Keith Kube for Legislature

Keith's Positions

The Purpose for Term Limits

April 10, 2015

The premise for term limits is fundamental to the proper function of our United States Government.

Anyone who opposes the concept of term limits is disagreeing with the purpose of our American Revolution.  We do not want to be lead by a king, we want to be managed according to the way the owners of the country agreed to, the U.S. Constitution.

Government is the biggest single business in any state or this country.  This huge business is owned by "We the people..." who hire managers to run this business responsibly.

The management positions in our Government have titles like president, senator and congressman.  They are not leaders.  They are the managers that "We the people" hire to provide security, infrastructure and make rules known as laws.  This system of government built by our forefathers, who were geniuses, was designed in a way that any idiot can run.  It is not more complicated than that.

The objective of these managers is to do their job and then 'get out of the way' and not leave a mess.  Most of these managers think they ARE leaders and insult us by thinking we can't get along with out them.  The fact is they are leaving a mess and it is a form of job security.  Like the bookkeeper who has all the passwords, so they can't fire her.

The best way to dispose of these inept proceduralists is term limits.  Three terms for Congressman, two terms for Senators and Presidents and Governors.

Thank you for reading my opinion and I will do everything I can to promote term limits.

Living in a country with a Church and a State

December 2014

In this country we live by the principles of the founding fathers, who fought a revolution against England and King George III who was a dictator.  We did not want to be lead, we wanted to rule ourselves as evidenced by the statement "We the People".  We make this statement because WE own the country and hire the managers we call politicians to take care of the country's business with the constitution the objective of their job description.

In this life we have a GOD which we acknowledge and try to understand.  In this life with GOD we do not own anything.  We are simply stewards of gifts that GOD has given each of us and all that GOD asks is we give back a portion of what HE gave to us.

These facts are difficult to internalize and compartmentalize.  This is because we live in a country with freedom of speech and expression, but in a life with GOD as the leader and with a Pope who is GOD's representative.  We are only servants to GOD and to our fellow man.  We have no voice, or elections.  We can not debate or question.  We can only do his will in His honor and glory.

This is a difficult situation to live within because in one case we own it all and in the other case we own nothing and the 'rules' we live by in each situation seem to be in contradiction.  Is this what the founders of our country were thinking when they declared 'separation of church and state'?  Is this what they meant by 'One Nation Under God'?  Is this a challenge the founders gave by saying "Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all"?

I can only pray, that regardless of what happens in our lives, the underlying purpose is do his will and thank the Lord for giving us the 'tools' and wisdom so we know how to use those tools and teach others to do the same by setting a good example which is the only true definition of leadership.

Keith Kube

December 2014


July 2014

There are two fundamental misunderstandings in our society today:

1. We do not live in a democracy and

2. We do not elect leaders in this government we hire managers (by popular vote)

These two basic misunderstandings lead to a multitude of problems in how the country is managed and who is really in charge of this country.

The apathy in our society today is at an all time high and as a result the country is 'ripe for the picking' for those who want to employ the preachings from a well known book that liberal politicians use titled Handbook for Radicals.  I am reluctant to name the author as to not give him undue credit, but it is Saul Alinsky.

The 12 tactics in the book are not possible if the two basic misunderstandings mentioned above are internalized by the silent majority of our society who are too polite to say anything to disagree or argue.

Leadership.  The most misunderstood word used in the description of our country and how it handles its affairs.  The great leaders of the word usually did not want the position or be identified with the noun.   It is like a baseball player.  It is not obvious when individuals are lined up and one is asked to pick the good ones.  Not until they make a 'baseball motion' of throwing or catching does the eye/hand coordination demonstrate itself to have the good ones identified.  It is the same with a leader.  They are not obvious to us until they do something.  The great leaders, lead by example.

The greatest leader in the Christian world is, arguably, Jesus Christ.  He did not write a sign book or position paper, yet there is not a single person in the history of our planet about which more books have been written.  They are writing about the example he set and how he lived his life.

Who are the leaders in this country?  The preamble of the constitution makes it very clear...."We the People of the United States....".  The leaders of this country is us!  Thus, if we are not satisfied with how the country is running or have an attitude of indifference or resign ourselves to the idea that we can't do anything about it, who do we have to blame?  We have only to blame ourselves because we hired them.  We do not hire leaders.  We hire managers.  We hire those people who think and act like we do.

If you own a ranch and hired someone to drive your cattle to market and he shows up the following morning, riding a horse, you would probably be confused.  If he thought he was going to use his horse to 'drive them' as it was done 100 years ago, you would wonder about the decision to hire him.  Then if you point to the vehicle that will be used to drive the cattle to the market and he admits that he has never driven a truck before, that is cause to reconsider the decision of the hire.

The same goes for our 'so called' leaders of our country.  We hire leaders-managers who know how to run a business.  After all, government is the biggest in the state or country. If they don't know how to do the job we should know that before we hire them.  If they say "I can learn", the response is the same as the rancher....."You ain't gona to learn with my truck!"

The true irony is we call the president or governor a leader, but as soon as they make an executive orders or circumvent the constitution, we challenge them about their charter to take that action.  The mind set of the president is "you asked me to lead and I did" but the fact of the matter we do not like to have our employee tell us what to do.  We call that a insubordination or a dictatorship depending on the chain of command.

The position of Manager is also misunderstood.  The manager is like the driver of a car.  He does not work very hard to guide it down the road, but if there is a pot hole or if evasive action is necessary, it needs to be made consulting the staff or vote necessary.  The other thing the manager does is, like in a car, watch the gauges.   This is to make sure things are under control and we don't run out of gas or the oil pressure drops.  These gauges are meant to give information so the correct action is taken.  The same in government or business.  The numbers are watched and corrections are made before we stall.  The real beauty of both systems is the were both built by geniuses that any idiot can run.

Position Paper on Taxes and The system of application

May 18, 2014

The tax system in this Nation is inherently backwards and the root of many of the problems we face today.  It penalizes success and reward inefficiencies and unproductive activities.

The tax code today finds all the areas in the economy where money is being generated and ‘fines’ them for doing a good job.  This causes four steps to happen:

  1. The taxed entity will look for ways to cut that tax cost.
  2. Change to an ‘abnormal business practice’.
  3. Taxes accumulate to a central government where lobbyists and congress salivate over how to use it ‘to their political advantage’.
  4. Resulting in more bureaucracy to enforce laws on ways to spend, trying to the solve symptoms  of society, not the problems.

There are 5 basic problems in our society;

  1. Economy
  2. National security
  3. Environment
  4. Education
  5. Welfare

There are numerous symptoms resulting from these 5 basic problems:

  1. Unemployment
  2. Poor health
  3. Poverty
  4. Crime
  5. Corruption
  6. Waste
  7. Unsecure boarders
  8. Decaying infrastructure
  9. Poor educational results
  10. Others to numerous to mention

The true purpose of any tax system must be to encourage activity that solves the problems listed above, not to cause a central government to continue to ‘throw our money at the symptoms’.  The gridlock we have is because they accumulate money and then argue over how to spend it.

The new result would be:

  1. Smaller central government receiving as little as possible in tax revenue.
  2. The tax payer would be incentivized through the tax code to solve the problems.
  3. Money would not make the ‘round trip’, taken from the citizens then redistributed.
  4. Fewer lobbyist to influence spending because the money is not in a central location.
  5. Fewer agencies making regulations, instead of monitoring efficacy.

Problems are solved by everyone doing their part, continually.  Not by one entity dictating to everyone what they must do, resulting in resentment and indifference.

The change to the tax code would be relatively simple.  Currently, each section of the code starts with how much money was made, than a chart tells how much to send to the IRS. The revised code would still start at the same place, but money spent to address a problem would reduce the amount of tax paid.   The current bureaucratic activity would monitor the activity for compliance.  The private sector would now do that activity resulting in a reduction in taxes paid.


May 2014

The only function for any enterprise or business is to make a profit.  It is a system that is managed with gauges and controls, headed by an individual who is a benevolent dictator.  The aspect of democracy is not a part of business.  It is the responsibility of the manager that the operation does not do things that are detrimental to the survival.  It hires people and uses resources to provide a function or service that gives more money back after all the expense were paid than was spent.

The function of business is not to hire people who are paid a good wage along with benefits and security, to do 'something or anything' to keep them busy and then demand the owner keep it functioning regardless of how much money is remaining after the exercise.  As obvious as the is that it is not sustainable or fair, many in society and government thinks both should run this way.


The function of government as per our constitution is to do fundamentally three things:

  1. Provide for the security of the borders and from internal lawlessness
  2. Provide infrastructure for the common good of the society such as roads and public buildings in an effort to promote commerce
  3. To provide laws to allow fair commerce to take place.  Essentially  to be a referee.

The temptation  of our managers, is to think they truly are leaders and do things that are outside of good business practice.  This tendency is a result of the propaganda that says the function of business and government is like the example that describes what is not the function of a is not there to great jobs or provide health insurance and guarantee a retirement.  It is there to manage the affairs of the country and its citizens who want security, infrastructure and fair laws.

Practically, without exception, when a government tries to do things outside of the three basic functions is when problems occur.  I can't think of anything that was done outside of the three functions, that work better than if the private sector did it.

The permission to go beyond the three function comes through the interpretation of the law making function.  The wrong title, 'leader' gives law makers the impression they are to spend money, and not like in the business model, invest it.

When money is spent by those who do not understand the difference from investing, there is no limit to the imagination and gratification that is garnered to please the masses in an effort to take someone else's money to get your vote.


The expectation of education is also misunderstood.  It started when the fundamental function of any business forgot it was for the production of food.  The entire animal population of the planet, including humans, has a basic responsibility to itself and its species.  The responsibility is to feed itself.  That is what 'making a living' means.

As the industrial age evolved the function of food production gradually took a back seat to other 'higher functions' of work and production.  All work is based on the need to feed one's self.  As modernity evolved the connection of work to food is becoming further removed and disconnected.  The result is we forget our food does not come from a grocery store.  It comes from the most basic of all work, agriculture.

When education forgets this purpose, the focus is lost and we generate a society that is effort oriented and task driven.  They forget the basic function of our education system is to teach them self reliance.  The wrong objective seems to 'teach them how to work for someone else".  The real objective must be to "teach them how to work for themselves".

With this, schools must teach what true success is.  Success is not money.  It is surprising how many of us want to be successful, but the can not tell me what it is.  If the do not know what it is, how can you have it as a goal?  Money is not success, it is only a way of keeping score.  The subjects are all necessary but they are only the tools used to navigate through life and make fewer mistakes. The truly successful people in the world are SELF RELIANT.  They know how to be secure without money, or if they get sick or if it doesn't rain.  They know how to work within the system of our society without depending on the government or someone else.

Green Energy Position

December 2014

The most important point to make is: being against green energy does not mean one wants a dirty world, unchecked pollution or wasting our precious natural resources.  Being against it means stopping the dishonest agenda of wealth distribution and socialist governments which the green movement is indirectly promoting.

The movement for green energy evolved from the environmental movement stated in the late 1960's with the start of the first "Earth Day".  This movement was based on the concern of uncheck economic development through the exploitation of natural resources  that evolved from the start of the 19th century.  The movement was hi-jacked into a liberal anti-capitalistic cause.

The movement was based on the following conclusions:

  1. Wealth was something that was always acquired at someone else's expense
  2. The use of natural resources was a form of stealing from society
  3. Capitalism is anti-social and harmful to a harmonious society
  4. The only fair result is to redistribute the wealth equally to society claiming it belongs to everyone in the first place

Explanations for the misguided conclusions:

1. Since the dawn of the industrial age and the growth of the union movement, there is a bias against business and industry as cold heart, greedy people who do not care about anyone but themselves.  Of course there are examples of this and the human tendency for competition (push it as far as one can before being stopped) is ever present in our DNA. The moral aspect of the 'good neighbor policy' along with the speed of the media exposing these injustices, along with anti-trust laws, is minimizing this perception today.  Regardless, the need to keep this perception alive is necessary for the liberal movement to advance.  The capitalistic system is not a 'zero sum game' and modest population growth is necessary for any economy to grow.

2. The use of natural resources is the foundation of civilization.  Nothing happens anywhere unless it comes from the ground.  From agriculture to mining, everything in the economy happens only after the food or mineral is taken from the earth.  As technology advances the need to non-renewable resources will be minimized as it happened through out history.  But to have these resources and not use them is as good as not having them in the first place.  The true conservationist is a saver, through recycling and innovation, of what has already been produced.  It is not someone who wants everyone to live under a rock and eat roots.  These people want everyone to be equally miserable.

3. Capitalism is a system where true success can be achieved.  The only irrefutable definition of true success is not the money one accumulates but the degree that one can survive without it.  True success is being self reliant, as our ancestors were.  They were able to figure out how to take care of ones family and provide security when things don't go exactly according to plan and not expecting the government to take care of them by spending money they don't have or taking it away from someone else, who tried to be self reliant.

4.  In the redistribution of wealth scenario, it the clearly un-sustainable.  If no one is producing there is nothing to give away.  The only thing we can truly give is only that which we already possess.  We can't give what we don't have!  And, the government forcing everyone one to give is not charity but robbery.

The movement evolved to a liberal movement with these conclusions:

  1. That civilization is inherently bad for the environment
  2. That population growth was the cause for environmental decay
  3. That population control was necessary thus birth rate must decline
  4. That pro-choice movement would address the birth rate most directly
  5. That GMO were exacerbating the population growth problem
  6. That organic foods are the safest way to feed our population
  7. That animal rights movement would assist in controlling the protein in the food supply
  8. High fossil energy prices would cause less efficient alternatives to become viable
  9. The carbon contribution from industry is the primary cause for climate change
  10. The climate change movement is a redistribution of wealth movement

Explanations for the liberal bias that is needed for their cause to have an opportunity to succeed.

1.  The fact is this is a civilized world with people in it, that possess the human conditions of competition and ingenuity.  There will always be those who remember how things were and want to go back to those times.  It will not happen!  The secret to surviving in this civilized world is the "good neighbor policy".  It doesn't need to be codified, it is a natural law.

2. Completely eliminating civilization is what extremist in the environmental movement would like.  The only way is the 'good neighbor policy' with the understanding that we are individually a part of the problem or a part of the solution. We must individually decide to be part of the solution otherwise we ARE part of the problem.  If we take every human being that every lived on this planet from the beginning of early man, that biomass would fit in a hole one mile cubed (one mile, by one mile, by one mile).....actually not a very big hole considering the planet contains 7.2 trillion cubic miles of volume.  Man is really a small part of this planet, but we must respect it.

3. & 4.  Since the human population is deemed to be the problem, the next logical thing to do would be to control that population growth.  Thus the pro-choice movement.  The reduction in the consumption of resources is the end they are trying to achieve, thus reducing the number of mouths, is the most logical approach.  Putting the 'genie back in the bottle' will never happen as the natural part of life is reproduction.

5. & 6.  The aspect of genetically modified organisms (GMO) is the other thorn in the side of the food production that undermines the population control movement.  The fact that these scientific discoveries and their application has cause food production to increase over 10% with genetic modifications to over 30% with genetic pesticide modifications through the use of GMO while using the same amount of water and fertilizer.

The other aspect is the organic movement.  This has caused food production to be reduced by as much as 50 % on the same ground area while using the same amount of water and labor, not counting the poorer quality and the increased risk of E-coli because of spoilage.

7.  Animal rights movement is another attempt to control the production of protein by working against the modern methods of animal husbandry.  The issue is the imposition of human creature comfort standards upon animals during their production cycle.  The fundamental fact is a comfortable, healthy animal produces more protein with less energy and feed than an animal that is subject to the natural elements of life during that growing cycle.  The true issue is not concern for the animal as much as making food more expensive and less available to the population with the result being a starving population that will naturally die off.

8.  A normal expectation of the environmental movement is to violate the laws of physics by imposing standards of efficiencies and claims that are impossible to meet.  With the fundamental efficiency a function of cost per unit of energy, it is important that  a fossil fuel alternative be as expensive as possible for the competing alternative to have a chance of being accepted.  This explains the anti-pipeline and/or anti-drilling mentality, to reduce supply to make the price go up.  Regardless of how environmentally minded one is, it still comes down to cost per unit.  The production of wind/electricity is about 17c/KW (compared to 11c/KW from public utilities) without the artificial supports from tax incentives and taking into account the reliability.

The maximum output from a square foot of solar panel is about 100 BTU/Hr/sq ft. with a BTU equal to a paper many matches would it take to heat your house?.....about 125,000 per hour!  That means a collector the size of your house with the sun shining all the time during the winter.  How often does that happen at night?

9.  The fact is the climate is changing but not caused by man.  The need for "man made climate change" to be believed, is the foundation for the house of cards used for much of the socialist agenda.  The science regarding it was fabricated from the early 1970's when it was acid rain.  It changed to global cooling when it was explained to the environmentalist that rain is naturally acidic and needed to dissolve the minerals for the production of plant life.  After global cooling was disproved it went to the ozone hole which since disappeared.  It then went to global warming until the winters were colder than they remembered, to the climate change mantra professed today.  The main green house gasses are water vapor 60% to70%, CO2 15% to 20%, Methane  5% to 9%, and Ozone 4% to 7%.

The amount of CO2 generated annually by man is estimated at 7 billion tons (a cubic ft of CO2 weighs an ounce).  The entire biosphere of the earth up to fifty miles above the earth weighs 5 with 15 zeros (5 Quadrillion) tons.  This ratio of man made CO2 relative to the biosphere is equal to one can of beer in an Olympic sized swimming pool. Is that causing climate change when over 75% of the other green house gases are gases are not CO2?  It would be difficult to call man made CO2 the smoking gun.  The other facts are the sun's intensity from winter to summer varies over 7%.  That is a considerably larger heat source fluctuation that easily dilutes any change in heat retention from CO2 increases.

The last point is:  There was over $20 billion dollars spent in reducing man made CO2 emissions over the past 10 years, yet the world CO2 level increased.  That is a difficult fact to over come if all that money was spent and nothing fact it became worse.  The bottom line is: it is very difficult, if not impossible, to show actual facts that man made CO2 is causing the climate to change.

10.  Without the belief that Climate Change is man made, it causes alternative energy to have little chance of being used, it will not causes first world life styles to change, it doesn't make first world countries feel guilty for using energy and there is no logical reason to force the redistribution of wealth to other countries that are not friendly to the United States.

The last fact was concluded in the 1970's.  It was found that the amount of scientific information in entire world doubled from the time of Christ to 1000 AD.  It doubled again from 1000 to 1500, again by 1750, again by the civil war, again by WWI, again by WWII, again by Viet Nam to a current rate of about 7 years today.  It is thought it will be doubling in 6 months by 2025.  The optimistic view of society is, with technology advancing so rapidly, the discovery of energy sources like fission from lasers that makes more fuel than it uses or ways of producing hydrogen from the resulting abundance of electricity will make fossil fuels obsolete by that time. That will leave about 90% of all the fossil fuel in the ground today to remain there for the rest of time.

A final observation is the price of oil.  The news was making such an issue when it was $150 per barrel and how it would ruin the economy.  The news today is making an issue at $70 per barrel and how it will ruin the economy.  The conclusion is; it is what it is and the reporters who say these things must make every story a 'bad news' story otherwise it isn't news, in their opinion.  The best way is to not listen to any of it and think through, to our own conclusions. It is simply the opinions of people who nothing about the subject.  After all they are only reporters with no training other than in putting words into sentences with the correct syntax.

A position paper on Principles and Core Values

April 5, 2014

There are two kinds of elected officials: one runs to serve and the other runs to be re-elected.  In our democratic republic we must make laws that reflect the popular support of the voters.  This means the compromise of some principles are necessary.  I will consider compromising principles but I will never compromise my core values of Honesty, Integrity, Fairness and Sustainability.

Principles or societal norms, are the items of ‘give and take’.  It is a ‘good neighbor policy’, compromised in the spirit of harmony and good will.  All decisions and legislation involves the consideration our principles to solve problems and the result is never perfect.  It is the best of the alternatives available, of which some are not very desirable.

Core values, in comparison, are those ideals on which our country was founded.  Things, if compromised, would cut the threads of which our Nation of liberty and justice was woven.  This distinction is very important because expecting one to compromise means understanding their principles and knowing their core values.

  • Honesty:  This simply means not to lie.  Honesty and lying are not natural skills.  Both take a lifetime of practice to be effective at either.  That is why no one can be really good at both.
  • Integrity:  It is the thing we pray for.  It is known as a ‘good moral compass’.  “Untested virtue is of      little value.”  Would we do exactly the same thing if no one were looking or if no one would ever find out!
  • Fairness:  This is the foundation of all good legislation.  The test is if a decision or compromise is reached and the sides were reversed, would the  decision be the same.  It is fair when this is true.
  • Sustainability: Can it survive over time. There are two purposes in life.  One is to save your soul and the other is “leave the world better than you found it”.  This means what we build in life, and the systems we develop to do the business of life, must operate without me.  This is the objective approach, where the expected result is known and not task driven where each step seems illogical or difficult to follow with no clearly defined goals.  The task driven approach is the procedures of government that frustrate us as citizens….the red tape of bureaucracy!

If these are your core values, I would like your vote and support.  You will always know where I stand without asking.  If we have the same core values our decisions would be the same.  This is why you elected and an official who internalizes YOUR core values.

This is how I think.  I am Keith Kube, candidate for the Nebraska Legislature.

A position paper on Government systems by Keith Kube

March 31, 2014

There are two kinds of people in our country: One kind is part of our national problem and the other kind is part of the national solution.  We, as citizens, should live by the statement that John Kennedy made at his inauguration:  “ASK NOT WHAT OUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY?”   I do believe that a majority of our fellow citizens would wholeheartedly agree with this statement but, the encouragement to follow it is not internalized or professed enough in our schools, work place or campaigns for public office.  The tendency of our politicians is often to cast the ‘victim blanket’ over a segment of the population in attempt to convince them to invert the statement to “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what can your country do for you?”

The Electoral College system for voting in our national elections was designed to reduce the danger of having politicians ‘give away the store’ to be elected.  Any attempt to undermine this safeguard must be resisted.  LB 1058 seems to increase this danger.  We do not have a democracy in this country.  We never did and hopefully never will.  We have a Democratic Republic.  The government would have collapsed long before the civil war if we did.

Our forefathers realized that if the ‘pure democracy’ form of government were instituted, the natural human tendency would be to vote in ways that would loot the national treasury and the result would be bankruptcy in two generations.  This why the continued attempts to expand the social safety net is such a concern.  The need to care for the less fortunate is vital and “Christ Like”, but to use it as a tool to solicit votes is often disingenuous and not sustainable.

The use of the tax code to encourage social support through incentivizing has shown to be considerably more effective and efficient, as well as encouraging our society to follow John Kennedy’s statement.  The current tendency is to discourage such generosity.  The argument is the government can do it better and that it is a loophole for the more fortunate.  The underlying reason is to stop undermining the power of government in using social spending to gain votes.  If the needy receive more money from the party in power, these needy will probably continue to vote them into power.  This will happen until the money runs out.

There are also two kinds of politicians:  One is running to serve and the other is always running for re-election.  The real job of the elected official is to look in the mirror every day and ask: "Which kind of elected official am I going to be, and will I do the right thing in legislation to assure we are doing the right thing for the country for future generations?"

Our young political science majors are choosing politics as a career choice at a rate higher than ever before in the history of our republic.  Colleges keep statistics regarding which degrees typically produce various occupations. They do this for obvious reasons.  2012 was the first year where over 50% of the political science majors stated they wanted to make politics a full time career, with the percentage of law students choosing politics falling.   After all what does one do with a degree in political science other than teach future politicians or run for office themselves?

This means our future leaders will consist of people who have no practical business experience.  This problem already exists with our politicians gaining office without ever have to make a living doing a real job.  Even lawyers have a way of providing a useful service outside of government.

Political science teaches the procedures of government.  These are procedures that were effective in becoming elected and advancing an agenda that insures they will continue to be reelected until the money runs out…..’The people will vote themselves into bankruptcy’.

This is procedural-ism.  A mindset that teaches that government will put systems in place that will solve all our concerns and problems.  This always entails a bureaucracy that is expensive, redundant and impossible to eliminate.

The argument is that experience in government is necessary because we need these seasoned politicians to get stuff done.  This has been the main argument against term limits. This argument is very hollow.  Look at what has resulted: a government bogged down in regulations, disingenuous agendas and gridlock.   The result is proceduralists building systems so complicated that only the bureaucracies who put it together can operate. The staff necessary to run it is nearly impossible to eliminate and the problem never seems to be solved, only prolong or made more complicated.  This is a form of job security, and sold as a way of creating jobs.  The object always comes first in the business world, and like that of our forefathers, to put systems in place built by geniuses that any idiot can run.

The basis of our Constitution is to use an objective approach to management, not the task approach.  The objective approach is missing.  When the pleading voice of compromise is heard, it is important that we realize the difference between principles and core values.  I will always listen to the voice of reasoning and varying principles.  I will evolve opinions based on this reasoning.  I will not compromise core values.  I will not compromise those values that were common to the construction and survival of our nation. These core values helped us survive wars, the depression and resulted in an economy that leads the world.  We have done some things right, but to compromise a core value is like insisting:

2+2 =6 and then being asked to compromise on 5

I feel that business and engineering experience in problem solving, geared to specific objectives, is the missing ingredient in our government.  I feel the ability to explain and expose these deliberately imposed inefficiencies is vital in dealing with these growing concerns.

We all hear the saying ‘use common sense’, but it is really not that common.  Common sense is simply looking at a problem and finding where similarities lay.   The concerns we hear about what we call problems are actually complaints, not problems.  They are  gossip about things that happen outside of what we planned or expected…..they are the differences.  To solve a problem we cannot focus on what is different or out of the norm.  We should focus only on what has worked in the past, the similarities.  This foundation allows the problem to be fully defined.  It can then be compared to what has worked, reducing the temptation of retrying things that did not work.  As simple as that sounds…. common sense is obviously not that common.

This ‘common sense’ business-thinking approach can not be taught.  It is learned through experience.  This is the reason why non-professional politicians, with real world experience are vital for efficient and effective government.  There is no other way.  This is evidenced by the way our government functions now.  This is why debate never ends and ‘the proverbial tin can is always being kicked down the road’.  Our politicians are trapped in the ‘one day at a time’ mentality with the conviction that the future will never be something THEY have to deal with.