Yes, I know we’re able to vote for our leaders and on state and local issues. But how do we make ourselves heard on big issues, like healthcare reform? Or Afghanistan? Or the deficit? We can vote based on a candidate’s campaign promises, but I fear those promises are lost once they enter the big business of politics.

The Constitution of our great nation begins “We the People of the United States…”. But I’ve begun to wonder if it’s been secretly amended to “We the Corporations of the United States…”. It seems that our country is governed based on the needs and wants of companies rather than people.

Take the healthcare debate as an example. Based on a story I saw on CNN’s American Morning show yesterday, there are over 900 lobbyists registered to lobby for or against the bill. More than 900 lobbyists representing more than 900 corporations or special interest groups. According to the story, they spent $400 million wooing Congress over the bill. Wow. My budget can’t compare to that.

According to the CNN story, the American Beverage Association lobbied hard to have the proposed tax on soft drinks to pay for healthcare removed. After a handful of contributions to members of the Senate Finance Committee (yes, the very committee charged with creating this bill), poof! It’s gone. This industry group represents some very large companies that I’m sure you’re familiar with. Is there a group with deep pockets that represents all those rotted teeth that fell out due to the soft drink dependency we’ve developed?

I checked out the website for The Center for Political Responsiveness and found out who some of the major campaign contributors were for the key players on healthcare reform. I quickly glanced at the contributions for three senators on the finance committee and all three had an insurance company as one of their top five contributors. Interesting. What if insurance companies spent the money currently going to lobbying and campaign contributions on covering claims they previously denied. That might be a good start on healthcare reform.

Unfortunately, I suspect we will see the same thing with financial reform. We may get a few minor changes that will help protect the average American, but I doubt there will be many changes that would impair a company’s ability to make money, regardless of how reckless. And our climate/environmental policy will continue to be guided by oil lobbyists and businesses that don’t care how much they pollute as long as they make a profit.

What’s an American to do? Maybe if I focus on our local issues, my vote will still count and I’ll be able to make an impact. And maybe I’ll be able to scream loud enough in the smaller playing field where lobbying budgets are smaller.

To read the story on CNN: http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/04/lobbying-for-your-health/

To learn more about campaign contributions and lobbyists, visit Center for Political Responsiveness at www.opensecrets.org

It highlighted a video sponsored by the political group MoveOn.org with many big name actors lending their talents, including SNL alum Will Ferrell. It was a parody of a public service announcement asking us all to support the insurance companies who risk losing millions of dollars in profits if healthcare reform with a public option goes through. It left little question as to how the participants felt – they support a public option to temper the uncontrolled greed of insurance companies.

Personally, I thought it was quite funny. No one can disagree with the problems in the insurance industry and the negative impact they have on our country’s healthcare. A search on the internet will turn up several stories about people who had to deal with a grim diagnosis and battle the insurance company for coverage at the same time. There are also stories of those who lost their medical battles and died because the insurance company denied coverage.

I have mixed feelings about a public option so I haven’t made my mind up quite yet. But it was clear that CNBC has. Not surprisingly, they are very much against it. One look at their survey made that clear.

Anyone who has conducted marketing or opinion surveys knows there is a science to making sure questions are unbiased and not leading the participants to give certain answers. When asking if someone is for or against something, the multiple choice options need to be balanced across both sides. Granted, these quick web polls are by no means scientific, they can at least attempt to be fair. Well, CNBC certainly broke the rules.

They had a survey asking if the PSA was funny or “just typical liberal politics” with the options as follows:
o Funny
o Hysterical
o No, it’s typical liberal politics
o It’s okay

First, aren’t “funny” and “hysterical” basically the same thing? Unless, of course, you’re assuming that “hysterical” means extremely funny. And if that’s the case, shouldn’t the other options have been “kind of funny” and “not funny at all”?

And are we asking if it’s funny or if it’s liberal politics? They really aren’t mutually exclusive. Couldn’t it be both hysterical and liberal politics? But I couldn’t make two selections. And what’s the difference between typical “liberal” politics and typical “conservative” politics? Don’t both sides use tactics of this nature to get their point across? Or is it just the liberals that are funny? I’m so confused. I don’t know how to answer this damn survey.

I guess it really doesn’t matter. CNBC’s users had no problems deciphering it. A whopping 59% went with option 3 – “typical liberal politics”. I guess we know where they stand. And we can guess where they work and what companies they own stock in..

I still think it was funny, even if it was liberal politics.

My how times have changed. The controversy over President Obama’s speech to school children today was baffling. We’ve never had a president that I agreed with whole-heartedly, but I would never have denied my children the chance to listen to his address. Especially when given the opportunity to preview the text prior to the speech. (I did read the text this morning and didn’t see any “propaganda” that everyone was so worried about.)

I was shocked to see so many close-minded individuals in an uproar over their children receiving a positive message from the president. The extreme polarization in today’s political climate is disheartening. Do we really need to drag our children into the mess? And what does it teach them? That it’s our way or the highway, even when dealing with other grown-ups? That it’s okay to disrespect leaders and authority? That there is no tolerance for the views of others? That there is no need to be open-minded and hear out other opinions?

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a possible Republican contender for the 2012 presidential nomination, cited concerns over disrupting the first day of school which is already hectic. Seriously? Is that the best he could come up with? Maybe he’s not presidential material after all.

I was disappointed when our school sent out an automated message saying they did not have the technological capabilities to allow children to watch the speech. (I found that surprising and alarming considering my school from so many years ago was able to do so.) I welcomed the opportunity for my children to hear the speech and feel important by being addressed by the president. I was hoping to discuss it with them later and to reinforce the positive points and discuss anything that was concerning.

It’s too bad the other parents didn’t see this same “teachable moment” for their own children. It could have been fear that their children would see Obama as not so bad, or an unwillingness to spend the time to discuss it, or a close-mindedness that will certainly lead this country down the wrong path if too many start to follow it.

Earlier, I saw a clip from Rep. Barney Frank’s town hall meeting where he fielded questions from Americans holding signs of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache. There have been other events where protestors held similar signs.

First, let me say that I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I firmly side with Democrats on some issues and with Republicans on others. So the intent of this piece is not to defend Obama or the current state of healthcare reform legislation. I want to focus on something much more important – the lack of respect and common decency some American’s display.

I think it’s healthy to have lively debates and to disagree. Challenging others’ opinions and ideas can lead to innovation and creative compromise that might be better for the country as a whole. I am constantly evaluating new information and reassessing my views on topics like healthcare reform, Afghanistan and immigration. I am not so arrogant that I think I know everything. These are complex issues with many moving pieces and details. We should all be processing as many facts as we can so we are able to take a stance based on information instead of propaganda.

But when it crosses the line between intelligent debate to hateful and ignorant ranting, I’ve lost interest. The spectacle of ignorance overshadows the value of the discussion. And ignorant is how some of these people come across. They lack the emotional intelligence to convey their argument in a way that can be understood and respected. They lack all credibility at this point. They make America look like hate mongers. And that’s not the America I can be proud of.

Secondly, I don’t get it. I fail to understand the correlation between President Obama and Hitler. I don’t see Obama invading other lands (I believe that was our previous president – and I wouldn’t compare him to Hitler either). I don’t see Obama rounding up groups of people based on race or religion and hauling them off to death camps. It’s been a long time since I learned about this in high school, but I believe the Nazi party felt that both democracy and communism failed and moved towards a totalitarian stance, declaring the German race the only pure race. Anyone who thinks we’re heading in that direction is just plain nuts.

Okay, you’re right. I won’t find a job that way. But I’m not finding one sitting in front of my computer either. Yes, I know I need to be networking. And I have been. It’s just that I’m running out of connections. Introductions that I’m lucky enough to get often end up going no where. I don’t fault anyone for this. How many friends of friends of friends can you try to help find a job when there just aren’t that many out there? I get it. Some people don’t like being contacted by strangers. That’s why I appreciate something as simple as a return email that says “I’ll keep my eyes open for you, but don’t call me, I’ll call you.” At least I was given the courtesy of a reply.

I do believe that many people are sincere in wanting to help regardless of how well they know me. But I think that’s the key – how well they know me. If I don’t have a personal relationship with them, they don’t have an emotional desire to really help a friend. I become another name on a list of many others that are looking for a job. Without really knowing me and understanding my professional strengths, my name won’t come to mind when they come across a job that might be a really good fit.

Sometimes it makes me long for the last time I found myself in the job market after graduating from college. Give me a newspaper, a pair of scissors and some Elmer’s glue to assemble those clipped advertisements in an organized fashion on a piece of paper. Let me mail out my cover letter and résumé on crisp professional grade paper and actually find a phone number to do a follow-up call. No networking required.

But I like the concept of “rational optimism” that Business Week refers to in the article “Why It’s Smart To Be Optimistic”. Sure, we could all sit in our homes and wallow in self-pity and fear until the recession ends. (And I have to admit I’ve been guilty of this a few times during this recession.) But where will that get us? Nothing will change if we don’t do something to change it. As Isaac Newton discovered, an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force. (I knew that information would come in handy some day. I just didn’t know it would take so long!) So if we sit here and watch the economy get worse, it will continue to do so.

Or, we could look for the opportunities presented and use them to change course. I know that might sound easier said than done. But changing our mindset is critical for making positive things happen. This concept of “rational” optimism isn’t rose colored glasses optimism, but rather, an openness to the fact that the pain will end and good things could start to happen at anytime. I think we all need that if we’re going to start taking the risks necessary to turn things around. (Click here for a related rambling.)

Even through the stock market is up today after a huge drop yesterday, the headlines on CNBC are talking gloom and doom about a huge market correction and the bears overtaking the bulls. Blah blah blah. I’m sick of the negative speculation. Maybe they’re just trying to do us a favor by warning us that something bad might happen to our investments. Or maybe they’re just trying to boost ratings and page views. Either way, I’m not interested anymore.

Business Week compared the recession to a forest fire that’s clearing the old, dead trees and making way for new growth. I love that analogy. Recessions end and who knows what new companies and innovations will come out of this. Not to mention a new sense of fiscal responsibility for American consumers that will make us all better off in the long run.

Rational optimism… I’m sold.

Didn’t our blatant overspending and consumerism play a big part of our economic crisis? I know we’ve all been blaming the banks and Wall Street for letting their greed get the better of them. The bankers who qualified home buyers for more than they could afford and created new and trickier ways to trade them. The executives who earned big bonuses despite huge losses that led to the bailouts. The folks who ran GM, an American corporate icon, into the ground resulting in countless layoffs. The government entities that failed to uphold rules to protect shareholders. They all share in the blame.

But what about the American consumer and their greed? We seem to have developed a sense of entitlement to own a spacious home and drive a big SUV. We don’t think twice about charging new furniture for said home and paying for a maid to clean it while we spend our weekends at the mall. We buy countless pairs of shoes and flip flops. (I admit to my flip flop infatuation. I’m guilty!) We buy the latest fashions and make sure our children have all the same toys and gadgets that their friends have. We buy even though we can’t afford it. We just want to live the American dream.

But do we really know what that dream is? Is it to consume until we’re exhausted and burnt out on working to pay for it all? To make sure we’re keeping up with the Jones and the Smiths and the family across the street and the guy at the office? I officially declare that my dream is different. My dream is to actually live life through experience rather than through consumerism. To have less, but to have more time to enjoy it with family and friends. Not worrying about making a car payment or how to pay for the latest lessons the kids just have to have. Getting rid of all the things that clutter up the house and take away from our ability to relax. Sign me up for that dream.

So where does that leave us? If we all decide to take a new approach to the American dream, how will our economy recover? According to Fareed Zakaria, the American consumer holds the fate of the entire world economy in their wallet. You can read more about it in a recent CNN interview with Zakaria, and an article in an upcoming issue of Newsweek. In the CNN bit, Zakaria states that the American consumer is “the single biggest piece of the global economy”.

Wow. As an American consumer, I am partially responsible for the financial fate of our planet and everyone living on it. That’s real pressure. I don’t think this was supposed to be part of the American Dream either.

When my position was eliminated and I found myself unemployed like millions of other Americans, I was dazed and scared. A friend sensed that I was a bit down and suggested I read a book that helped her: “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne. I vaguely remembered hearing about this book when it came out and the author was lucky enough to score a spot on the Oprah Winfrey Show. But was it luck, or the courage to believe in the success of her book that made it happen?

“The Secret” revolves around the law of attraction. If you think about bad things happening, they will happen to you. If you think about good things happening to you, they will happen. Whether you buy into this concept or not, you have to agree it’s definitely better to think positively than to wallow in the mire of self pity and negativity.

So what if we all decided to apply this “secret” to the economic crisis? If all of us, not just businesses, started to envision the end of the recession and a robust recovery, what would happen?

I agree with Mr. Bregman’s theory that if businesses starting looking positively to the future and courageously started investing in themselves, the recession would start to ease. If they started to hire again, unemployment would decline. As a nation with an economy that is fueled by consumer spending, citizens with paychecks and disposable income is critical to our recovery. Unemployment is also tied to our ability to pay our mortgages and stay in our homes. If we can ease the foreclosure rate and spur more first-time home buyers, a housing recovery will be on track.

Businesses also have the power to consume – investing in new stores and facilities would spur consumption of building materials and technology needed to operate them. It would also result in jobs in construction and technology. There could be jobs in other areas too, depending on the business.

Consumers also need to start believing that it’s going to get better. People who are still employed and secure in their homes need to believe that the job losses are coming to an end and that their 401k will rebound in time for retirement. If they stop delaying new purchases and start spending money again, jobs will be created. And the people in those new jobs can start spending again.

We need to believe that the stock market will continue to rise. Investing again will strengthen the markets and in turn, our economy. I’d also like to suggest that we need to believe that businesses will operate efficiently and make smart decisions leading to success for the company, its shareholders and the country. But that seems like a bit of a stretch, doesn’t it? While some companies have operated solidly for years, we always seem to have an Enron or an AIG or a Bank of America wrecking havoc on our retirement investments and our economy. This one will definitely take courage. Hopefully we’re up for the challenge.

Millions of Americans go to work each day and tackle projects and initiatives handed to them by their bosses. They read emails, project status reports, and financial reports. They attend meetings, delegate tasks and carry out tasks. The compose emails and report back on their progress (or lack of progress). Many of them might not agree with the strategy behind everything they do, but they do it. They might believe they have a better way of accomplishing something, but they’re outvoted in the meeting or vetoed by their boss. I’ve been both the “vetoer” and the “vetoee”. And unless you’re being asked to do something unethical, you just do it. (In some cases, the ethical piece isn’t even considered, but that’s another article for another day.)

I would guess that members of Congress have somewhat similar experiences. The difference is in how they react. In the business world, successful people don’t discuss a topic endlessly until they get their way or the project is shelved. They don’t publicly berate their colleagues and mock opposing ideas in an attempt to promote their own agenda. They don’t create roadblocks to completing projects that were not planned out exactly as they would have liked. That’s not how businesses survive or thrive. Competition and constantly changing consumers and industries provide enough challenges for businesses without incessant infighting. In some cases, this behavior occurs, but to the detriment of the company. It takes away from the company’s ability to make progress and achieve goals. It creates a negative work environment. Unhappy and disengaged employees and an inability to get things done are a recipe for failure or mediocrity at best. Wouldn’t you agree that Congress is a great example of this?

Shouldn’t we demand more from our elected officials? Shouldn’t be demand more for our country? For our children? When will Congress learn? When will they think about the meaning of public service and act in a way that is true to its spirit? The nature of our political system makes them worry more about their re-election than whether or not they are moving the country forward and doing good for the country as a whole.

Maybe they could learn from one of science fiction’s most notable characters, Star Trek’s Spock. I believe it was in “Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn”, where he said “sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the one” in the dramatic ending. Isn’t that the true meaning of public service?

After all those hours I invested in my financial education through CNBC, I still can’t really explain what a derivative is. But do I know that today, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner wants more oversight of derivatives. And I think we all know that mortgage backed securities are risky now. But I’m not quite sure if I should invest in stocks, commodities or ETFs. I’ll admit, I don’t even know what ETF stands for. Extremely Traded Financials? Exploding Trades Forecast? If I pick stocks, do I go with blue chips or small caps? NASDAQ or S&P 500 or Russell 2000? Or should I go for emerging market stocks? And then there are treasury yields and bonds – should I be looking there?

I’m also confused about all these numbers that get released each week and what I should be doing with them. Over half a million new unemployment claims last week. (But we’re supposed to be happy about that because it went down.) We have non-farm payroll numbers and new housing starts and existing home sales and mortgage applications and earnings reports and productivity numbers and GDP. Whew, let me catch my breath for a moment before I mention the strength of the dollar against other currencies and how that impacts it all.

I might not know what all of these things mean, but I have learned a few things. First, our financial system is a big bowl of spaghetti, tangled together and almost impossible to separate. What happens with one number impacts another which impacts another and another and another… Second, the folks running the financial industry are brilliant. Yes, they ran lots of big banks into the ground and required government bailouts in order to pay retention bonuses, but they’ve created something so complex and convoluted, that the average investor needs them. Yep, we need to hire someone to help us sort it out and find some place to put our money. That’s job security. And third, I’ve realized that one of the most important factors is our outlook. Whatever the numbers are, it’s all in how we look at them. Is our glass half full or half empty?

So thankfully Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, was able to boil it down to three easily understood pieces of advice. But I’ll still continue to watch the Kudlow Report and Squawk on the Street, but I just might put a good chunk of money under my mattress where I know exactly what’s happening to it.