Sadly, we have become a society in which each individual tends to be fixated on his/her own experience rather than on developing and understanding a shared culture. Still, there is room for those of us who read and those of us who write for readers. We may not have the impact of a Dickens, Tolstoy, etc.; but we do matter. Today I got a contract for a second novel. My first, "Widow's Walk," just came out. It isn't even listed on Amazon yet, but here we go again. There must be something to all that effort - or at least there should be a pony after I shovel away all the manure. So, since we are the choir, let's keep reading (and writing).

What would happen if three of the auto makers were allowed to fail, their employees given ongoing support while the plant, brands, etc., were nationalized? The one remaining company would be free to pick up the dealerships, brands, manufacturing capaity, and technologies it saw as ueful. Shareholders of closed companies would be compensated by the government at current value. The excess portion of the industry could then be retooled for production of useful large scale items that the government could ustilize. Over time, those nationalized industries could be placed back in the private sector by stock offerings with the money going back into the government coffers. The country doesn't need three large auto makers with little to differentiate among them, production capacity that exceeds the real needs of the country, and a ridiculously over developed marketing system.
If we don't protect the big three as such, perhaps the people who remain in the administration and development in the "newly" realligned auto industry would recognize the need for to be more innovative and realisticly competitive.

If we want to help the auto industry, we will probably fail. Why? Because established businesses seldom do anything really innovative. We need to help the many small creative forces in our society. One of the first uses I would make ofstimulus funds is to set up grants for inventors and innovators, grants that would be administered by off-beat people who have had success in their own creative efforts over the years.

One way to really improve schools is to pay children for their performance. Dividing academic areas into small units, a child can be tested (using randomized computerized testing so the teacher has no direct input and so that no one can sell tests). Successful accomplishment leads to a payment directly to the family. The sixe of the payment would be a function not only of the level of accomplishment but also of the family's need (This would, by theway, replace ADC.) and the child''s documented individual capacities. Payments would include both immediate payment and long-term access to "young adult" accounts which could be used for either college or getting started in life (only after high school graduation).

As a minister who also does private pastoral counseling, I empathize with the effect of the recession on Rev. Larson's client flow. However, giving the general public large amounts of money will not lead to ongoing economic improvement. I do think that helping people who are experiencing hard times should be part of the plan. I suggest that the government be the "lender of back up" to people who are unable to carry their mortgage fully. Suppose that a family who have had some history in a home are now failing to make all their mortgarge payments, why couldn't the government loan them occasional payments and take a corresponding long-term equity stake in the property - a very limited form of second mortgage. The administration of this program could be in the hands of the primary note holder (bank), which would have to be coerced into participation. Since the days of Andy Jackson, this ocuntry has needed someone prepared to say, "We'll simply stop using your bank as a government depository or stop depositing Social Security checks directly in your bank. (I know SS is later in history, but it's the same idea.)