What I've Learned in 25 Years Teaching

As a recently retired teacher, I feel I should impart some grand wisdom about the state of education in West Virginia and the nation. I’m not sure I can. But I can tell you some stories.

When I was in high school during the turbulent 1960’s, I felt that public education was essentially designed so students would blindly conform with social norms and values, such as doing one’s work without questioning authority, maintaining the social order and the status quo, and supporting the government and the military. (If you were against the Vietnam War, you were not considered patriotic.)

In 1969, as one of two graduation speakers for my high school class, I wrote a speech calling for radical changes in education. I called for debate and critical thinking rather than rote memorization to measure successful learning. I opined that it was no wonder young people and disenfranchised communities became angry when excluded from the American Dream through unfair and unequal treatment in jobs, housing, and education, especially when the influence of a powerful military-industrial complex causes government to be unresponsive to people’s demands for change.

When I began teaching in rural West Virginia in 1987, I was much more pragmatic in my approach. Keeping twenty-five fourth graders engaged for six hours a day will always be a challenge, let alone getting them to think critically. I found most students willing to work hard, but resist thinking. They expect to be led to the answers and be rewarded, except for those who are so frustrated they don’t even try.

I would like to believe that becoming a good teacher takes time and experience, as I feel it did for me. Although many people told me in my first years that I was a good teacher,  I knew that I wasn’t in many areas at first.  However, I have seen great young teachers and lousy experienced ones. Most teachers get better as we learn from our mistakes and our successes, from each other, and from various other available sources of professional development. But in the current system, teachers are not given many opportunities to learn from each other.

In the course of my twenty-five year career I’ve seen radical shifts in education at the elementary school level. When I started, teachers were obligated to meet well defined instructional objectives set forth by the state in any way the teacher thought best.  For many, this meant adherence to textbooks purchased by the county school districts and their accompanying worksheets and tests. Most teachers added in project-based learning and themed units of study to tie together learning in different subjects. Some teachers preferred to develop their own materials or purchase supplemental materials, such as classroom sets of books, rather than sticking to the textbooks. These materials enhanced student learning, and that was accepted, even encouraged.  Standardized tests in 4^th, 8^th, and 10^th grades gave students, teachers, and schools a general idea of their progress. Graduation rates and college entrance exams provided additional data.

In 2001, a forward thinking principal at my school felt that a computer lab with an enthusiastic teacher to staff it would help narrow the gap for kids who didn’t have computers. With the help of grants and donations we got computers, and with federal Title I funds (funds given to schools with a high enough percentage of students eligible for free lunches), the principal  hired me as a reading specialist to improve reading and writing through technology. Released from grading, testing, collecting homework assignments, parent conferences, and behavior issues that make teaching a daily challenge, I entered my “glory years” as an educator. Students looked forward to their time with me, even the behaviorally challenged, and using a mix of basic skills software, word processor-based writing activities, and projects using applications such as PowerPoint and the Internet, students in my elementary school had an hour a week to learn using technology. Classroom teachers, many very tentative about computers, could learn along with their students.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) put an end to that and many other creative responses by teachers and schools to the problem of the achievement gap between economic and racial groups.

A disclaimer is in order here. It really doesn’t matter what results the greatest theory of education produces in students when applied by experts. What matters is how real teachers and real schools apply those theories. So in the 1980’s and 90’s there was a great debate about “Whole Language” as a method for learning to read and write. The best practitioners of this approach produced excellent results concentrating on group reading of “Big Books,” individual choice in reading materials once independent reading skills were obtained, and “Writing Workshop” time in which students were encouraged to write whatever they wanted, and the process of writing was emphasized over the correctness of spelling and grammar. However, many teachers with inadequate understanding, support, or skills, applied the methods unsuccessfully and overall reading scores suffered, especially for those who entered school with limited skills and who enjoyed less parental support (which correlates strongly with lower economic status). The achievement gap increased.

The reaction, embodied in NCLB, narrowed the elementary school curriculum dramatically to focus on distinct, measurable skills in reading and math.. Teachers in primary classrooms were required to deliver an hour of scripted phonics instruction. In upper elementary, teachers were encouraged to concentrate on narrow skills such as reading speed or isolated comprehension skills, and to constantly assess student progress. Teachers had little time in their schedules to squeeze in writing activities and were prohibited from teaching writing processes during reading class. Reading scores improved to a degree, but West Virginia learned, as others have, that critical thinking and higher level comprehension skills have suffered. Once again, it may not be the theory, but the application that causes the unsatisfactory results.

In the last couple years of my career I spent most of my time, as most reading specialists do, reading with small groups of students and concentrating on isolated skills as required by the implementation of  NCLB. I no longer had time to staff the computer lab, which got used mostly for testing. Classroom teachers were told to use their textbooks and admonished to be faithful to the prescribed curriculum, including how to introduce and teach lessons and where to be in the book during the course of the year. Principals were required to do “walk-abouts” to insure compliance. At our school, teachers found ways to work in independent reading, writing and projects, but it was difficult to find the time given the requirements.

Today, students spend hours and hours taking a variety of tests, practice tests, assessment tests, skills tests, and computer based tests, in addition to tests teachers give in the course of teaching the required curriculum. They spend literally weeks on required county and state benchmark and standardized tests.

I’m pleased to report that the pendulum may be swinging back to giving teachers more flexibility through the “Common Core,” or “Next Generation Content Standards and Objectives” as West Virginia calls them. However, be advised that only by implementing truly collaborative professional development models which place teachers at the center will better teaching and learning result.

In twenty-five years of teaching elementary school including fifteen years in a second part-time job working with teachers at all grade levels improving the teaching of writing, if I have gained any grand wisdom, it is that

• Students need to spend most of their time actually engaged in what you want them to learn.
• During reading time they must read even as they’re mastering the alphabet and its sounds;
• They need to write about everything they’re learning and learn grammar through the process of working with others to edit their work;
• In all other classes they need to be engaged in learning and projects of genuine interest to them as much as possible.
• Teachers learn best with and from their peers, so they need opportunities to spend time with other teachers, seeing how they teach, giving each other feedback.
• Principals need to be smart, experienced instructional leaders so they earn respect from teachers.
• They should be collaborative, not authoritarian in their approach
• Any system of teacher evaluation should have a panel of expert teachers who can either help improve or weed out incompetent or ineffective teachers. Professional teacher associations need to help design these systems.
• Teacher preparation programs should do a better job weeding out inappropriate candidates.
• Technology is a wonderful tool for learning, but computer programs cannot replace good teachers. 

NCLB is proof that lawmakers do not understand education. Its basic tenets are untenable, and it has, in my opinion, done more harm than good. Lawmakers should pass laws that support teachers seeking out rigorous professional development, and schools which provide it, bringing in outside consultants as needed. Teachers working in the most difficult teaching situations should be rewarded so the best teachers will seek out and stay in those positions.

I made a decent living as a teacher and feel fortunate to be able to retire with a pension in an age of cutbacks. I hope that our country’s economy improves and that professional educators get the support and respect they deserve, though that support and respect should not depend on the state of the economy. A healthy economy, competent workforce, and an informed electorate cannot be maintained without investment in a professional teaching force.

This essay was published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Sunday, June 10, 2012

Flopney, Grinch, Odd Paul, and Sanctimonious

I thought I could stay quiet about the Republican primaries. It was supposed to be a slam-dunk for Mitt Flopney. Then Rick Perrywinker had his moment, until people realized he was a parody of a comic doing an impression of an ignorant Texas politician. The Hermanator was next. Why make a nickname when they make their own? His bid terminated when the doorbell rang and what the delivery boy brought was hot and ready sexual misconduct and affairs made public. Oh, Ann Coulter, you were so wrong when you claimed black Republicans (“our blacks”, you said) are so much better than black Democrats. Obama has more class in his little finger…uh oh, used the word “class,” I must be committing class warfare.

Odd Paul. Is he really a candidate for President? At 77, he would be older beginning his presidency than the oldest president, Ronald Reagan, was when he left office. He would be the person most surprised if he became the Republican nominee. He’s an issues person. Odd Paul’s stance against American military adventurism even attracts some on the left. They like hearing him say he would bring the troops home from all around the world and slash the military budget.  Somehow they are able to overlook the fact that given the chance he would end the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior (national parks, etc.). Odd Paul’s radical proposals to cut spending and return to a gold standard, if implemented, would most likely send us back into a deep recession or depression, though it might make the rich richer, a typical result of Republican policies.

Not that other Republicans don’t have their own radical agendas for America. They call it Conservatism, but it’s more like Corporatism or Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy). They want to cut taxes for all, which is always popular; who can honestly say they like to pay taxes? But of course, their tax cuts benefit the rich more and reduce the amount of money available to the government to help those in need.

As radical as Odd Paul’s ideas are, he manages to attract votes from 10-20% of Republican primary voters, which amounts to about 5% of all registered Republicans, or 2% of all voters. Of course, if there’s one thing we’ve learned this primary season, it is that large numbers of voters can go hot and cold in a hurry. At least polls tell us their enthusiasm waxes and wanes with the wind.

And so it has gone with Newt the Grinch, and will likely now go with Rick Sanctimonious. Republican voters got excited by the Grinch’s skillful propaganda techniques and imagined him defeating Obama in a debate. Until Mitt delivered a few jabs in a Florida debate and a deflated Newt who had just been told his own investment portfolio included Fannie and Freddie, mumbled, “All right.” If even Mitt could do it, what would Obama do to him?

And so only Rick the Sanctimonious stands between Flopney and his goal, to be the president who with his business background will steer the ship of state on a corrective course through treacherous waters—can’t you just hear his inspiring words now?  But first he will have to dispatch Sanctimonious, who wields the Sword of the Unborn, wanting to jail doctors, force victims of rape and incest to give birth, disallow the morning after pill for contraception, and who says it’s “phony” if a doctor recommends terminating a pregnancy to save a woman’s life or health.  

Mr. Sanctimonious’s concern for human life does not, as so often seems to be the case, extend to human beings after they depart the womb. He’s a big believer in “enhanced interrogation,” Bush the Denier’s euphemism for torture, famously remarking that John McCain, a victim of torture in Vietnam, did not understand how the process worked. We can only assume Flopney’s money will vanquish Sanctimonious, though he will no doubt turn off more science doubting, abortion hating zealots in the process.

In the end, though I have no record of successful prognostication, I think it will be Mitt Flopney who carries the Republican flag against Mr. Obama. Polls show that he does better against Obama nationwide than any of the others. Republican donors and power brokers hope the perception that Romney is more moderate and could work with Democrats will attract Independents and conservative Democrats like the ones in WV who voted for McCain. They’re afraid if Sanctimonious or the Grinch is nominated they’ll not only lose the presidency, but the House as well. I hope this protracted battle leaves the eventual nominee so bruised and battered that Republican voters stay home in November. I’ll try to keep quiet until we know for certain which loser they’ve settled on.

Republican Poverty: Lack of Empathy

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works…. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.” – Newt Gingrich, Republican candidate for President

Blaming the poor for their poverty is Republican dogma. Herman Caine, before allegations of sexual harassment and a thirteen-year affair derailed his presidential campaign, suggested the unemployed in America shouldn’t blame the Wall Street collapse and the resulting weak economy, saying “if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.” Romney says the solution to poverty is to stop taxing and regulating businesses. Of course, common sense and experience tell us that serves to make the rich richer and the rest of us at risk from greedy or unscrupulous businessmen.

Most of those doing well in our country come from middle class or wealthy families. The advantage of growing up in a home where physical needs are met, health care is insured, children have exposure to books, learning, and travel, etc. is well established.

Nearly 60% of Americans will live below the poverty line for at least a year between the ages of twenty-five and seventy-five. I spent my twenties in that category because of my choices: dropping out of college to work temporary labor jobs as needed. I chose poverty in protest of the Vietnam War, reasoning that if I did not earn much money, I would not pay taxes to support it. I remained poor through my twenties as I sought to become self-sufficient in rural West Virginia and develop as a professional musician. When I decided to seek work that would offer better pay and job security, I went back to college, taking advantage of our tax-payer subsidized state college system. It was the advantage of a middle class upbringing, including public education which moved me from poverty to the middle class as a teacher.

Most families living in poverty in the U.S. are single parent families, women and their children. Many young mothers become pregnant because of the lack of family planning education or services or because they do not see a possibility of fulfillment except as a mother. Many fall into poverty after divorce.  Forty percent of African-American and thirty percent of white and Hispanic single parent families are living below the poverty line. “Working poor” and low-income working households may constitute nearly 30% of American working families. Does anyone doubt that the Great Recession, with the loss of millions of jobs and the foreclosures of millions of homes, has forced millions of Americans into poverty?

Tone-deaf Republican lawmakers who resist efforts to extend unemployment compensation, mortgage foreclosure mitigation, and infrastructure spending to put Americans back to work are fond of claiming that stimulus spending has not worked. But without it, millions more would be jobless, homeless, and experiencing poverty through no fault of their own.

To be fair to Gingrich, generational poverty exists. As a West Virginia teacher, I have many times heard the expression, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” to describe the cycle in which children of parents who lack education, intelligence, skills, or motivation to work in other than minimum wage jobs often seem destined for the same fate. They lack the ability to catch up with peers who entered school with more skills and the support of better-educated families.

Gingrich suggested students should be paid to replace school custodians to teach the benefit of a job. He is apparently not aware of the many students who already work in fast food restaurants to help support their families and end up dropping out of school because they can’t keep up both work and school. He must not be aware of successful programs like the Harlem Children’s Zone, which is transforming lives and ending generational poverty through cradle to college support of family and community.

During the Great Depression, rampant speculation crashed Wall Street, broke the banks, and millions upon millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes, experiencing devastating poverty. Thanks to the social welfare programs passed in response such as unemployment compensation, Social Security, food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid the effects of subsequent recessions for many poor and middle class families is reduced. And thanks to President Obama and Democrats who passed the stimulus (ARRA) and rescued the automobile industry, the economy did not continue its slide into a full depression, and millions of jobs have been saved or produced. Unfortunately, a modern economy requires growth in the range of 3% or more to create enough jobs and we are not there yet. Many economists have called for renewed stimulus spending on infrastructure, but Republicans refuse to budge on taxes on the wealthy to fund it. Instead they focus on reducing deficits which has resulted in massive job loss in the public sector.

I’ve taken the liberty to revise Newt’s words: Really rich people and politicians who cater to the so-called “job creators” have no idea what it means to struggle to make a living.  So they literally have no concept of how hard poor and middle class people work to feed their families and pay the rent. They have no sense of shared sacrifice in hard times or that their fellow Americans want nothing more than a good job, a decent place to live, and the knowledge that an illness or downturn in the job market will not send them into poverty.

We can’t let the current crop of Republicans take us back to the era where each must fend for him or herself. Few people in America choose to be poor as I once did. Good jobs, good schools, and programs to intervene to break the cycle of poverty will bring people out of poverty and into the middle class. Fair taxation will help pay for it. A healthy economy such as we had under Clinton will generate surpluses to pay off our debt.

A Grumpy Old Man’s Minutes Expire

Did you ever wonder when you were going to get your fifteen minutes of fame? I have. And I’ll bet Andy Rooney did, too, before he got his. During his life, he enjoyed a full sixty minutes of it. Now that his time has run out, does that mean it’s my time?

I’m feeling a little grumpy. Perhaps it’s because Andy’s gone. Listen closely, and maybe you’ll hear his voice whispering in my ear. 

It bugged the heck out of me when I heard someone on CNN say that Andy Rooney was the nicest and most hard working man in the world. Do you ever wonder why people feel like they have to talk so glowingly of the dead? I mean, how hard could it be to write one five minute essay a week about half the weeks in a year? C’mon. I work all day in an elementary school, and then I write essays after work or on weekends. I’ve always suspected Andy was just as much of a curmudgeon as his essays make him out to be. He was a writer, after all, and writing has a way of bringing the truth out of people—well, some people. After all, somebody has to write all those lies politicians who disagree with me are always telling.

I met him in an airplane once. He would have denied it. He did deny it. We were on the same flight flying into Atlanta. He was sitting a couple rows behind me in coach, wearing a baseball cap. The tell-tale eyebrows told all.

Why do we have the urge to say something to famous people or ask them for autographs if we have the opportunity? I was eating at a good seafood restaurant in Charleston, WV once and saw Ed Bradley, also of “60 Minutes” fame, eating dinner with someone. He was in town for a big story, I forget which one, but I’ll bet they used the word hardscrabble in it. They always do when talking about our lush, verdant state. I found a scrap of paper, walked to his table, and told him something inane about enjoying his work. Then I asked for his autograph. He graciously signed and I returned to my table, feeling somewhat embarrassed for interrupting his dinner. I wondered why I’d asked for the autograph; I don’t collect autographs.

On the plane, I told my wife to look back and confirm that it was Andy Rooney. She thought it probably was, but how are you going to know for sure unless you ask? So after we landed I waited as he shuffled up the aisle (this was only a year or so ago), and I asked him, “Are you Andy Rooney?” He scowled, just like Andy Rooney would, and gruffly replied, “No!” and continued walking, looking down. Perfect, I thought. I just got the brush off from Andy Rooney.

I admit, I haven’t been a faithful viewer—does it bother you as much as it bothers me that you never know when “60 Minutes” is going to start because of the football game or the golf tournament? But in his final essay, which I made sure to watch, he talked about how much he resents being approached in public. He considers encroachments on his space and time rude, and he is rude back. He proudly said he’s never signed an autograph. Thankfully, I hadn’t asked for one.

And it turns out I’m right that his famous irritation was no act. I heard his daughter saying that Andy was, in fact, exactly like the person who expressed his pet peeves to the nation all these years. She said people assume he kept the household in stitches with his sense of humor. However, she suggested there’s nothing funny about an irritable man when you live in the same house with him.

But in truth, he lived a long, productive life as a journalist and writer. A special he produced at CBS, “An Essay on War” that was critical of the war in Vietnam was not allowed to air. So he went to work for PBS for awhile. He was also one of the few mainstream critics of the invasion of Iraq. He had served in World War II, a war of which he was also skeptical, though once he arrived and saw it with his own eyes, he supported it. In telling those truths, he makes up for some of the times he offended people with his lack of empathy.

Though I don’t believe it, and probably Andy wouldn’t have either, I can’t help but wonder if he’s at the Pearly Gates right now giving God an earful. Goodbye, Mr. Rooney, rest in peace.

Occupied Thoughts: Will demonstrations gel an effective movement?

Will the Occupy Wall Street movement have an impact similar to the TEA Party movement? The TEA Party, like Occupy, began as a grass roots organization of frustrated voters demanding change. 

Its followers brought a wide variety of viewpoints and issues to rallies, but their primary issue was taxes. After all, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. They were fearful that the federal stimulus spending by the Bush and Obama administrations in response to the Great Recession had created long term deficits that would eventually result in higher taxes (despite the fact that much of the stimulus ‘spending’ was in the form of tax cuts).  Most also expressed fear that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (aka Health Care Reform), would increase deficits and be an unwelcome intrusion into Americans’ rights to manage their own health care needs and choices (I believe those fears to be unfounded, but that argument is for another day). What the TEA Party was most concerned about, though, was jobs and the economy, and a general feeling that President Obama and the Democratic Congress, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, were not representing their interests (most TEA Partiers are white, middle-aged, and male).

TEA Party principles are:

• Fiscal Responsibility: taxes should be low, budgets should be balanced, national debt should be paid off. 
• Constitutionally Limited Government: the role of the federal government should be limited to that which the founders outlined or intended in the Constitution.
• Free Markets: the government should not intervene in business.

These principles have the ring of sensibility, but if strictly adhered to would result in a fundamentally different America than exists today. “Original Intent” might not allow for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.  TEA Partiers believes the constitution leaves those areas to the states or individuals. Most health, safety, and financial regulations would be abolished, and the Federal Reserve dismantled. However, surveys of self-identified TEA Partiers show that large majorities would be against cuts in Medicare and Social Security, though wanting to cut both taxes and deficits. The only way to square those kinds of desires is through faith that cutting taxes will miraculously raise tax revenues, a belief that Reagan’s and G.W. Bush’s experiments proved false.

Nevertheless, most conservative Republicans and many Independents find these ideas attractive, with the caveat that change must be incremental or that anyone currently receiving Medicare, for example, would continue to receive it. Republican politicians identifying themselves as TEA Partiers emerged with the message that they would be the ‘true conservatives,’ and unlike the big Republican spenders during the Bush years and before, would hold the line, even if it meant shutting down the government. With the promise of even lower taxes and roll backs of regulations, and aided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United allowing for unlimited political spending, wealthy corporate interests and individuals stepped up with a massive influx of cash to support TEA Party Republican candidates and unseat Democrats in statehouses and Congress in the 2010 elections.

Without the massive influx of corporate cash supporting think tanks, media buys, and political campaigns often disguised as issue advertising (and claimed as tax deductible charitable contributions), the TEA Party influence might have been marginal. Jane Mayer, a journalist writing for the New Yorker, has detailed the methods used in 2010 in articles about the billionaire Koch brothers and a recent article about multi-millionaire Art Pope’s almost single handed purchase of North Carolina for the Republicans.

So, while the TEA Party started as a grass roots organization that hoped to inspire millions of American voters with mass protests and rallies, it is currently supported by only 15-20% of voters. It remains to be seen whether the Republican candidate for president in 2012 will have TEA Party support, and if not, whether there will be a movement to put up their own candidate.

The Occupy movement, like the TEA Party, started as a grass roots movement in response to concern about the economy. Unlike the TEA Party, however, they do not blame government alone for our economic woes; instead they identify the greed of corporations and their influence on government. While the demographic is clearly younger than the TEA Party’s and reflects the frustration or idealism of unemployed college graduates and students, they have recently been joined by unions and other progressive, Democrat supporting organizations, such as Van Jones’ Rebuilding the American Dream. Some proposals taking shape are for more equitable wages and taxation, which line up well with President Obama’s and Democratic platforms.

Will this movement continue to grow, as the organizers hope, into a massive peaceful revolution such as occurred in Egypt, so large that politicians will be forced to take action on yet to be identified demands? Or, as racist elements within the TEA party did, will radicals in Occupy discredit it for most Americans? Will the enthusiasm and persistence of its supporters influence the Democratic Party as the TEA Party has influenced the Republicans? Will their efforts translate into positive change for America? I hope so.

This essay appeared in the Charleston Gazette-Mail on October 21, 2011

We Need a 4-Wheel Drive Economy

(published in Charleston Gazette-Mail Sunday, October 2, 2011)

What powers the American economy? Many folks have compared the U.S. economy to a vehicle out of control, in a ditch, or flying over a cliff. Let's examine this metaphor.

In the 1700's and early 1800's our economy was pulled by horse-drawn carts and sailing ships, though in the South, enslaved African-Americans were pulling as well. Most Americans fended for themselves on farms, feeding themselves and selling or bartering the surplus.

Steam power, industrialization, and immigration brought more of us into the cities to labor for wages and seek education, leading to more recognition of human rights, a Civil War that ended slavery. The economy was pulled into the 20th century by steam locomotives opening up land and opportunity in the great American West and booming trade exports to the world.

Many prospered, but rich industrialists prospered disproportionately. They drove the economy in luxury cars like tanks, often exploiting their workers, treating them like replaceable parts subject to long hours, low pay and unsafe conditions. They crushed labor movements and created monopolies. Teddy Roosevelt broke them up by ushering in the Progressive era of government, regulating industry, increasing competition, creating the Interstate Commerce Commission to ensure a level playing field among the states. Now the economy could hum along, pulled by millions of Model-Ts owned by Americans entering the middle class.

The American Dream was evolving from 40 acres and a mule to a good job within driving distance of a home with a yard. We began to have savings to provide for retirement and access to credit, which many used to invest in property or the rapidly rising stock market. At the end of the 1920's, credit flowed freely, speculation was rampant, and inflation was kept low by the recently created Federal Reserve.

The bubble burst and over-leveraged banks and investors could not pay their debts. Americans' savings were wiped out and they had no pensions. There was no Social Security, no unemployment insurance, no food stamps, and no FEMA to help when the Dust Bowl blew the very earth from farms.

The economy, like a crowded highway full of speeding cars, hit a freak patch of black ice and crashed, causing a chain reaction and backing up the road to world-wide recovery for miles and years. During the Great Depression, Americans abandoned the economy, hoarding what money they had or could earn as they lost their homes and jobs and farms and hunkered down or drifted around in survival mode. It took that "traitor to his class," Franklin Delano Roosevelt to buy Americans a ticket on the train back to the middle class, regulating the financial markets, creating employment opportunities, providing Social Security for the elderly and much more.

The juggernaut of spending and employment that was World War II put America's economy aboard a fleet of fighter planes, roaring to world leadership. We emerged from the war with no damage to our own industry from the millions of pounds of explosives detonated around the world to roll back the militaristic fascist corporatism that had pulled the Axis powers out of the Depression. We were in a great position to export products to the world as we coasted along our new Interstate highways in our gas guzzling cars, built increasingly bigger homes, with two- and three-car garages, and entered the grand age of consumerism.

This carried us through until the rest of the world began to catch up and compete, beginning with the Japanese, who learned how to make things not only cheaper, but better. Meanwhile, in our desire to fend off Communism, which threatened to close markets to us, we squandered much of our treasure in Vietnam. While all that spending kept a lot of people working, for the first time, our balance of trade tipped the other way. At the same time, oil-producing nations decided it was time to get their fair share. Rising oil and gasoline prices spurred inflation and put the brakes on the economy in the 1970's, crashing Jimmy Carter's presidency like a helicopter trying to rescue hostages in Iran.

Ronald Reagan led the Republican tax cutting charge in the 1980's with their first foray into "trickle-down economics." Tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, would spur a boom, he said. Helped by a glut of oil and a tightening of the money supply begun under Carter, inflation decreased, and the economy picked up. However, Reagan's economy was a rented Lincoln. The national debt tripled to over $1 trillion. The money didn't trickle down; it trickled out.

Bill Clinton refilled the tank, and bought us a strong pickup truck by raising taxes on those who could afford it. Helped by a boom in technology and the internet, he balanced the budget and began paying off the debt. And then along came George W. Bush. He came to office facing a small bumpy patch created by the bursting of the tech bubble, and steered the economy onto a side road, invited his friends to strip it with tax cuts for all, mostly the wealthy. He re-fit it as a military vehicle funding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with deficit spending. At the same time, he weakened regulators and regulations.

He crashed the economy, and it would have been totaled in the form of another Great Depression had he not taken the now nearly crippled vehicle into the shop for repairs in the form of emergency loans to banks and other financial institutions.

When President Obama came to pick it up, the repairs had barely begun to fix the wreck. Early estimates did not account for the full damage. Credit was frozen, employment and tax revenues were down while the deficit was up. Business and consumer confidence was shattered. Spending stalled. Housing prices were sinking while foreclosures rose.

He got it fixed enough to get back and forth every day, returning to the shop each night, borrowing stimulus spending for repairs and passing it to local and state governments to keep their teachers and policemen employed, to fix roads and bridges and to supply unemployment insurance. He lent money to auto companies so they could get back on their feet and help with the repairs.

In 2010, John Boehner took over management of the garage and said Obama's debt was too high, and he'd have to cut back on plans for further repairs. Then, as Obama was getting gas one day, a gang of  tea party teenagers threatened to hijack the car and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. They grabbed his credit card, insisting, "You'll have to give up health insurance and take money out of the retirement account. No asking your rich friends to pony up either." He promised to save some money by spending less on his kid's textbooks and a few other things, and they reluctantly released him.

Now, if you haven't been "driven crazy" by my metaphors, here's what we need to do. Obama has acknowledged this junker inherited from Bush is not worth fixing. He's proposed the American Jobs Act, a short-term rental, until we trade in for a new, more efficient hybrid four-wheel drive.

The drive wheels have to be a mix of industry, good education, a more equitable tax system, and energy and regulatory policies that will carry us into the future. We have to make it run more efficiently and give up a few luxury features we've enjoyed.

Some will grouse about spending the money for this new rig, but it will be more dependable getting us where we need to go. If we hit a slick spot or slide in a ditch, it could get us out again. We have always paid our debts, and we'll pay this one off, too. It just might take us a little longer.