No, I really can’t answer that question, but I can frame the parameters. Sorry for getting your hopes up—my hopes, too.

The fate of Medicare and all the other entitlements, along with the issue of jobs for Americans, is the major substantive issue of this election. Though emotions, as well as facts, will play a role, in election choices. But whatever the results, how Medicare is handled will have a huge impact on the economy, especially as the Baby Boomers are becoming eligible.

The problem is, of course, that elections are not about truth but about getting elected, and “facts” are made to serve their purveyors’ interests. That is why we hear “the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it.” And that is why the Republicans continue to accuse the Obama administration of robbing the now fabled $716 billion from Medicare. Instead of better understanding the issues, the result is growing fear and confusion.

Let’s leave politics for a moment and consider demographics. We’re two years into the Baby Boomer eligibility for Medicare benefits. In addition, our nation is experiencing something described as an “obesity epidemic,” with the additional concern that obesity is recognized to contribute to certain serious diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. And then there is the increasing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia afflicting our older citizens. If we give any thought to how just these factors will influence medical costs, we will have to admit that major changes will have to be made.

I’m not equipped to set forth the pros and cons of the two competing visions for the American future. But Jonathan Cohn does a pretty good job of it in his August 22, 2012 article in The New Republic website. I recommend it to you. It lives up to its title, “The Definitive Guide to the Medicare Debate.”

Cohn writes, “Medicare occupies a special place in the American welfare state. In the U.S., the purpose of most government programs is merely to offer assistance. You can’t afford food or housing? OK, here’s some money to help you pay for your grocery bills or cover the rent. Medicare is much more than that: It’s a promise that, upon reaching 65, you will be able to get medical care without risking financial ruin. That makes it more like Social Security, which guarantees a pension to everybody in retirement, or public schools, which guarantee an education for all children.

“At the same time, Medicare really does place a big strain on the federal budget. And it’s going to place an even bigger strain in the future. If current trends continue, the government will eventually confront a set of unpleasant options if it wants to keep the program’s promise to seniors: It will have to raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere, or cope with even higher deficits. Very few Americans would want that.”

Just from that, anyone can see that there is no way—and no earthly purpose for doing so—to sugarcoat any of the facts. It is a deadly serious issue and must be taken out of the realm of politics. How is that going to happen?

It’s unlikely, I know. Our politicians have shown they’re willing to let our economy go to the brink and beyond, causing our national debt rating to be downgraded, before they could come together to deal with economic issues. On partisan grounds they have demonstrated that they would rather fight with each other than fix the Affordable Care Act so it can truly be called “affordable.” Along with most of my fellow Americans, I have zero faith in our elected representatives to act in an informed, responsible manner to accomplish what we have hired them to do.

The only thing left for us, then, is to “throw the bums out,” thereby sending the only message they can understand—that the way they can keep their jobs is to work to achieve the interests of their constituents rather than serving the economic interests of the insurance companies, the big banks, and the wealthy corporations.

Yes, we need to reform the way campaigns are conducted and financed. Yes, we need to rein in lobbyists (who outnumber our legislators 22 to 1). But above all, we must pay attention to what is going on in our government and take the time to sort out fact from fiction. The information is available, so there’s no excuse. More than Medicare is at stake.

In an effort to reduce America’s deficit, President Obama introduced the Buffett Rule, a proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more. A Bloomberg Global Poll, “based on interviews with an elite group of decision makers in finance, markets and economics,” approved the president’s proposal “by a margin of 63 percent to 32 percent.”

How would this affect Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest and most influential people in the world? Buffett responds, “Our leaders have asked for ‘shared sacrifice.’ But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

“While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as ‘carried interest,’ thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.”

In the face of the 63% approval rating for the Buffett Rule by an “elite group” of financial decision makers, Republican VP pick Paul Ryan had the gall—while insulting the intelligence of the American people in the process—to call the Buffett Rule “class warfare.” Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Ryan said: “Class warfare might make for good politics, but it makes for bad economics.”

Funny that he would say that because on June 6, 1985, President Ronald Reagan, speaking at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia said, “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10 % of his salary and that’s crazy.” When President Reagan asked the crowd, “Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?” They roared back “More!”

Not widely known outside of Wisconsin, Ryan is currently Chairman of the House Budget Committee and Romney’s choice for vice president. So you would think he would be good with numbers–especially on his tax forms. Not so: “Paul Ryan and his wife inherited between $1-5 million in 2010 and, whoopsie daisy, he forgot to disclose it for two years. You’d almost think it was on purpose, well, some people do think that, since Ryan didn’t remember it until he was being vetted by the Romney campaign.” One to five million dollars: one could easily overlook this when filing one’s tax forms, couldn’t one? But if his bookkeeping skills are so marginal, how much credibility does he deserve creating budgets or making tax policy for a country?

Better that we listen to a Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, who agrees that “such low taxes on the very rich are indefensible. The economic record certainly doesn’t support the notion that superlow taxes on the superrich are the key to prosperity.” He continues, The U.S. economy added “11.5 million jobs” during President Bill Clinton’s first term when the capital gains tax rate was over 29 percent, so “there’s no real reason to keep from raising the tax rate.”

Maybe this is the time to ask ourselves why we have so long suffered our nation’s economic affairs to be directed by people such as Paul Ryan who has been so subservient to the concerns of the rich and so cavalier about the welfare of ordinary Americans.

I think Philip K. Howard answers that question: “American government is a deviant subculture. Its leaders stand on soapboxes and polarize the public by pointing fingers while secretly doing the bidding of special interests. The professionals who interact with government—lawyers and lobbyists—make sure every issue is viewed through the blinders of a particular interest, not through the broader lens of the common good. Who’s in charge? It’s hard to say. The most powerful force in this subculture is inertia: Things happen a certain way because they happened that way yesterday. Nothing can get taken away, because that would offend a special interest.”

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

Americans are a thrifty lot—and we have the expressions to prove it. Ben Franklin coined what is probably the best known: “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And if he were to appear on the current scene, he would be the first to agree that the American people are being robbed by their government.

In irony, it has been said that we have the best government money can buy. But that is true only for the lobbyist. The public at large is painfully aware of what our government is costing us—programs, wars and tax cuts that have driven up the deficit, and a refusal by Congress to come to a budget agreement, causing the first ever downgrade of our national credit rating. And that is not to mention our government’s culpability in the failure of our regulatory agencies to foresee and forestall the failure of our banking system, causing the average American citizen the loss of 40% of his net worth. “The stunning drop in median net worth—from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010—indicates that the recession wiped away 18 years of savings and investment by families.”

There is public outrage. Such grassroots movements as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have given voice to widespread concerns, but the message goes largely unheeded. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a voice crying in the wilderness. His message is sound, but few of his colleagues are listening. Perhaps the problem is that enough of us aren’t listening—or at least responding.

Much has been made of the fact that following the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, the airwaves have been dominated by political messages, most of which are negative and many of which are also misleading. Yet, they have been shown to be effective in influencing people’s opinions and actions.

But we know better! Few people are so naïve as to take as gospel truth something solely because it appears on their favorite news channel. What doesn’t happen enough is for citizens to spend the time and effort to read and watch a spectrum of print and electronic media as a basis for political judgments. There is a reason why freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment and why democracy is so slow to take root in countries where news and commentary are controlled by the government. Do we ignore a freedom so sacred that men and women in different parts of the world are willing to die to maintain it?

Money undeniably equals influence in our society. But powerful as it is, we still have access to reality—maybe not in the mainstream media, but certainly in the multiplicity of independent blog sites and print media. Yes, it’s time consuming, but it provides the basis to make intelligent decisions in the voting booth—virtually our only weapon.

An old friend told me he believes in term limits for elected officials—one term in office followed by a term in jail. I thought he was a bit extreme—but our current political stalemate calls for extreme measures. The focus of this website, has been on corruption and inaction in our government, particularly in Congress, where legislators spend most of their time raising money to finance their next elections. So, they get reelected (most do), but their constituents get the shaft—read about the Political Theater of the 112th Congress—a tragedy, not a comedy. Why do we keep returning these guys to office when they take their instructions from billionaire lobbyists?

An election is before us. Let’s shake things up! If voting somebody out of office is the only way to get his attention, let’s do it! I’m thinking primarily of men and women in leadership positions who arrogantly dictate party policy with no concern for the needs of their constituents. If we send Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan packing, it has to get the attention of not just the House but also the Senate. None of our elected officials is beyond the reach of the voters! Let’s take back our government now! When the 113th Congress opens, let’s see that we get more bang for our buck!

This is the first of several articles, titled The Perfect Storm, dealing with how our government is failing the American people. The average American citizen lost 40% of his net worth in the 2008 recession as noted above. The next few articles will explore how the checks and balances established between the judicial, executive and legislative branches have been eroded and what can be done to restore them.

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…