The USA urgently requires a massive infusion of investment in public works and infrastructure. We won't remain in the developed world for very long without it. To quote one of those prudent and neatly succinct conservative maxims, "an Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure."

I think that saying also goes for Health Care, which explains my support for single-payer medical insurance.

I support the Obama-Biden ticket for President, of course. The McCain-Palin ticket's attempt to resurrect Reaganism is not the solution.

But this doesn't mean that I'm simply a tax-and-spend liberal, either.

I support two reforms that would, if enacted, significantly shrink the Federal budget:

1) raise the age for receiving Social Security benefits from the current 62/65 to more like 67/70. It isn't 1935 any more. Life expectancy- and, more importantly, healthy longevity and productivity- has increased dramatically since then. By the way, I'm 52. I'd rather defer my benefit eligibility to age 70-or even 72 or 75- than weigh down the Federal government, paying me benefits when I'm still leading an active and productive life. Social Security was originally intended to support that age demographic cohort that, as a group, is inherently too superannuated to support itself. That demographic still exists, but by any relevant statistical measure, the age of 65 simply doesn't signify the likely onset of decrepitude any more.

Let's be honest about our good fortune, fellow Baby Boomies and younger siblings. And let our elected officals know- since thus far, they've been patronizing us (again) by making it taboo to even discuss the notion of raising the age of eligibility for SS benefits.

I haven't done the math,so correct me if I'm wrong- but if I'm not mistaken, raising the age of Social Security eligibility from 62/65 to 67/70 would, over a period of years, save the Federal government trillions in payouts. With a capital T.

2) Either enact more restrictive measures in regard to allowing legal immigration/new citizenship, OR tax 1st generation legal immigrants/citizens at much higher rates than US citizens.

I'm not a nativist or a xenophobe; I simply support a slowing of the rate of population growth in the USA so that this country will be able to provide the public works, public health, technological infrastructure, and environmental-soil conservation-riparian-regulated development protections that make it such a desirable place to live. I'm not reassured that it will be possible to add another 100 million Americans in a mere 30-40 years, which is the current projection if trends continue, without having a lot of undesirable slippage in terms of pollution control, educational standards, economic pressures, and the inevitable complications from quickly admitting a huge numerical influx of people lacking the skill set to communicate effectively with the majority of the citizens. (If it were just one group of foreign language speakers, that wouldn't amount to much of a problem. When I return to California later this week, learning Spanish is going to be a top educational priority of mine. But the way things are going, simply knowing two languages isn't going to be enough. I'm not up to the task of learning 20. )

Personally, I'd make relatively more preferential immigration arrangements with our neighbors, the Mexicans and Canadians. (In fact, I have a tough time considering Mexicans as "immigrants" in a place like California- a place which was Mexico until only about 170 years ago, and where most of the Meskin immigrants travelled a shorter distance to settle than an East Coaster like myself.) But immigrants from anywhere else would face higher hurdles, including a tightening up on the phenomenon of "chain immigration."

All derivatives trades should be declared null and void, and wiped off the books of the speculators. Any financial instrument containing a derivative should also be declared null and void, and wiped off the books. This unregulated, insanely leveraged casino should be shut down, and all claims arising from derivatives bets nullified, as if the bets had never occurred.

Announce a new Manhattan project tomorrow to find new sources of green clean energy.

Start work today on high speed East / West, North / South rail lines.

You want some money in your pocket? Stop the idiotic, genocidal wars in Iraq, the Afghan, and call off the planned attack on Iran. Then close down the more than 1000 American military bases, in 63 countries.

Then bask in the love and affection from all over the world.

Too bad it's never going to happen. There are still pockets of Muslim resistance that needs to be destroyed and rebel states like Venezuela that need to be pacified. Both Obama and President Palin agree on that at least. The project must continue.

a couple of asides.

For you Free Marketers, if I grow tomatos and you raise Squash and we trade them, that is a free market. Anything past that is a managed and regulated market. The question is who and how it is managed. The markets cannot exist without our govt. and legal system, pure and simple. Just like finding out there is no Santa.

On the entire mess the things I do not see mentioned very often, if at all, is that this is purely a failure of honesty and integrity, there is little or none of either on Wall Street and much of America. The responsibility and legal obligation of the power of Agency, which is to provide the best possible information for my clients with their welfare in mind, seems to have been tossed out. Are they simply crooks in expensive suits?

Deficit spending of any kind, but especially massive deficit spending, is ethically wrong for the simple reason that it violates one of the principles on which the Revolution that gave birth to our Republic was based: No Taxation Without Representation! Deficit spending shifts the burden of taxation into the future, to a time at which the members of Congress who voted for borrowing the money and creating the deficit are out of office through retirement and death and therefore immune from the righteous wrath of those paying the taxes.

The "service" on the national debt, the number of federal dollars that must be expended as interest annually to maintain the debt, generally goes into the pockets of people that are potentially hostile to democratic government: foreign banks and investors in non-democratic countries and domestic banks and investors who we have seen over the past eight years have little interest in safeguarding the Constitution or policies that do not in some manner increase their wealth and power. The "service" on the debt is an expenditure that does not improve our infrastructure, security, or liberty.

Runaway deficit spending is just another way to assault the processes of Constitutional government, so badly damaged after the past 8 years. It empowers those who already wield an excess of power. As previous writers have already noted, deficit spending is the likely cause of the present economic difficulties, making it an unlikely remedy.

Chalk me up as another Hooverite for impeachment.