This week marked the 1-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the stimulus bill that pumped $787 billion into the U.S. Economy to avert financial catastrophe and a 2nd Great Depression. We can debate all day about could have, should have, would haves with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but I do believe, on balance, the actions taken by the administration over the past year probably did avert disaster. But...

Today I saw this quote from Governor Patrick:

“When you talk about what you do for your son, that's what this is all about.”

Governor Deval Patrick, to Derek Lilly, a father of five, who had been describing what it feels like to be a role model for his son now that he has a job thanks to a Stimulus-funded job development program at Boston ABCD.

How can anyone defend the bailout of greedy bankers and free market enthusiasts as something we did for our kids? We did it because the cost of all other alternatives was far worse. We borrowed the future of the next generation to pay off the failures of the present and ensure that angry mobs of unemployed people didn't burn down the Capital.

What does the future look like? I believe the next generation will find a way. As someone who is in Generation X, in my early 40s, I worry not so much that people like me and younger will simply suffer under the burden of higher taxes, long-term high unemployment rates, and increasingly diminished opportunities that result from paying off or not paying off this huge debt...I worry about what future bad choices we'll be asked to make.

We are setting the stage for a generational war to replace the so-called cultural war. Instead of Red and Blue states, we will have Green and Gray states. We will see policy choices that increasingly "pay back" the current leadership generation for their abdication of stewardship. We will see a world where policy makers don't have any sympathy for the "lazy" 70-year old who wants to retire or expects to receive a pension. Out of necessity, younger people will take charge of this mess they have inherited with solutions from their own perspective that is shaped by this world that is unfolding over the next decade.

I'm not saying young people are or will be heartless or seek to actively punish anyone. But the world of choices we are shaping will force harder and harder decisions that will hurt those who do not seek and maintain power.

There is already anger in this country and there should be more. We averted disaster. Great. But don't tell me this benefits my kids. Tell me what we are going to do to ensure a future worthy of our stewardship. Tell me what sacrifices we are going to make now and then have the guts to lead on those issues.

I'm not reading other people's opinions about yesterday's U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts where Republican Scott Brown beat Democrat Martha Coakley. It will just make me angry, I'm sure. I need to focus on things I can change...things I need to do for myself. But I will offer some observations about how understandable this vote was in the context of health care reform...

I attended the Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce annual meeting this morning where Jim Roosevelt, Tufts Health Plan CEO spoke about the challenges of health care reform. He's also a leader in the Democratic effort to make changes to the health care system. I believe his heart is in the right place, but does anyone else see a problem with having the head of a Health Plan leading reform??

Tufts is a "good" plan--it is the insurance I have and I can think of a lot worse. Roosevelt made the point that the main cost driver in health care is the unit cost of services--and that it is all passing through Tufts which has low administrative costs and minimal profit. He even gave an illustrative example of one of his staff showing him a statement of benefits and being appalled at the costs that are normally hidden from individuals. I've seen those bills too and they anger me and convince me that this system is a corrupt enterprise. But I come to a far different conclusion about the remedy.

Roosevelt informed the crowd that legislation had been filed to create something in Massachusetts that would help small businesses and indviduals by creating an affordable health plan option that would save as much as 22% and offer a level of service comparable to the "Bronze" level plans of the Massachusetts Health Connector. Thanks for the scraps. So you are telling me that after revolutionary change in our country...after all this hard work, I will be able to purchase lame health insurance for $800/month instead of $1000?

Let's go back to that statement of benefits. Why does some drug cost $3600? Why does the time it takes a nurse to hook up someone to an IV cost $250? Why, if I don't have health insurance, does the same bill come to me with dramatically inflated prices? Honestly, I'm tired of asking why or even caring. We need to reduce these costs.

Instead, what is happening is the government is trying to provide health insurance to all and then distribute the additional costs to the rest of us. Since most people get their insurance through an employer, this translates into crippling taxes on small businesses. OF COURSE THEY OPPOSE THIS KIND OF REFORM! That is like telling me, hey, we did it! Now, homeless people in Boston have free health insurance and your premium went up to $1200 a month. That is not what I ever wanted from health care reform. I should not have been paying $1000 in the first place!

I want someone to figure out how to provide a basic level of care to all Americans for something like $400/month. That's an arbitrary number, but my point is that this idea of saving 20% is about as credible as a Macy's sale where every item in the store is constantly on sale and no idiot would ever pay full price. What do we need to change to lower the costs?

The Democrats have convinced themselves--as I did yesterday before I grudgingly cast my vote for Martha Coakley--that any reform is better than no reform. We recognize the reality is that while Republicans talk about reform and cost-cutting, the real agenda is simply to kill reform so everyone can heave a big sigh of relief and get on with the business of making lots of money for insurance companies and "big pharma."

Small business owners are caught between a rock and a hard place. Whose bullshit do you believe? It's not that hard when one candidate is trying to sell you a bill of goods and the other is calling her out on it.

People feel anger and frustration when they realize what is really happening: that compromise is purchased in back room deals, and scraps of mitigation are doled out to special interest groups while life goes on in a fundamentally corrupt system. It is enough to push people into a rejection of that representation and, unfortunately, a rejection of the whole reform process.

What are we left with? Well, perhaps we are left with a Senator who will cause this process to be rebooted. Perhaps he will represent small businesses who say $800/month instead of $1000 is no bargain for me! Certainly the pain of rising health care costs for business will not go away.

So, to be clear, I DON'T think we had a case of Mass. Insanity yesterday. Pushed into a corner, people made a choice they could believe in, rather than accepting that they had to vote for Martha Coakley or it would be the end of the world. Today is a new day and after all the pundits get done pontificating about realignment and the impact on Obama, maybe someone will start asking more fundamental questions about this corrupt system. So instead of asking what if or even why, I guess the real question is what next?

Note: Obviously, this post is "dated"--see my thoughts on the subsequent election of Republican Scott Brown...

Massachusetts will choose a Senator in two weeks. I hope that choice will be Alan Khazei. Technically, it is a primary election, but given that we have 4 qualified Democrats, I can't see how a Republican could pull any kind of surprise upset. So the reality is that the primary is the election.

We have a rare opportunity to choose someone who will make a difference.

The front-running candidates have established impressive records of public service. They have served the Commonwealth and their constituents well, standing up for what they believe in and protecting the interests of those they serve. But we should look for a little more and perhaps a little less.

Alan Khazei started City Year. He is a social entrepreneur and a person who knows how to inspire others to achieve. Electing this type of leader is like electing thousands of people who together can make a difference. It is casting a vote for the optimistic belief that everyone has something to contribute. That is the "more" I find missing from the other candidates.

The "less" is that Alan doesn't have much of a political resume. He can't tell us how he fought for this and that and stood up to the bad people or whatever. I'm tired of hearing those lines from candidates anyway...the reality is that there are so few situations in life where a person truly has the individual power to stand up and truly make a public stand that matters. Most who do, do it quietly and anonymously.

The real heroes in our world are the ordinary people who do the right thing because they believe in themselves and in a greater purpose. Alan's message--and his life's work--has been to encourage and support others to believe in themselves and find ways to make small differences in the world. That's more important than having the right position on health care or knowing how to work the system so you can orchestrate outcomes.

Perhpas Ted Kenneday had it all...but he had a powerful family and 50 years to develop his role and influence. The other candidates in this race will start as junior Senators...they cannot assume that mantle of leadership and so I think a different approach is necessary.

We need to take this perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity to send someone to Washington who will lead through empowerment...who will seek out like-minded, visionary voices of positive change and continue his work to encourage all citizens to recognize their potential. There is no argument that Alan can't win...and therfore no reason to throw away a vote on Coakley or Capuano.

I don't know Alan personally and I wasn't even sure how to pronounce his name at first. But when I looked at what he had to say and researched what he has actually done, I could recognize the pattern almost instantly. Most people in government, unfortunately, don't carry that infectious faith in human nature. They can be great leaders--not necessarily cynics--but there is a difference when a leader genuinely accepts the idea that everyone has something to offer and the greatest service he or she can provide is to help others to believe in the concept of public service.

And he has a sense of humor!

While most people grouse and complain about corrupt Massachusetts politics, one friend of mine is doing something to change the world--or at least our part of it.

Westwood resident Chris McKeown explained his non-partisan group's plan to fix Beacon Hill in an Op-Ed piece in the Boston Globe last month. Their website, fixbeaconhill.com, explains a series of proposed changes fundamental to how things operate in the administration of power in the legislature. I'm trying to help and running full-on into the challenge of modern rational communication.

It is complex. The changes are not sound-bites and their explanations will not fit on billboards or be suitable for chanting by crowds of impassioned lawyers. The amendment reaches deep into the internal governance--the rules by which our legislature conducts business--to unlock the corrupt system of power that, regardless of the individual integrity and best intentions of those we do elect to "make a difference," thwarts them at every turn and contributes to a culture of cynicism, powerlessness, and defeat.

I can't "tweet" in 140 characters a magical phrase that will make a rational argument. I could write, as Chris did, a long, reasoned piece and supporting website explaining what the amendment will do. But who is going to read that? When I consider the steps between finding, reading, and acting--it is a challenging proposition to move readers to action. But right now, the question is not whether you believe this amendment can solve all our problems, but whether you can be persuaded to sign a petition so that this amendment can be placed on the ballot for debate. The deadline for petitions to be received by Town Clerks is November 18.

We've been looking at the political blogs in Massachusetts and trying to figure out how to appropriately get this message out there. We posted to Blue Mass Group and Red Mass Group, but I understand, the best I can hope for there is discussion. We cannot cause a viral storm of petition signing to materialize, and we run the risk of appearing to be unsavvy spammers if we blast this message out to communities where we have no authentic presence.

It would be great if online petitions were valid. But they are not. The closest thing we can come up with is a downloadable petition kit which contains detailed instructions on how to print out a double-sided form (you have to print page 1, then re-feed the paper in the printer; otherwise the petition is invalid!). It's a lot easier to measure "conversion" when all you want is for a user to click on a link! But, amazingly, many people are downloading these kits and using them to gather signatures. A small but motivated number of people are always the lever that moves the world.

I am asking myself, what is the social media equivalent of Paul Revere rousing the populace to muster troops at Lexington and Concord? In his book The Tipping Point, Malcom Gladwell compares "connector" Paul Revere to "ordinary" William Dawes and illustrates how a "word of mouth epidemic" broke out because Revere "knew EVERYBODY." Imagine the difficulty of the argument: "Hey, wake up! I want you to grab a gun, leave your family in bed, and ride up to Concord to take potshots at the British. You didn't have anything better to do, now did you??" It's a great illustative tale, but it merely observes the magic at work; it does not give clues for the social media alchemist catching sight of those lanterns in the Old North Church.

I'm no Paul Revere. But what we must ask ourselves is what CAN we do and then just do it. We can suspend cynicism and doubt and stop asking pointless questions based on irrelevant what-ifs. We can stop thinking about how to control events and let the ideas channel though our actions. The task in this case is to print a document carefully, sign it, and mail it. If enough people do that, we can have a more substantive debate about whether the specific proposals will WORK. But for now...how hard is it to print a couple of pages and sign them? Bonus points if you can get a few other people to sign the form too. I'll post this and go to the printer now. Share and repeat.

Ted Kennedy dedicated his life to achieving universal health coverage for all Americans. It is at the same time heroic and pathetic that a visionary leader and tireless advocate of legendary stature was unable to achieve, in his lifetime, something that should be a basic and fundamental human right. Now, Democrats will invoke his memory and hope that perhaps that will be enough to allow some form of reform to pass Congress.

I can't comprehend the current system or how we got here, let alone attempt to analyze President Obama's plan. I don't know what went so wrong back when Hillary Clinton tried to achieve health reform almost a generation ago. Is it shocking to anyone else that the kids who voted for Barack Obama in their first Presidential elections were probably my kids' ages when those Harry and Louise ads ran...

This time...perhaps we are closer. Perhaps, after 17 years of liberals fighting back at every knee-jerk invocation of the "socialized medicine" buzzword and with movies like Michael Moore's "Sicko" a few more people have come across to the radical belief that we need to do something. But I do not think we will win passage on the margins...the details are an endless exercise into debating minutiae where objections are easy to raise and vision is lost in the hypothetical negatives of those who are afraid of losing what little they have and who lack faith that anything better will replace it.

Seven months ago, I blogged about how to maintain health insurance while unemployed. Massachusetts has great benefit programs that can--once a person figures out how to qualify--shield them from the danger of going without coverage. But navigating this safety net convinces me NOT that we have a great system--just that we have done the best job of protecting people despite a National failure of leadership.

When I am in danger of losing my health insurance, I must fill out forms, wait months to learn if I qualify for benefits, and click, click, click away on websites that present me with choices and questions. One of the first things you do when you lose your job is cancel the doctor and dentist appointments in the future that you know won't be covered anymore. That's wrong. Eventually, I do get covered, but it matters to me whether I will have to write a check for thousands of dollars in a few months when I don't know what my income will be. Even though I am not in danger of losing access to emergency medical treatment, I do not know what that treatment will cost. I fear the simple doctor visit that could have been scheduled a few weeks earlier might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

We need to figure out how to ensure that a core set of basic medical services are guaranteed to all Americans. Not an "option" and not a safety net that only helps after you lose everything. We especially need to ensure that those who lack the ability to choose or feel they cannot afford to buy insurance will not go without medical care.

My job at Mass.Gov, as manager of the Massachusetts Recovery website, ended on September 30. I have hesitated to blog about it here for two reasons: 1) I do not want to "burn any bridges," by writing negatively about an experience that did not work out for me and 2) I need to honor the standard contractor confidentiality agreement I was asked to sign before I was told my contract would not be renewed.

The job was not a good fit. The people at Mass.Gov are doing great things and the Governor's Office in particular is embracing social media and interactive communications as part of an engagement strategy that will positively change the way our government works. They--the full time staff--are laying the groundwork for the future that will be adopted gradually as leaders responsible for results see the value in these tools.

But it was an awkward situation for me. First of all, while I worked for Mass.Gov, my real "customer" was the Massachusetts Recovery Office--an oversight agency that was in the process of being formed. My position was a contract job--and contract jobs have to be renewed every 90 days, so technically, I was not fired--the contract was just not renewed for me. I should have had no expectation of automatic continued employment. But I never thought of it as a just a contract job.

My leaving was not for performance reasons--in fact I was told repeatedly that I had accomplished a lot, my work was appreciated, but the Recovery Office wanted a more junior person for this particular role--to focus on just posting content to the web site. The requirements of the role changed significantly over the course of a few months--and I wanted my role to be more expansive than it was.

I'm sure for many, my presence was a mystery. How could someone with my experience be happy managing a web site? Some people felt I was "overqualified." But I saw the job as an opportunity that fit into a larger vision of how I thought I could do something good for others while developing relationships with influential people in state government. I canceled a final round of interviews with another company because I saw the potential of this role to allow me to make a significant contribution by using my talents in communication, technology, and social media to help economic recovery.

I think that ambitious attitude wasn't perceived as altruistically as I'd like. I don't know really. I felt as though there was something wrong about me. I didn't understand why people did not want to take advantage of what I thought I was offering.

I had similar frustrations years ago working for a legislative committee staff in Washington State. The role was non-partisan--a summer internship in 1992--but I was most definitely identifiable as a Democrat when I attended the 1992 Democratic National Convention as an alternate delegate for Paul Tsongas. I was careful to separate those things--as careful as I was to separate my own personal blogging from my work with mass.gov--but I think there is just a fundamental conflict that makes bureaucrats and staff uncomfortable. When people did not assign me projects...I sought them out. People were polite but non-responsive. I created projects and tried to find work to do. I remember creating study of all 50 states welfare reform initiatives. When the summer ended...no followup, no explanations, no invitation back.

What have I learned? I think I will never be comfortable sitting in the chairs behind the people at the conference table. I was not patient enough for that when I was in my 20s; why would I want that in my 40s? I need to work and make money--we all do. But for the things I want to do with my life, I need to just do them and not look for someone to hire me. I would rather serve as an official in my town than be the Governor's chief of staff. I would rather see a single bike lane painted in my town...or a crosswalk improved...and have a neighbor thank me for doing something that matters to them--than draft "the solution" to health care reform.

So now I focus on what next...and fill out my work search log and file my weekly claim.

to be continued...

Towns, cities, developers, business leaders and activists should seize the communication opportunities available in social media to collaboratively and cooperatively plan their economic futures.

I recently blogged about how Boston World Partnerships is developing a social media approach to facilitate connections between "movers and shakers" in Boston and globally promote the city. I subsequently chatted with Eric Schoenfeld and got a better sense of how they are in the process of preparing to launch what will be a resource and affinity network--like an alumni network for the city. It could connect all those who identify with the creative and intellectual "gravitas" that is Boston in a way that fosters collaboration and cooperation. I see this project as a way to address the criticisms and comparisons of the culture of the past--most notably the Saxenian appraisal of why Silicon Valley beat Boston in the 90s race to be a technology capital.

Read more »

Update: The MBTA is constructing a temporary ramp to be completed this week.

Simple problems don't have simple solutions...in fact, the more obvious the solution, the less likely it is to be solved. I'm not talking about technical problems, but community problems--problems that are systemic in nature. Efforts to address one part of the issue upsets an underlying system and things quickly become complicated.

A specific case of this is the situation near where I live, at the Dedham Corporate Center commuter rail stop. This blog post at myDedham is a great illustration of a problem stated, information provided by the town, and the quick exposition of underlying complexities:

For several years now, train riders have been cutting through a chain link fence to reach Rustcraft Road across the tracks from the intended parking area. Promotional materials for the luxury apartments on Rustcraft Rd describe their location as only a "crosswalk away from the Dedham T Station."

There is no crosswalk. What happens every day is that pedestrians pass through a 2-foot wide break in a chain link fence and climb over a dirt embankment down to Rustcraft Road where they dart across to the apartments. It is a ridiculous situation.

For the problem-solver, this is easy. We need to open up the fence, add a sidewalk path from the train platform to the road, put in a crosswalk--ideally with a stop light, and put in sidewalks all along the apartment side of the road. Instead, the MBTA has recently begun to block off that 2-foot wide gap in the fence because they are now concerned about liability. So people just walk down the tracks to where the fence ends and cut through the woods there.

The problem here is not so simple. In technical fields--and in most business situations--we are taught to analyze the problem and find a solution. When emotional issues arise, we are told to "separate the people from the problem." Therein lies the root of why nothing has been done for so many years...

The people are the problem. Apparently, when Dedham Corporate Center was originally developed, the neighborhoods on the Rustcraft Road side were so concerned about traffic from people rushing to the train, that they demanded assurances that there would never be access to the train station from their neighborhoods. Now they are watching the construction of Legacy Place which landlocks them between Route 128/I95, the train tracks, and this new luxury living mall. Their backs are against the wall--quite literally, as the highway department just erected a sound barrier behind their homes.

When I say the people are the problem, I'm not saying that they should shut up and go away. What I am saying is that a series of decisions have been made where clearly the residents were considered an inconvenience and now they have been backed into a corner. There is not much left of a neighborhood--we are talking about 15-20 houses. But it illustrates an unfortunate outcome with "loose ends" manifested in this idiotic train situation.

If we were in China, those homes would have been bulldozed long ago. But this is America and we are supposed to do better by our neighbors than that. But the problem is that I think too often we focus on solving a problem, engineering a solution, creating something new--and disrespecting the community because we have separated the people from the problem. Planners, developers, architects--often yearn to paint a new canvas with their enlightened brushstrokes, then placate the abuttors, the objectors, the irrational folks who don't share their vision of progress.

We see a similar tempest in Westwood. Billions of dollars may (better check the markets today!) be spent to create a mini-city of Westwood Station that will grow the town of Westwood by multiples and secure our economic future...if all goes according to plan. But the project is self-contained. Residents and neighboring towns are concerned about traffic, so millions of dollars are spent to mollify the abutting residents with "traffic calming" measures while neighboring towns are negotiated with and dismissed--resulting in legislative maneuvering and political tricks designed to sabotage the project. When I suggested in a blog post that it would be nice to connect Westwood Station to the neighborhoods...it sounded crazy to the residents who want walls built and assurances that they will not get any spillover traffic...the same pattern repeats. Fundamentally conservative residents don't want their lives to change and don't want new development in their backyards because it will be bad.

So our elected officials play a tactical game of problem-solving. What do we need to do to make these people shut up or get around them? If traffic is the problem, OK, let's fix that and move on. But I believe the problem is always the people...it is about engaging the people in a respectful dialog and working with them--not just to mitigate damages, but to adapt the community to new opportunities. Maybe I am naive and optimistic, but I think many of these problems grow out of a failure of vision and the mistaken belief that if we just fix a few specific problems, then we can get on with things and the objectors will go away.

I think the opportunity to develop on a massive scale is almost a gift for the community...most of the time, there is no money to do anything...adding sidewalks, just fixing the potholes is a challenge. So when a developer shows up ready to spend millions of dollars we should figure out how to make that investment benefit our community--not just cover mitigation of the presumed damages that come from growth. Can we trust the developer? Probably not. But just like politics, you've got to be in the game from the beginning...we need to be constructively engaged from planning, through build-out, management, and even the end of life of these projects.

It may be too much to ask of our government. I don't know what the structure would be but it seems to me we need to find a way to connect our communities with development not just negotiate a set of costs and benefits for a project. Circumstances change constantly...so what seemed a good idea 10 years ago might not be so good now. But when we break the bonds of community, good luck getting any cooperation down the road when the residents have watched their neighborhood being turned into a ghetto by the policies of the town and commercial motivations of the developer.

Just 2 days ago, I was aghast that my Congressional Representative Steven Lynch, technically a Democrat, voted against the financial bailout. I was unconvinced by his class-based analysis and utterly unpersuaded. I thought he was dead wrong.

But today, I am singing a different tune. I cannot believe the Senate has "sweetened the deal" by adding a few tax cuts and things to make it more palatable to a few Republicans. I stepped back and listened to what people were saying and I have to grudgingly admit that although I disagree with our Representative on many issues, on this one, he heard the truth.

The truth is that it is utter bullshit to hand over more than $700 billion to the Treasury department to buy up the worthless bad loans that are polluting the credit markets. The truth is that raising the FDIC insurance limit from $100K to $250K is going to benefit no one except the idiots who have not figured out that if you have more than $100K in liquid assets, you need to open multiple bank accounts. The truth is no one really knows what they are talking about and the most intelligent among us have simply panicked and have become victims of their last pseudo-intellectual conversations with someone who had more degrees than they do.

I listened to some of the Senate debate tonight. When time is short, you can really see how the speechwriters quickly string together buzzword phrases to form a sort of dysfunctional opera of platitudes against a Cassandra motif of despair. Experts, logic, reason--have they served us so well that we trust the opinions of those who failed to prevent this disaster to now steer us clear? We face extreme uncertainty now, and these experts are the very people who brought us here.

It's Iraq all over again. We have no choice but to do this thing or it is the end of the world. Where are the home mortgages of mass destruction buried?

I agree that Congress needs to do something. But perhaps what they need to do is realize they should pass on this deal and not be blackmailed into dumping billions of dollars into the pockets of Wall Street on the hope that it will make the banks start lending again. Easy for me to punt, you say. No, actually, I think opposing this thing in the face of so much conventional wisdom takes real courage. In times of true uncertainty, rather than look harder for a better answer, we should return to our core principles and instincts, and consider that perhaps the uneducated, ill-informed among us cannot talk the economic talk, but they can spot bullshit a mile away...and this deal reeks.