Moving the Conversation Along

Clinton’s history of corruption, without consequences, should be a deal breaker

trump-2

Historically, voters send an individual to the White House who is in good standing on Election Day. Most serve their country well.

Sometimes, though, the president surprises and disappoints citizens by committing a potentially impeachable act after being sworn in. Voters don’t have a crystal ball and can’t predict what any elected official will do, once in office.

This election, though, voters know before marking their ballot that Hillary Clinton has committed wrongdoings so serious that they would likely be impeachable offenses had she committed them as president.

The Watergate Articles of Impeachment show uncanny similarities between the actions of President Nixon and those of presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The articles charged Nixon for, “Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States,” and also, “Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,…and Congressional Committees.”

Clinton stated that she, “never received nor sent any material that was classified” on her private email server while Secretary of State, a claim the FBI found to be untrue. Also, Clinton’s emails were deleted after she received a congressional subpoena. And Clinton’s phones were destroyed with hammers, according to an FBI report.

There is the unseemly defense that she may have been unaware of what was happening or couldn’t remember what happened in the State department, for which she had final authority, as she repeatedly testified. But that could make her the most unknowing and forgetful person to seek the highest office in the land. If not brazenly corrupt, then completely incompetent.

Remarkably, the FBI has characterized this behavior as carelessness. For the average citizen, it would likely be considered felonious.

For Nixon, it caused him to resign from the presidency. But for Clinton, she’s still on path to ascend to the Oval Office.

It seems that Hillary Clinton is above the law, that the rules don’t apply to her, and that she receives special treatment instead of consequences.

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate, as well, with a cringe-worthy communication style. But although he’s not a great talker, he is a hard worker.

He sees the work that needs to be done in this country including appointing Supreme Court justices who will defend and uphold the Constitution, rebuilding our nation through a strong military and strong trade agreements that will benefit American workers, and repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations that are strangling small businesses and the jobs they create.

Most importantly, though, he’s called attention to the corruption in politics and the bias in the mainstream media for liberal candidates. Our country won’t have a chance to accomplish anything until these two wrongs get righted.

The Center for Public Integrity reports that 430 individuals working in the journalism field made political donations and that nearly all of the money, or about 96 percent, benefited Clinton. The donation totals were relatively small: $382,000 for Clinton and $14,000 for Trump. But the money isn’t the biggest problem. It’s the mindset of the journalists, who control the airways and the newspapers—who hold the extremely powerful role of telling voters what to think about. And those journalists have invested financially, and emotionally, in a Clinton win.

The mainstream media is no longer the trusted, watchdog press that it used to be.

If the numbers aren’t damaging enough, recall the imagery of the hug that moderator Rachel Maddow, of MSNBC, gave Hillary Clinton after a Democratic debate.

The press is hugging Clinton. Figuratively, literally and financially.

It seems that Hillary Clinton, if not outright corrupt, is a benefactor of corruption. Positive changes won’t happen with her.

My father had a way of sharing his wisdom and then ending with, “Don’t ever forget that.” One of those teaching moments came when I was quite young, and it stuck with me. He told me that I wasn’t better than anyone else. But at the same time, nobody—(including a presidential candidate)—was better than I was.

And he’s still right.

Hillary Clinton is not above the law.

I’m not sure if Donald Trump can make America great again, but he correctly understands the best way to start—by draining the swamp of corruption.

53 is fine by me

cruise-photo

It’s a tale of two cruises.

The first one happened for our 10th wedding anniversary, and we took the entire family. It was March. We left Miami and stopped in Key West and Cozumel, Mexico. Our kids still say it was one of the best vacations we ever took. The ship had a feel of joyful chaos because there were lots of college spring breakers on board. It was loud and crowded everywhere, including the ports of call. If you weren’t on deck early in the morning, you didn’t have a prayer of finding an open chair in which to enjoy the warm weather. Although there was a lot of energy on board, there was far too little serenity for my liking. I was 38. Cruising wasn’t something I wanted to do again anytime soon.

The second one happened for our 25^th wedding anniversary. This time, it was just my husband and I who cruised. It was mid-September. We left Boston and stopped in Bar Harbor, Maine, St. John, New Brunswick and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Most of the ship’s passengers were our age or older. The only crowded place on board was the casino. Otherwise it was pure relaxation with lots of seating available anywhere we wanted to go, including the guided tour buses to which we happily turned over our locomotion. I was 53. Life slowed down on that cruise, and I loved it.

As I reflect on these two cruises, it’s hard for me to believe that a cruise with seniors who like to take naps feels better than a cruise with spring breakers who never sleep. A part of me can’t admit to that. Like it’s a failure to not want to keep up with the high-energy world of the younger generation.

But then honesty sets in. I like to take naps too.

Aging isn’t something I thought about or prepared for at all. Many years of living just subtly shifts you to your next stage of life, without your awareness. Aging finds you and comes for you ever so slowly, that by the time it does—you’re surprisingly ok with it.

It’s not that I’m ready for retirement. I’m a doer and take a lot of joy out of being productive. In fact, a perfect life would be to remain productive in some way until the Lord calls me home.

And I still have a “yes, I can!” attitude. Of the 2,400 passengers aboard the cruise ship, my husband and I were likely the only two who purchased our tickets two days before the ship sailed and drove 22 hours straight through to catch the boat before it left. We’re still road warriors and not fearful of being spontaneous.

But the reality is that 53 isn’t 23. I’m fully aware that the glorious speed of youth is being replaced with the reflection and contentment that comes with aging.

And the really wonderful thing is, that I’m liking it.

Beware of comprehensive legislation

Image by Shutterstock.

“Comprehensive” is the dirtiest word in legislative language.

We’ve had comprehensive health care reform, which is a success mainly by the measurement of increased government spending. There’s talk of comprehensive immigration reform, which would likely be an overkill solution. And some counties in the state are using the comprehensive approach to increase the minimum wage through automatic, annual increases that are usually too steep and objectionable to pass.

Comprehensive is code for, “Let’s really screw this up.” Instead of focusing on a single, fixable issue, comprehensive legislation keeps adding to the bill until it either becomes unpassable or it passes, but creates additional problems.

The biggest, single issue that needed fixing in the health insurance world was to eliminate underwriting for pre-existing conditions. According to The Statistics Portal, in 2014 about 84 percent of our population received health insurance through either Medicare—insurance for the elderly, Medicaid—insurance for the poor, or through group workplace plans. About six percent purchased health care off the individual market. The remaining 10 percent were uninsured. Many of the uninsured likely had a pre-existing health condition and were denied insurance. This is the one group we needed to help. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, provided that help, but the 2,700 page bill created more problems by doing so.

Before Obamacare, those who purchased health care off the individual market were self-sufficient and paid for their own health insurance—without the help of taxpayer subsidies. Because premiums are higher in Obamacare, insurance has become unaffordable to this group that had previously paid their own way. More than 85 percent of Obamacare enrollees receive some type of financial assistance. That means taxpayers are helping to support not only those who were being underwritten, but now also many who were previously self-sufficient.

Comprehensive immigration reform is a talking point on the campaign trail. The one problem that needs fixing with immigration in the country is that our laws are not being enforced. There’s been a reason for that. Employers are benefiting from cheap labor provided by undocumented workers, and consumers are benefiting by purchasing the cheap goods they’re producing. In some ways, we’ve all been part of the problem.

But we don’t need comprehensive immigration reform. Simply enforce the laws we already have, particularly for those who illegally migrate to our country and then commit felonies. After we’ve neglected our laws for decades, it may be too late—logistically and morally—to deport millions of productive human beings who have assimilated to our nation’s core values. But strong leadership can make it clear to the world that arriving in the United States will now be through legal methods only. Others will be deported.

Then there’s the minimum wage conundrum. Because our state legislators failed to solve the problem, some counties in Iowa have grappled with the issue. Comprehensive ideas about multiple, steep increases through successive years are making it hard for local leaders to find consensus. For some, the only acceptable solution is a guaranteed path to $15.00 per hour. Meanwhile, there are workers languishing at $7.25 an hour who could really benefit from even a modest increase right now.

Don’t elected officials work every year? Can’t a reasonable increase to $9.00 per hour be made now and then discuss a future increase in—the future? Work now and work later. That’s what most people do. Elected officials can do the same.

Politicians like to use the comprehensive sound bite, suggesting that it’s the only way to solve a problem. But the effect is the opposite. Either nothing gets done, or there’s a solution overkill that causes more problems than it solves.

We can accomplish more, without going comprehensive.

Drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea

Image by Shutterstock.

Drug testing welfare recipients is an idea that doesn’t go away. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states have passed this type of legislation and another 17—including Iowa—have proposed it.

It has plenty of public support. Based upon both Rasmussen and Huffington Post polls, more than half of Americans want to see welfare recipients drug tested.

And yet, the program hasn’t proven to be a great success.

Many states that are experimenting with this policy are prudently choosing not to test every welfare recipient because of possible legal challenges of invasion of privacy. That means only those who are legitimately suspected of using drugs can be tested. With no better method to solidify suspicion, most of these state agencies are simply asking welfare recipients to complete questionnaires. It explains why some of these states have drug tested only a small percentage during the rollout of their program. And from that small number, very few are testing positive.

Besides having a hard time legally testing welfare recipients, there are costs to consider. Administering the program doesn’t happen for free. The financial burden of the program can outweigh any savings. Doing no drug testing could cost taxpayers less.

But just because drug testing welfare recipients isn’t the best idea, it doesn’t mean that lawmakers should ignore what’s at the heart of the matter.

Working people perceive that some individuals are gaming the welfare system, and lots are angry about it.

You don’t have to watch cable news to know that the country has become increasingly divided. One growing division seems to be between the working, tax-paying class and able-bodied individuals who don’t work and receive taxpayer assistance.

In reality, many who are receiving food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid health insurance are working. They just don’t earn enough to support their families. The Family Investment Program (FIP) provides cash payments to families, but it has a five-year, lifetime limitation. Many receiving FIP benefits are required to work at least part-time hours or enroll in some type of program to further their education. According to the Department of Human Services, a single parent with two children receives just $231 per month in cash assistance if the parent is working 20 hours a week at the minimum wage rate of $7.25.

I believe that what working people want more than mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients is seeing able-bodied individuals make the effort to support themselves. The public assistance program is designed to do that.

But there are two things that could improve the system.

Increase the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour. A modest increase in the minimum wage could do so much good for families and could be enough to get some off of welfare programs, decreasing the number that taxpayers support. And history has shown that even small businesses can adjust to minimum wage increases when they’re reasonable.

Secondly, enforce the rules we have. Last fiscal year, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals recovered $17 million in fraud as a result of welfare eligibility investigations. That’s a big number, but likely doesn’t represent the total dollar amount of deceit that may be out there.

And although FIP benefits can be extended to families beyond five years through a hardship exemption, the exception should be rare and compelling. Those specific dollars should be reported separately so taxpayers can know if the five-year lifetime maximum benefit becomes simply a lifetime benefit.

Give people a chance to move off of welfare by increasing the minimum wage, and do everything possible to maintain integrity in the public assistance program we have.

Maybe then, we’d have fewer taxpayers wanting drug testing of welfare recipients—which is largely a failed policy.

Finding God’s peace in anonymity

Image by Shutterstock.

I walked into church feeling angry. An upsetting problem presented itself to me right before I got in the car to drive to Sunday Mass. I wanted to tackle the problem. Right. Now.

But now I was in church. It would have to wait.

And waiting was the best thing that could have happened to me. Sometime during that hour, my heartbeat slowed and my mind rested. By the time we were singing, “Hosanna,” an intense wave of peace had washed over me. Centering on prayer had cleansed my angry thoughts and reawakened a positive state of hopefulness. I walked out of church with a clearer vision on tackling the problem before me.

Finding peace in a church isn’t an unusual story. And it’s not the first time that a deep sense of peace engulfed me while in church. The unusual part is that the experience seems to happen only when I’m visiting a larger congregation instead of attending my own smaller, parish community.

This seems counterintuitive, and I’ve been wrestling with the nagging “why?” question.

A 100-household parish can offer an intimate sense of community and support to a member. But a 1,000-household parish can offer something pretty valuable to a visitor—a sense of anonymity.

It might seem like a better deal to grab the sense of community offered to its members from a smaller parish. Community and fellowship are some of the hallmarks of parish membership.

But I think a sense of anonymity gets short-changed. Sometimes, it’s easier to center on prayer without the distractions that can come with too much familiarity.

When I’m a visitor in a large parish, fewer people know me. I can escape into being anonymous. Nobody is mentally taking my attendance because I’m not even expected to be there. I feel invisible, and I like that. It allows me to first—just plain rest. And then rest in God.

It’s not that community and fellowship are bad things. Without relationships in life, we would have nothing. We need each other.

But sometimes it’s hard to find that balance of “together but separate,”—to worship together but separate out our own space of individual prayerfulness.

One of the truest things said about faith is that it’s a journey, with an ebb and flow to it. As a child, my parents brought me to church because they were doing their best to hand on the deposit of faith and the promise of salvation that was given to them. As a parent, I did my best to take my family to church for the same reasons. Now that my children are grown, I’m seeking more out of church-going. I’ve experienced the full and unexpected peace burst, and I want more of it. It just surprises me that it seems easier to find in the anonymous world.

This phase may pass, just as the period of being a child and the period of being a parent with young children has passed. It wouldn’t surprise me if my faith journey evolves and the lure of the benefits of community once again trump the desire for anonymity in my middle-aged faith life. Maybe someday I’ll be better able to master the “together but separate” challenge.

Until then, it’s enough to know that God’s peace is tangible. And it’s powerful. And worthy of seeking.

However we’re able to encounter it, through community or anonymity.

Remember where you come from: A message to graduates

It’s that hopeful time of year. Graduation.

The month of May is about new beginnings. At least, that’s what a lot of commencement speeches are about.

Spread your wings. Reach for the stars. Go make a difference. Get after it.

All good advice, graduates. But like most things in life, there’s a balance or tension to it. And the balance to ambition is to remember where you come from.

Your youthfulness, and the invincibility that goes along with it, may not have the patience to think about what home means to you right now. You’ve got big plans, and you’re anxious to get started. This is how it should be, and we’re a grateful nation for all that ambition. It’s what is needed to continue to build this country.

Remembering where you come from doesn’t have to mean remaining physically located near the place of your upbringing. For most, our dreams simply aren’t attainable there. Rural areas of the country don’t provide the same amount or type of job opportunities found in metro areas. And depending upon your specialty, it may require moving to a specific region of the country.

But it does mean to keep home in the recesses of your heart. Even a less than perfect coming of age story—still, is a story. Your unescapable one. You can’t rewrite history, but you can accept and appreciate how this history formed you. Through achievements and failures, loyal family and friends, and betrayals—the experiences have all helped to make you the person you are today.

Image by Shutterstock.

You can’t change home. To do so, would be to deny who you are.

I’m not a Prince zealot, but I am an admirer of something he did better than most. He single-mindedly pursued his passion, while remembering where he came from.

Somehow, he knew how to do this at the untested age of 18. In “Prince: Chaos, Disorder, and Revolution,” Jason Draper gives voice to Prince’s reflections on how hard it was for a band to make it in Minnesota versus being on either coast. Still, he didn’t abandon his roots and was eventually rewarded for it. “Little did he realize that, in ten years time, he would have turned Minneapolis into a new center of cool, and would be running his own label and hi-tech recording studio out of it.”

It would have been easy to leave. Minneapolis wasn’t known for its recording industry. But he stayed, and his musical genius launched the “Minnesota Sound.” And through the years, the Twin Cities area remained home to Prince.

The balance to ambition is home.

Prince provided an extremely successful example of pursuing your dreams, while remembering where you come from. Not many can do that, but it’s worthy to emulate to the degree that you can.

You now have the chance to write your own epic adventure. Let that quest take you where it needs to take you. Some of you will even have the vision, drive and talent to be a Prince—to be at the top of your game in your chosen profession. This is the land of opportunity. Get after it.

Just once in a while, as the successes and victories are coming in, look back at where you came from and pay homage. It’s where your story began. It’s an important piece.

Allow gratitude to seep in, and look to home with a thankful heart.

Path to voting for felons is reasonable

The debate over disenfranchised felons misses the mark. There’s a lot of indignation about lost voting rights, but it’s really a story about the lack of transparency and lack of desire.

Image by Shutterstock.

Democrats and Republicans have made the issue a political football. Most Democrats assert that voting is a right—not a privilege—that should be restored immediately after being released from prison. Its belief system is helped out by the fact that many felons are low-income individuals who tend to vote Democrat. Many Republicans view voting as a privilege belonging to law-abiding citizens. The notion is that by choosing to commit a felony, an individual makes a simultaneous choice to lose voting rights. Those rights can be restored after release from prison by completing an application process, but some believe these potential Democrat voters may not go through that effort.

Both political parties want control of the vote, but what does the average, newly-released felon want?

There are dozens of agencies, charitable organizations and ministries designed to help a felon reenter society. Some help with basic needs of food, clothing and housing. Others help with employment opportunities and everything that goes along with getting that first job, like obtaining a new driver’s license.

What’s been getting missed, is the conversation about how to restore voting rights. As soon as the prison doors swing open, the Iowa Department of Corrections should be required to notify all released felons of the process required to restore voting rights and offer assistance if needed.

The tragedy isn’t that voting rights were taken away because of the crime committed. It’s that the process to restore those rights isn’t transparent.

It’s the spark that eventually led to the current Griffin v. Pate firestorm. Kelli Jo Griffin, a convicted felon, didn’t know about the, “Application for Restoration of Citizenship Rights.” She thought her voting rights would be automatically restored after her debt to society was paid. Better communication might have helped to avoid the lawsuit that is being argued before the Iowa Supreme Court.

It shouldn’t be a secret on how to be a voter in Iowa. Understanding how to restore voting rights should be as common as knowing how to get your driver’s license back after it has expired. Most people know that once a license is expired, an individual must spend a fair amount of time and effort to restore driving privileges. One must pass a written and driving test, and provide supporting documentation of identification. People know the rules. And if it does expire—for anyone, felon or non-felon—individuals will exert the effort needed. Because driving is important to them.

The U.S. Department of Transportation states that about 87 percent of the driving-age population has a license. Compare that percentage with the 42 percent of individuals who, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, exercised their right to vote in the 2014 elections.

Citizens in this country care about voting about half as much as they care about driving.

Transparency is the first tool to combat the disenfranchising of felons. Information on how to restore voting rights should be made available at the time of release and assistance provided if needed.

Then comes the tougher part—desire. In the state of Iowa, it takes desire on the part of the felon to become a voting citizen again by making the effort to pay restitution, complete the application process, and provide supporting documentation. The newly-streamlined application has 13 questions. They’re basic, fact-based questions like name, address and date of birth, as well as date of crime, conviction and release.

I believe in second chances. Kelli Jo Griffin does too. She’s part of the 42 percent who want to vote.

Armed with knowledge and effort, her goal could have been met a long time ago.

A little more conversation about “Spotlight,” please

The movie, “Spotlight,” a film about the Roman Catholic Church’s concealment of predatory priests, won the top prize in its industry—the Oscar for best picture.

It’s a big deal. Luke Passage

When the film was initially released, the Church’s leadership talked about the good things that have happened in the protection of children since the clergy sexual abuse scandal broke. That’s all true. There’s greater awareness and vigilance today.

But since the film has gone from a new and mostly unknown release to an acclaimed, Oscar-winning movie, there’s been limited chatter about it from the hierarchy. For example, the local, archdiocesan newspaper has not acknowledged the award.

That bothers me.

The film’s content is likely smothering the conversation. “Spotlight” is a movie about the hierarchy’s failure to protect children. If the Oscar for best picture had gone to a movie such as, “The Life and Ministry of Saint John Paul II,” I have a feeling it would have been the leading headline.

That should cause reflection. Being selective about the sharing of information isn’t very transparent.

After tens of thousands of innocents were traumatized and billions of dollars paid in abuse settlement claims, the Church’s leadership still seems to sometimes prefer the strategy of silence and omission.

When it doesn’t encourage open conversations about the topics the award-winning movie brings up—clericalism, mandatory celibacy, secrecy, and lack of consequences for those who knowingly reassigned pedophile priests—it makes it harder for the faithful to enter the discussion. It creates a tension between those who are unwaveringly obedient to authority and those who sometimes respectfully question that authority, because they want to help make the Church a better place.

The Roman Catholic Church has done so much good in the world. And it will continue to do so.

But it’s not perfect. We can proclaim its goodness, but must also not ignore or forget hard and painful truths. Ambivalence can cause great harm. One of the more insightful comments in “Spotlight,” comes from the prosecuting attorney when he says, “If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.”

We’re in the season of Lent, a special time of prayer, good works, sacrifice and penance. Even though the Church’s leadership has asked for forgiveness in the past for this dark moment in its history, Lent would have been a great time for it to more publicly acknowledge the Oscar-winning film and to show its sorrow and remorse one more time.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, his disciples enthusiastically greeted him saying, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord.” Some of the Pharisees wanted Jesus to rebuke his disciples for calling him a king, but he replied, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!”

Ultimately, goodness cannot be stopped and will prevail.

But it doesn’t happen by itself.

The not-so-nice part about free college tuition

There’s no doubt about it. Many who attended a public university following the 2008 recession shouldered a great, financial burden for their education. When state budgets shriveled up with the economic downturn, public universities took a hit in funding. That translated into higher tuition nationwide and a trillion-dollar student loan debt.

Image by Shutterstock

Iowa was not immune to this problem. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the state of Iowa (adjusting for inflation) decreased funding for higher education by 22 percent during this time. Despite that decrease, it had the fifth smallest tuition increase of 50 states. That means Iowa universities did a better job than most, in delivering a cost-effective education during the recession. And while the state of Iowa is showing signs of resuming more adequate funding of our public universities, it is still struggling—like other states across the nation—with budget constraints.

These tumultuous years have led Democratic presidential contenders, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, to offer a correction by making promises of free college tuition for all.

Sanders wants, “the best educated workforce in the world,” with college that is tuition-free. He plans to accomplish this by having Wall Street speculators pay for it. Clinton wants to see, “…incomes rise and ensure Americans get ahead and stay ahead,” with college that is tuition-free, although her plan asks students to work 10 hours per week. It would be paid for by requiring states to meet higher education funding requirements and by reducing or eliminating certain tax deductions of high-income earners. Both candidates believe a college education is an entitlement—whether or not students or their parents are financially independent or financially struggling.

This all sounds very nice, but there are three big problems with these niceties.

Making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Bernie Sanders wants—the best educated workforce in the world.

Based on feedback from employers, our colleges are not adequately preparing graduates. According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities, “The majority of employers feel that colleges and universities must make improvements to ensure graduates’ workplace success. Fully 58% think improvements are needed to ensure graduates gain the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in entry-level positions at their company… and an even larger portion (64%) think improvements are needed to ensure that graduates have the skills and knowledge needed to advance within their company.”

Promises to make college tuition-free might give us the most degreed workforce in the world, but there’s no correlating evidence that it would provide the best educated workforce.

Secondly, making our colleges tuition-free won’t give us what Hillary Clinton wants—rising incomes. There are insufficient, high-paying jobs for recent college graduates. The Pew Research Center reported from a 2012 study that about 28 percent of recent graduates were underemployed—either working part-time or working in a low-paying, full-time job.

Getting through college, without any debt, may be helped by providing free tuition. But unless we are able to produce high-paying jobs, we may just have more graduates who are dissatisfied and underemployed.

The third problem is the message.

We’re a generous people in this country. For those who show a financial need, taxpayers have historically helped to fund tuitions through Pell Grants. What grants don’t cover, student loans, part-time jobs, and scholarships can fulfill.

But to tell our high school graduates that they are all entitled to a tuition-free college education could be harmful. Your very first lesson as an adult shouldn’t be that the world owes you something.

There’s a more reasonable approach to solving the trillion-dollar student loan debt. Allow graduates to refinance loans at available, lower interest rates as recommended by both Sanders and Clinton. Also, graduates can now enter repayment agreements that don’t exceed 10 percent of their income—no matter how high the student loan debt. And, we can continue Pell Grants.

It’s possible to provide needs-based solutions without going overboard by starting another entitlement program with lots of potential, negative consequences:

Free tuition at public colleges could make it tougher for private colleges to compete.
Charitable giving by generous donors could diminish because if college is free, what would be the point of offering scholarships?
The grading system could be dangerously dumbed down to make sure students meet minimal, government-mandated GPAs, in order to keep free money flowing to colleges.
It could create another bloated government agency, in which the cost to administer the program diminishes any positive effects.

The recession has been a rough ride for many individuals, not just college students. It’s tempting to latch on to campaign promises of free stuff, but it doesn’t solve the root of the problem.

Efforts to improve the education process and improve the economy in order to produce high-paying jobs—that graduates are qualified to fill—would pay bigger dividends.

It’s the better message for students.

Clearing the clutter and cobwebs

Image by Shutterstock

Middle class, middle-agers have a lot of stuff.

We’ve spent a lifetime earning, buying, and exponentially adding things to our homes.

It’s understandable. In the beginning of our adult lives, we had nothing. But as the years and then decades have gone by, each economic victory meant more purchases and a greater accumulation of possessions.

I’m tired of all this stuff.

When precious time is spent looking for an item—searching through this stack or that pile—my stress level climbs and I begin shouting, “We have so much stuff that we don’t even know what we have. I’m going to start throwing out all this stuff so we can find what we need.”

That was always an empty threat.

The book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up,” by Marie Kondo, though, has me looking at the concept of getting rid of stuff with new intrigue.

I thought the book would offer some concrete and easy to follow rules for tidying up a home. Keep no more than 100 books. Own no more than 10 pairs of shoes. One filing cabinet is all that’s needed for storing documents and important papers. Reasonable limits that I could adhere to and finally put my home in complete and satisfying order.

But those kinds of rules can’t ever work, because we’re all unique individuals. For one person, limiting the library to 100 books would be a tremendous sacrifice while another would find 100 books too cluttering. Generic rules would initially be simple, but not sustainable. It’d be a constant battle of trying to remain true to the person you are, while also complying with the rule.

Instead, the criteria that Kondo uses to determine whether or not to keep or throw an item is to ask if the item sparks joy for you. If it does, keep it. If it does not, dispose of it.

What?

Joy is a pretty strong word, and way too solid to apply to inanimate objects. But the intent is clear. Ask yourself, “Do you really want this item, or have you been holding on to it for a reason other than really wanting it?” If you don’t really want it, you can now give yourself permission to dispose of it.

This approach isn’t very concise, and therefore seems like a haphazard way to organize your home. But if you keep an open mind and make an effort to follow the joy factor, you begin to see the wisdom of it.

I haven’t jumped in with the zealous and intense approach recommended by the book, but I did experiment with the cookware section. Old habits die hard, and I was stalled by the same mental arguments I had in the past when trying to organize my too-much-stuff. “This is still in good condition.” (Even if I haven’t used it in years.) “This is a high quality piece.” (It’s too wasteful to get rid of something this expensive.) Or, “This lid fits this pan perfectly.” (Even though I have four other lids that also fit that pan perfectly thanks to wearing out pans faster than lids.)

But this time, I did manage to dispose of all those pieces that weren’t sparking joy—or at least weren’t sparking contentment. Out they went.

My reward is a cupboard left only with items I really want and use.

There’s something unexpectedly fulfilling about all this simple decision-making, too. With each choice, you’re declaring what you like and what you don’t like. It reinforces who you are as a unique individual. And that feels good. I don’t need multiple types and styles of cookie sheets because, although I love to cook, I don’t like to bake. I’m a cook, not a baker.

And when you put this much effort into organizing something—that is still just cookware—you make sure there’s a specific place for everything that you do keep. If there’s no room for anything else, you won’t make the same mistake of buying additional items when there’s no place to put them. Putting cookware through the joy test is something you only want to do once in your life. And now, the stress of looking for a pan or lid or casserole dish has been eliminated. I know where it is before I open the drawer.

Removing clutter from our home can be like removing cobwebs from our brain.

It’s hard to completely rest when there’s clutter around because it shouts that there’s unfinished work that needs attention. Our minds are continuously and oh-so-subtly preoccupied with this disorder in our lives.

Imagine a home where everything was in its proper place and those things were only items that you really wanted. Our minds would be fully free to think about more important things in life.

Kondo says, “…pour your time and passion into what brings you the most joy, your mission in life…putting your house in order will help you find the mission that speaks to your heart. Life truly begins after you have put your house in order.”

Now, to get the rest of my home like my cookware.