working families in our sights as we re-build Albuquerque in the 21st Century. They are the key to maintain the social complexity and richness that sustains our city. The rich can afford to buy anything. Social and economic diversity is essential to a great city. All the complaints from Libertarians and Tea Baggers about “oppressive”government regulations don’t change this fact. We need to build equity in the city as we grow.

We cannot expect that gated enclaves for the rich and “Section 8 Housing” for the poor someplace else will build a city. We need all household types, classes and income levelsin relative proximity to enable great civic places. We need assisted-housing policies and techniquesof many kinds for the poor, our children and our elders. We need non-profit developers, land trusts, cooperatives, and the state, city and county to get involved. In simple terms, we need to regulate a city where secretaries and teachers can live next to the children they teach and their employers.

We need to cut through the bureaucracy, to eliminate senseless regulatory barriers, and promote innovation wherever possible. We need a land-value tax policy that rewards investment and new housing inside Albuquerque today. But we run into the constant challenge that there are two things people hate - sprawl and density.

One critic decries a conventional townhouse development on a former landscape nursery next to a city reservoir and across the street from garden apartments. The fact is, the site is miles away from the jobs the future residents will work. The problem is not that the new townhouses will cost a lot of money to build and buy, but that they will cost a lot to own and operate. The price of gasoline is over $3 per gallon today. What will home buyers up there do when gasoline costs $5 per gallon and the bus on Montgomery runs less than 3 times per hour during workdays? Why can’t we build new housing near new jobs or new jobs nearer housing? These are policy questions that can be answered by the city council IF the neighborhood associations want to participate.

We need to take a longer view of all of Albuquerque. What will the city look like when gasoline costs $5 per gallon or more? That time is coming. How will we get to our minimum-wage jobs in our jalopies that the Tea Baggers worry about? How will we afford to shop at Wal-Mart when the nearest self-proclaimed “SuperCenter” is 5 miles from home and Wal-Mart has to import their stuff from China at the same price per gallon? The neighborhood market with local produce and the bus and bike look better and better, but will they exist in that brave new corporate future where five Walton heirs own more than 30 million Americans?

The world is flattening, but it is also rising, and not all of us can rise with it, no matter how much education CNM offers.

It’s not that there are“eco-elitists” out there discriminating against the poor in a latter-day “apartheid.” The world as we have built it is driving down wages and rewarding the rich and the low-wage Chinese workers. How can we reduce the cost of our American lifestyle fast enough to compete against India and China? They’ve got the high-tech jobs today. We don’t. They are teaching enough of their high school children the math skills they need to succeed in today's working world. We aren't.

The city and county will never ask developers to provide housing in every development for all classes, from the homeless to the executives of PNM or UNM athletics. We need to find more middle grounds, a range of housing for each neighborhood that is comfortable for buyers. Former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk offered a strategy that he found in Montgomery County, Maryland since 1976 –require 10% affordable housing in every subdivision. Add effective transit, and it will work in Albuquerque, too. Montgomery County trades a density bonus for those affordable units, one for one. Courts have found that to be a fair deal for both the county and the developers. The key question here is whether the neighbors will ever accept such heresy. What benefits does the city need to offer them in trade?

Montgomery Blvd. offers that opportunity, as do Lomas, San Mateo, Coors, Menaul, Lomas, Eubank, Central and 4thStreet to select a few key arterials. But this means that we will allow more housing, higher densities and more opportunities for residents today along those corridors, not more restrictions.

But these new homes must be less expensive to own and operate, and that means they must be “green.” So the key for “green building” to serve the needs of the working poor is for us to create incentives to balance the upfront costs of better construction and higher density housing near jobs with economic returns for the builders and developers. It may take tax credits or cash rebates or discounts from the state, city or county and location-efficient mortgages for the buyers to make this happen, but it can be done as a matter of public policy. We need to reduce the tax cost of improving land, but tax the value of land itself (as real estate brokers say, the value in land is “location, location, location!”) We must kick-start very energy efficient construction through stricter codes and appealing tax incentives. The very steps the Republican City Council chose to vote against.

Public officials have a kit of tools they can use to allow developers to create a market for new housing and jobs. We need to expand that kit as far as we can afford to and not simply remind everyone that the market discriminates against the poor. The role of government is to find the best balance between taxes, services, subsidies and support for the rich and poor.

We shouldn’t claim that “green building” is the new apartheid in Albuquerque when green building saves everyone money (and the environment) over time. We must create the public policies that fulfill this equitable and sustainable vision for Albuquerque and New Mexico before our time runs out.

A version of this essay was published in The Albuquerque Tribune in 2007.

Remembering a Vanishing Legacy

New Mexico is hurtling forward into the future, leaving the past behind. The New Economy is definitely faster than the old one. The one we grew up in. It is easy to forget the lessons learned by our predecessors as the memory of each generation fades. Architecture can endure, but even buildings disappear from both the landscape and our memories – if we forget to teach our children.

It takes time and patience to study the past and discover its meaning in the 21^st Century. Kathryn ‘Kit’ Sargeant, a sparkling anthropologist who thought a lot about our local past, died Christmas Eve  2001. A deep memory of our history left. She led studies of old plazas and pueblos and wrote the book with Mary Davis, Shining River, Precious Land, a collection of oral histories of the North Valley of Albuquerque, and a way of life rapidly disappearing as we grow our last crop of houses.

Her friends, neighbors and colleagues know her tireless efforts to rediscover and record the remnants of the Spanish Colonial and Native American settlements throughout the Valley around Albuquerque. This is a past we seldom think about. But she lived with it at home, actively exploring a Pueblo ruin found in her own backyard. She had patience and enthusiasm for the work of discovering the mystery of who these people were and how they lived here in a world before us.

Our modern era is marked by a contempt for the past, for the old ways of doing things. World War I and the Great Depression certainly shattered the promises of the 19^th Century. The past failed us. World War II and the explosion of new technology and the race to space convince many that the future can only be better than anything we did before. So why bother? Henry Ford told everyone, “History is bunk.”

Kit Sargeant certainly held onto the past and reminds us that it is worth remembering. The past has a truth. In buildings, our predecessors discovered solutions in adobe that we still use today. Almost no one today tries to build a pueblo or a hacienda, but those enduring buildings reflect a response to culture, climate, materials and technology of their time.

History teaches modesty, when, for example, a student discovers that “primitive” Egyptians built stone pyramids that were not surpassed in scale for over 3000 years – and finally we have our own Big I! That the Anazasi lived and disappeared from the southwest and the fact that we are standing on ruins of our predecessors should give one pause. Who will stand on the ruins of Albuquerque in 500 or a 1000 years? There are no guarantees of success against drought or pride.

From our Western past, there are lessons of form, order, scale and rhythm in buildings, lessons that are still taught in architecture and design schools across the world. But much of our architectural history is now derided as mere style – the Classical, the Gothic, the Baroque, and now even the Modern. We race through Post Modernism and Neo Rationalism to Deconstructivism. Chaos Theory is popular, too.

At the same time, homebuilders here offer Pueblo and Territorial and California Contemporary houses that look oddly alike (as they all have two or three-car garages in front). Much of the similarity is driven by the economy of construction and the technology available. Everyone builds in wood frame. Stucco is available everywhere. People like pitched roofs, and clay tile is a nice upgrade from asphalt shingles. Adobe is unique here in the Southwest, but not economical.

We have invented a new world today based on our technology and cheap water and gasoline. This is a world far beyond the history of 5,000 years of human civilization, where we race farther away from each other than ever before. The communities of the past in the deserts of the Rio Grande Valley or the Jordan River Valley were much more compact and more locally self-sufficient 2,000 years ago or even 500 years ago than they are today. They weren’t sustainable, though. Part of their failure was the lack of technology and the abundance available then and now from someplace else in times of drought or disaster or war.

As New Mexico struggles with today’s recession, and our climate endures a new cycle of drought, our future may look much more like our distant past. Now that we have built our Albuquerque, the challenge may be to retrench and rediscover how our ancestors survived through their difficult times. Hard lessons learned.

Today, in the middle of a new record year, it is time to dust off Kit’s book and research on old plazas and pueblos, and think about the past. The race begins tomorrow, again.

A version of this essay was published in The Albuquerque Tribune in January 2002.

Healing Albuquerque Through Creation

As we build and grow Albuquerque, we should help heal the world. This seems like an immodest proposal, but the alternative is not appealing. Do we really mean to wound the world with our creations and our lives? We need to create a way for developers, planners, engineers, architects and landowners to do the right thing.

We worry that our growing city is increases isolation, makes people fat, segregates the rich from the poor, wastes too much gas and water, and simply uses too much farmland and open space for what we get in exchange.

In Judaism there is the goal “tikkun ha olam” - to heal the imperfect world that God created. In Christianity, there is the directive to serve as stewards of all Creation. There is also the belief from the book of Genesis that Man has dominion over the natural world, too. The Bible also calls for us to live in harmony with the rest of God's Creation. Healing, stewardship, domination, harmony. It’s hard to do all of these at the same time, while making a living in today’s America under today’s rules and economics. Rape and pillage seem to be the current economic strategy.

Then there is the hope that every act of creation will be an act of redemption. Pretty high stakes for a homebuilder or a real estate developer and their attorneys, architects and engineers, not to mention the EPC or the CPC.  When did you ever hear them talk about creation and redemption in a public another pro forma hearing.

The problem of applying a faith-based moral directive to real estate development and developers is the incredible range of credible interpretations of “healing the world” here on the ground in Albuquerque - from closing the door to newcomers to buying "open land"(aka farms and fields banked for future development with low ag rate taxes) for new residential or commerial development to tearing down existing failed buildings to building bike trails to erecting Wal-Marts and affordable housing in Valencia County.

It would not be easier to try to secularize the program and call on developers to simply make Albuquerque more enchanting. But if Albuquerque were more enchanting, the world would be a better place to live. What on Earth does Enchanting mean? Charming? Homey? Traditional? Welcoming?

These questions have come into the news with the debates over “what would Jesus drive?” Since the most sophisticated vehicle of the Roman empire was a chariot – the HMMV of its day - it is hard to extrapolate to the 21st Century. Way back then, most everyone walked, especially in the colonies, and no one had car insurance. Jesus demanded that his followers give up their worldly possessions, so it is hard to argue that he really would drive a new truck with an extended cab and the finest Cummins engine, or a van that seated 13 or even a Prius. Perhaps in His modesty, He would risk His life and walk. But in today’s America, can you imagine Him walking everywhere? Most Americans don’t walk, even on their Sabbath.

Now the world is much busier and much more complicated than it was 2000 years ago, sort of. But the stakes really haven’t changed.

Let me return to the idea of enchanting. Here's my definition of an enchanting New Mexican neighborhood:

First: the cars and trucks are subdued. When they enter the neighborhood, they slow waaaay down, They have come home, and the drivers know there are children, chickens and pets about. And when they arrive at their houses, they disappear behind the houses, not into a ginormous automatic two-car garage door. The houses have porches. They meet the "girl scout cookie test" where you would trust your daughter to walk up to the front door where you could see them to ring your doorbell and offer to sell you their cookies.

Second: Imagine the current reality of the snout house side door house where the front door is the two-car garage door, and the entrance for the homeowners is a hidden side door where you the visiting parent cannot see your daughter from the street.

Third: Imagine a neighborhood where your children can walk to their elementary school and bicycle to their middle school. And somewhere inbetween there is a store where they can buy an ice cream bar and bring it home before it melts.

Name one remarkable neighborhood in Albuquerque where you can live this life. The life that we lived in the 1950s.

A version of this essay appeared in The Albuquerque Tribune in December 2004.

A series of passing thoughts.

Airbus wants to build a great factory in Mobile, Alabama simply because they know that Alabama offers cheap non-union, unregulated labor. Some come the end of the airtravel bubble that's beginning to rise, the Mobile mobile will be the first to close, Joy, oh joy. 1,000 jobs in 2016, and then what in 2022?

Will Airbus become the Republicans new best friend in their military, commercial and congressional alliance?

Obviously that's part of their goal here. They want cheap American non-union labor, you know, the guys who have the choice to work for less. And they want to endear themselves to the chickenhawks in Congress who buy their toys. What a effing joke we have become. Eisenhower warned us long ago about the threat. Too bad Karl Rove, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and their teabagging ilk have sold their souls.

As Johnny Carson said years ago, "More to Come."

What will New Mexico Look Like When Gasoline Costs $10/Gallon . . .

. . . and average wages haven't kept up? There's the rub. This is the impending economic disaster facing New Mexicans and the United States.

The effects of $3.60/gallon gasoline are being felt. Business at some restaurants has dropped. Consumer confidence has dropped again.

We drive to live. Is that any way to exist? That we must have a car for every adult? Just drive along Comanche east to San Mateo. The front yards are full of cars.

There was a story a few years ago about a fellow from Los Lunas who had his truck stolen from the parking lot at Presbyterian Hospital. First there were the healthcare problems, then no reliable transportation to his job in Albuquerque. He was able to get rides with friends and neighbors for a week or so, but was late too many times. So he lost his job.

Next, he couldn't make the mortgage payments, so he and his wife lost their house. And he still faced medical problems.

It is time to rebuild America.

It is time to rebuild America.

Repuglicans are a joke of a governing party, They hate government. They want to dismantle it (I'm being kind here. They really want to drown it in a bathtub. They said so! Are they really Fifth Columnists for China today???)

It's time to call a spade a spade. Let me be clear. This is what fascism looks like, what tyranny looks like. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11546-this-is-what-tyranny-looks-like

It is not "Congress" who is failing America as the media repeats every hour.

It is an ongoing joke that "Washington" cannot get anything done as the media repeats.

It is not President Obama who is failing as GOP TV (aka Fox News) reports.

It is the self-proclaimed "Repuglicans" in Congress and the un-elected Supreme Court who have chosen to gum up everything. I hope they are enjoying their tea. Justice Scalia has proven himself a fool on national TV in front of the President. "Citizens United" after the Bush v. Gore vote was one of the worst decisions Justice Kennedy joined.

The Tea-hatters are tools of a fascist idea. They really want freedom from what? To be corporate tools? To shop at WalMart? To not receive Medicare and Social Security benefits It's all a wonderful, modern, sophisticated trick build by Dick Ailses and Faux News. "Don't mess with my Medicare!" What are you saying? In today's world: we could all be billionaires some day - if only the government would let us. "I WILL WIN the MegaBucks lotto! and become one". What a sick and corrupt joke of government we have created. Let's tax the poor to underfund their schools and keep them poor and US rich! 

I will be simple and direct. Without Repuglican Senator Mitch McConnell's and House Speaker John Bohner's self-proclaimed war on Democratic President Obama, we could have relieved the unemployment problem of millions of Americans three years ago. We are back to the battles of the early 1930s. Before we sort-of agreed that we almost NEEDED federal spending to create jobs. And then there was that WWII spending spree that employed millions and cost billions. It worked? Or perhaps it didn't. Unbounded federal spending to defeat a common enemy. Sounds like a good idea, but let's not waste our money on useless military-industrial-congressional largess. Let's BUILD something of value to ALL of us! Let's rebuild America.

The Repuglicans have wasted three years uselessly posturing about the "deficit" rather than actually doing anything, actually doing their jobs to create jobs for the rest of us. I mean literally, spending federal money to buy the infrastructure we need. The deficit is not the issue today. Austerity will drive us into a complete Depression - as it did 80 years ago. And as it is doing today in southern Europe. Now we live in only a "Great Recession." We cannot live under a "gold standard" as Germany demands. We need more economic flexibility to deal with the housing crisis, the financial foolishness of Wall Street and more. Gold is a fool's touchstone.

The Federal government must adopt an inflationary strategy of dramatic capital spending. The 50 states (and DC and Puerto Rico) cannot do it themselves as the European Union has proven again - imagine asking Texas to finance California's debts. Hah! The Federal government is the only agency that can provide the cash to hire local teachers, firefighters, police and more of US to keep local and state governments working. To sustain employment. Odd that it is only in the Repugllican-governed states that employment has not recovered, and has kept total unemployment so high, like Wisconsin and Ohio. They must not want teachers and others to serve their communities. They must just not know how to make communities work.

I guess their philosophy is that public, elected government cannot work, so why try? Let's let private government, unelected, corporatations run the show! Ooookay.

The Repuglican Party is the crumbling foundation of our failing economic recovery in their goal to capture complete power. And what is their vision, whether they know it or not? A fascist, corporate state, where corporate leaders have control. It is not corporations per se that will provide the answers. It is the corporate CEOs and so-called Boards of Directors who are their "friends." By knowing each other and by owning FaceBook stock. It's a tight circle that you are not in if you are reading this.

Let me be absolutely clear here. The Repuglicans are playing a power game. They are willing to spend like drunken sailors when they have power as they did under President Bush, No. 43; free war!! It's all a cartoon, a joke of a country. And didn't we know that at heart?

Name one Repuglican member of Congress or in the former President's home who gave their child to those wars. Name one Repuglican who voted to actually PAY for those wars. We could have paid full freight starting in October of 2001 by asking Americans to sacrifice (Oh, God, NO!) and pay an extra dollar per gallon of gasoline for JUST 15 years! We could have paid for all this by 2016, But the Repuglicans didn't choose to do that. That would be too hard for their America.

There is no such thing as a Free War. But that is the Repuglican mantra. 

Let's be honest about what we owe and why we owe it. We're talking trillions of dollars now. And President Barack Obama had the guts to put it all on the budget, on the table. Where is "PayGo" as we had under President Clinton? It's all a Conservatives' joke. What kind of responsible governing is that?

No, the Repuglican game is to demand CUTS in federal spending to match the increase in the debt ceiling. They NEVER voted this way under Repuglican presidents. What a cartoon of a country we have become. It's not a "bipartisan" battle. The Repuglicans have declared war on us, not the Democrats.

I'm sorry. I want to live in a country that builds and grows, not a country that destroys itself.

Streets are not for people

Have you noticed that there is not a single street, road or highway in Rio Rancho, Albuquerque or the rest of the state of New Mexico that you actually drive the "speed limit" or less? On I-25, we don't drive 65 or 70 or 75 MPH. Tell me that during rush hour we're not hitting 85 MPH each way.

On Montgomery and San Mateo Boulevards, we don't drive 35 or 45 MPH. 


Drivers on North 4th Street average 45 MPH despite all the signals and traffic.


Alameda Road operates smoothly at 50 MPH, not the posted 35 MPH, except when the Sheriff clogs it up.


Then there's the night rider on Montano Road who runs past the radar signs at 90 MPH almost ever morning. No one has ever seen him.


On our "residential" streets we don't drive 25 MPH. But we're pretty good at obeying the school zone speeds. Yeah, sure . . . 

What's wrong with this system of roads we designed?


I mean, somebody actually drew the plans for each of these roads, looked at all the driveways, followed all the rules, calculated the 80 or 85% "design speed" and specified the signs that tell the police how we are supposed to drive. 

But why don't we behave like the engineers told us to? WTF are they thinking?

Just asking.

Republican Social Darwinists

Robert Reich wrote his blog today, titled "Republican Myth: Obama's "Entitlement Society". He concludes that "Regressive Republicans pretend they're about opportunity. In reality they're back at what they've been doing for years - promoting Social Darwinism."

One pungent criticism of Reich is that the regressive Republicans never did quit being Social Darwinists, so they didn't have to go back to form.

But his blog triggered this most amazing conservative reaction: (edited for clarity with emphasis added)


"Reich, you are the one who has it backwards!!! Stop the bleeding-heart-liberal, give-it-all-away crap. Some will suffer who have made bad choices, that is appropriate. Those who had no savings, but had cell phones; those who had more children than they could afford; those who bought houses they couldn't make the mortgage payments on; those who have bad diets and do no exercise who get diabetes; those who choose poorly should all pay the price. And NO, the government should not bail them out, just like the gov't should not have bailed out the automakers, or the banks, or Solyndra, etc. Failure is part of life and those that succed should not shoulder the debt of those who have done poorly. If the successful CHOOSE to help out the unfortunate it is through charity. Do not tax those who have made good decisions to take care of those who have made poor choices. Get real!"

What is real? This man believes in Social Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" as defined solely by economic success - by whatever means needed. His "Golden Rule" is "Who has the Gold writes the Rules!"

President Obama spoke about faith and charity at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/national-prayer-breakfast-president-obamas-speech-transcript/2012/02/02/gIQAx7jWkQ_story_1.html

He said:

"And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.

"But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

So the counter-argument as blasted about on KKKOB-AM and Jim Villanucci, is that the government is not "charity"; that it is "more efficient" for those who "unto whom much has been given" to choose to give. Of course, dictators are more efficient than democracy. But do they make good choices?

But really, who among the "successful" will chose to help "the least among us?" The AIDS sufferers, the unwashed, the addicts - when, by their failings, they "should all pay the price." And what price is that? Sounds like he believes they should just go away and die - someplace else, out of sight.

American history is littered with examples of the many ways and times "private charity" did not solve problems of poverty, ignorance, homelessness, hunger, illness, workplace injuries. So we voted for change. We voted for effective solutions that the federal government could create - Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, and more. The facts, the data, support the belief that by voting for Progressive policies, we can see a measurable improvement in our quality of life.

As one wealthy man noted, "I don't want to be a rich man living in a third-world country." If the critics need examples, may I suggest Kenya? A lawless Libertarian success story.

Americans all pay a small price to care for our neighbors who are struggling, and we're probably not paying enough - or we can pay a much larger price and live in a sad, third-world country.