After throwing away her trash and gathering her belongings, a young woman left her unopened bag of potato chips on the table. I do not know if this was intentional or unintentional, but it started a pattern that was obviously purposeful. People began depositing their unopened bags of potato chips! Soon the table was nearly covered. I began to wonder if this was a local ritual of some sort, or if everyone knew something about those potato chips that I didn’t know.

As the lunch crowd thinned, I noticed an older man with a knapsack on his shoulder eyeing the bags of chips from several feet away. Slowly, with very careful steps, he approached the table and sat down. He leaned back in the chair, in a relaxed, “devil may care” position, and looked to his left and right.

Systematically, over the next 15 minutes, the chips vanished. Every time I looked up from my writing, there were fewer bags on the table. My curious eyes managed to actually see the final two bags disappear into the knapsack. With his bounty captured, the gentleman got up and brushed himself off, looked again from left to right, and continued his stroll.

Because this moving scene has stayed with me over the last few days, I have concluded that it has valuable lessons in leadership to offer:

• One individual, sharing his or her riches, initiates a call to action.
• When each person makes even the smallest gesture, a group can start a movement that positively impact someones life.
• Opportunities surround us.

And finally…

• When an unexpected opportunity presents itself proceed cautiously, but proceed.

Looking back on 2011, one truth that should be highlighted is the commonality between the top 1% and the remaining 99%. Regardless of the tax bracket they fall into, the American people are frustrated with how slowly our weak economy is recovering, and hope to see a major boost in 2012 especially in the area of job growth. Being that the 2012 presidential election is a mere nine months away, presidential candidates are now focused on discussing the issues that are of social and economic significance such as income-tax, health care, jobs, etc. One pertinent issue which has had bipartisan support since 2011 is reducing and restructuring the corporate tax code.

Currently, the U.S. federal corporate tax rate is 35%, which is the highest corporate tax rate among industrialized and developing nations, and has hindered the United States from competing globally. Moreover, with the numerous amounts of legal tax loopholes which corporations are taking advantage of, many companies are getting away with not paying the entirety of what they owe in taxes, and in some cases, pay almost nothing at all. A 2008 Congressional Report indicated that nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations pay no federal income tax. They accomplish this by using techniques such as industry subsidies, stock option packages, and moving assets overseas in order to avoid corporate taxation on profits. In a recent analysis of 265 profitable U.S. Fortune 500 corporations done by Citizens for Tax Justice, these corporations avoided paying a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate income taxes between 2008 and 2010. In addition, 68 of these corporations avoided paying no state income tax in at least one of the years from 2008 through 2010. Some of these corporations include Dupont, Pepco Holdings and Rockwell Collins, etc.

In 2011, Americans grew tired of these unfair practices and the Occupy Wall Street Movement protested that the big corporations need to pay their fair shares of taxes, which is correct. However, in spite of this, the real problem lies within the institutions and the incentives corporations get for exploiting the system, which results in federal revenue being lost. Additionally, it should be understood that most corporations are made up of middle and lower class employees, and not millionaires; however, when people think of corporate taxes, there is little to no consideration of the negative effects that inadequate tax revenue has on middle class wages, consumer prices and employment. Hence, it is evident that our political leaders need to become more conscious of the fact that the U.S. corporate tax does not make a distinction between rich and poor; it takes from everyone of potential wealth.
In hindsight, Congress needs to have as their focal point the distribution of the economic pie. In turn, corporations can help with such distribution and the expansion of this pie. Therefore, there needs to be major talk of reform; a reform that provides a lower tax rate which will open the door to global competition and put an end to all corporate tax loopholes. The idea is to have a reform that is very substantial in raising revenue and constitute fairness. A reform of reduction and restructuring of the corporate tax rate which will allow all parties to benefit; from members of the 1% to those of the 99%. This stand is neutral, for the simple fact that it lowers the corporate tax rate while expanding the base, which will lead to an increase in revenue by increasing economic growth.

If our political leaders fail to reduce the high U.S. corporate tax rate, corporation’s ability to hire will continue to be extremely limited, which in turn leads to more outsourcing and low returns on investment. As a result, we can only expect unemployment to remain high and the US to be unable to compete with industrialized and developing countries in terms of attraction and the retentions of major corporations.

With millions of unemployed Americans looking for work and the Occupy Wall Street movement protesting, our leaders should be welcoming to the idea of reforming corporate tax. The reality of the issue is that the government is taking a considerable piece of the economic pie, which is not helping the economy. In hoping that Congress did make a New Year’s resolution and with the 2012 Presidential Election around the corner, lowering corporate tax rate and eliminating the loopholes will be a notable first step in establishing economic growth.

Here are some ways NOT to go about training your employees:

1. Leave it up to the Human Resource Staff. It’s not your job to teach them.
2. Give them all of the information at one time. If they get overwhelmed, how are you at fault?
3. Don’t ever make it hands-on training. Just tell them what to do and expect them to understand (and pick-up on it) right away.
4. Don’t actually follow the practices that you’re teaching them.
5. Don’t use new training videos. Make sure that the videos were done in black and white.
6. Be inconsistent with what you tell people in the same role.
7. Don’t be prepared when you train them. You won’t forget anything if you don’t plan.
8. Don’t tell them why they need to do something. Don’t give them the big picture or overall goal of what they’re working on.
9. Don’t update your training curriculum or material. Let the person figure out what is no longer applicable to them. It will help them think critically.
10. Don’t make it fun. It should be boring because people learn better that way.

So what’s the point?

Obviously most – if not all – of those statements are untrue and should not be followed. But it is amusing to imagine someone actually following those steps. Do you recognize any of those from your organization? What can you do about it? Use these as a spring-board to think about your training practices and how you can improve them.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Disclaimer: I work for an IT company (CDS Group) that (among other things) specializes in products that assist with transparency, government, and technology (to include multi-camera digital video recording, hosting and web presentation of public and private content). The company works with the public and government sectors in multiple ways to provide Gov 2.0 and related technology solutions.

When a private sector organization wants to get a point across, organizational leaders consider what they want to say, how they want to say it, and what the most effective method is to get their message to the audience they want to reach.  It may be a complex set of tasks, but the path to accomplish them is fairly straight forward.

Not so in many segments of the public sector.  The concept of keeping the public informed is a given in U.S. society, and is made more certain through open meeting requirements and the Freedom of Information Act.  Things can get muddied in the public sector, where the message is important but considering how others will react to it is more prominent all the time.  A public servant can be publicly castigated for presenting material that is accurate but with which other decision makers disagree.

At the federal level, political appointees and senior managers must always ask “what would Congress do?” in reaction to any statement.  That’s appropriate; the concept of balance of power is in the constitution and it extends to all levels of government.  However, the combination of a more contentious environment in Congress (in which policy disagreement can put a public servant in a very unfriendly congressional hearing) and media that looks for any nuance so it can present something ‘new’ about a story means that sentences are dissected in a way not done in even the early 1990s.

Because ‘media’ now includes more than traditional airwaves and print, there is often no one reviewing an article for accuracy or fairness.  You could argue that these tasks were not always done consistently, but a scrupulous editor generally has different standards than a blogger or social networker — present company included.

The primary exceptions often deal with the weather.  The weather — how is that a public sector issue?  It is when people must be warned of impending storms, and even more so in their aftermath.  Even the most contentious rivals, at all levels of government, put their heads together to address emergencies and provide initial disaster assistance promptly.  (The early federal response following Katrina runs counter to this assertion, but that has been well covered elsewhere.)

Is it possible to create a ‘weather alert environment’ in other public sector fields, an environment in which the message is not only concise, comprehensive, and timely but also free of recrimination?  A cynic would say this runs counter to human nature, at least as it has developed in modern U.S. society.  A more hopeful response would be that executive and legislative branch members (from city councils to Congress) could test the idea of cooperative communication in less controversial areas and work their way up the ladder of contention to apply newly learned skills across government.

The idea of civility in government — as presented by former members of Congress, including Jim Leach, who now heads the National Endowment for Humanities — is a first step in creating an effective communication environment.  There is even a nonprofit, nonpartisan Institute for Civility in Government.  Though geared to students, its teachings are good ones for anyone in the public sector.

My blog posts will generally deal with effective communication and the need for civility in government.  Reader input is welcome.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Elaine Orr has worked in the public and private sectors and also writes fiction.  She worked for former Congressman Jim Leach and his successor, Dave Loebsack — yet another example of civility in Iowa.

Although the 26^th Amendment clearly express that our young adult population has the right to vote, student-voting registration in particular has long been an issue. Furthermore, in recent years states have implemented voting laws that are more complex, confusing and restrictive; unfairly targeting college students since this group often has trouble establishing residency where they live and attend school.

Instead of policy makers encouraging college students to participate in America’s democratic voting process, they are making the practice of basic civil rights extremely difficult. Such is the case for the upcoming elections. Thousands of college student will be attempting to register to vote, but will be turned away because they either have an out-state driver’s license or told that their college ID is not valid to cast their vote, among other reasons. It has also become very evident that Republican state lawmakers are openly doing everything possible to prevent students from voting in the 2012 presidential election simply because college students tend to be more liberal.

New Hampshire, among other Republican states, has already passed strict voting ID laws that will bar thousands of college students from voting in the community in which they live and attend school. New Hampshire Republican House Speaker, William O’Brien, in a recent speech to a Tea Party group stated, “They’re foolish, voting as liberals. That’s what kids do.” He also stated, “Students lack life experience and they just vote their feelings.”

It has become apparent that an objective of the Republican Party is to restrict the voting rights of certain demographic groups that tend to vote Democrat. One way of achieving this is stop college students from voting by claiming that stricter ID laws are necessary to prevent fraudulent voting. Unfortunately, with the severe federal penalties imposed on fraudulently voting there are hardly any cases to cite.

Opponents of the restrictive voting ID laws are citing Newberger v. Peterson, a 1972 Federal District Court case, stating that the state cannot bar college students from voting in New Hampshire on the basis that they intend to leave after graduation, and that such policies are a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Moreover, in United States v. Symm, a 1979 Supreme Court case ruled that states must allow students to vote in the communities where they attend school. In a 5-4 decision, the Court stated that, “it cannot conceive of any reason why it should not be presumed that student applications for voter registration, like any other applicant, have made their application to register in good faith.” Furthermore the Court stated that “. . . there is no requirement that a student, in order to establish that he is a resident of the place where he wishes to vote, establish that he intends to remain there permanently or for any particular period of time”

However, despite precedence being set, states are still denying students their right to vote. Nevertheless, students do understand the importance of exercising their civic duty, their right to do so, and their role in shaping the future. In the 2008 presidential election approximately two million young adults voted. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) in the 2008 election youth voters’ turnout between the ages of 18-29 rose to 51%, which is an increase of 2% from the 2004 election. Furthermore, in the 2010 midterm election, CIRLCE reported that an estimated 24% of young people between the ages of 18-29 voted. Such an increase in youth voters can be attributed to the increase in awareness students now have about the importance of voting. Moreover, statistics show that younger votes tend to choose Democratic candidates over Republican by a margin of 57%-40%.

 It is clear that college student voters’ participation is on the rise and our political leaders should be celebrating and continues to encourage our educated young adults to participate in the country’s election. Instead, college students are witnessing a state-by-state effort in erecting new barriers and laws in a blatant attempt in making it harder and harder for college students to vote, which is clearly against their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States. Therefore, imposing these restrictions to win elections will only make a generation of college student cynical about their experience with the democratic election process.

I haven’t made a resolution in 20 years. I grew tired of making promises I didn’t or couldn’t keep, and even more tired of feeling like a failure every December 31. I recognize this is not a unique phenomenon. In fact, I’ve never known anyone—not one person—to make, declare, and keep a resolution. This year, I asked a group of senior managers, “What will be your professional or organizational resolutions for the upcoming year?” In their answers were varying degrees of pessimism, resignation, and despondency. Many were afraid to commit to anything, in fear of being viewed a failure. As they shared stories of their disappointments, the truth dawned on me:  The problem isn’t that we haven’t kept our resolutions. The problem is we haven’t set goals or created viable plans.

Resolution is defined (www.dictionary.com) as the act of determining an action or course of action, a firmness of purpose; a determination. The moment we state our intention and share it with the universe we are successful. “I’m going to build a strong, cohesive team of staff members.” Done!

Having a strong cohesive team is a wonderful vision. Unfortunately, it is hard to define and even more difficult to measure. You could work diligently all year and not know when—or if!—you have succeeded. In order to have any chance of making your resolution come to life, it must be accompanied by a goal that is specific and measurable. It should also outline an action plan that helps you to stay the course. From the resolution “build a strong cohesive team”, we can develop any of several worthy goals. “The team will accomplish 90% of all assigned tasks on time.” “My team will demonstrate cooperative behavior 100% of the time.” “The team will develop at least 3 innovative ventures this year.” The action plan might include training, opportunities to build cohesion (like team meetings and lunches). Your options abound. The more detailed and realistic your action plan, the more likely you will be to achieve your goal.

So go ahead. Make those resolutions for your life and your work. The intention, in and of itself, is an achievement. Then take the time to set a goal and make a plan. By December 2012 you will be excited to wave goodbye to a fruitful year and greet the new one. Happy New Year!

Robyn-Jay Bage is the CEO of a nonprofit human service organization, and an Assistant Professor at a community college.

With the 2012 Presidential Election around the corner, candidates are traveling around the nation raising as much money as possible for their campaigns while securing voters. Receiving donations from both individuals and corporations/unions alike, the presidential candidates have already raised more than $186 million for the upcoming 2012 election, reported recently by the Federal Election Commission. However, the dilemma that the majority of Americans are once again faced with is the unlimited amount of funds which corporations donate to a particular candidate for purposes of influencing the outcome of the election. Hence, the question still remains, should a corporation (an artificial person’s) rights have precedence over individuals’ rights.

Over the years, the role of the American people has been drastically reduced in the democratic process of an election, which mostly stems from the 1886 US Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, granting corporations the same rights as natural persons under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same free speech protection as a U.S. citizen under the First Amendement of the U.S. Constitution; therefore, making it unconstitutional for the government to restrict the amount of money a corporation spends to influence elections. As a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the floodgates were opened allowing an unlimited amount of corporate funds to engulf elections, thereby lessening the amount of power the American people have to actually choose their elected officials.

Soon after the court’s ruling U.S. House Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic House Representative of Maryland District 8, introduced the Democracy is Strengthen by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE), which was passed in the House of Representatives but later failed in the Senate. The goal of DISCLOSE was to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by creating a transparent apparatus that gives the general public more information regarding corporation and special interest campaign expenditures; moreover, placing a ban on U.S. corporations from using campaign contributions to influence elections.

On November 1, 2011, nine senators introduced a subsequent constitutional amendment to the Senate. The amendment, if passed, would overturn the ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, by granting Congress and states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system. Thus, Congress and individual states would have the power to limit both corporate contributions and independent expenditures.

In a press release Senator Mark Udall, one of the nine senators stated, “As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

It is evident that the landmark cases of 1886 and 2010, in which the Supreme Court granted private corporations the same legal rights and protection under the Constitutions as citizens, has allowed corporations to use money as a form of expression and influence in elections.

It is now more apparent than ever that the American people are tired of the influence that the big corporations have on politics and our political leaders. Furthermore, with the Supreme Court refusing to allow Congress and states to control the role corporations play in influencing the outcome of elections, it is evident that there is a need for a drastic change. However, amending the constitution is not an easy process, but a handful of congressmen, Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans, are stepping up in hopes of overturning the court’s decision.  Moreover, several polls have indicated that the majority of Americans are in support of a legislation that places restrictions on corporate contributions influencing elections.

As we see, the dilemma American voters are faced with is simple. The candidate with the most campaign cash wins the election, and with the ruling of the Supreme Court, corporations can now control the outcome of elections to the extent that our electorates become corporate stooges and eventually the future of America will becomes a pun to big corporations.

It is clear that the answer to the problem of campaign finance is for candidates to limit the corporate contributions and independent expenditures that will influence the outcome of an election, thereby giving the power back the American people to choose their elected officials through a democratic process of election.

This week marks the 98^th anniversary of President Woodrow Wilson signing the controversial Raker Act.  This Act allowed a dam to be built in Yosemite National Park and flood a less used section of the Park. Called Hetch Hetchy (HH), the area provides water to the San Francisco Bay Area. Today HH water travels 160 miles to provide water to 2.5 million residents.

Two weeks ago, California Congressman Dan Lungren launched a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, alleging violations of the Raker Act.  Part of the deal allowing passage of the Act required that no private profit could be derived from development of public water and power from the HH.  It also prohibits San Francisco from diverting any more water than necessary to meet its needs.  A former California attorney general, Lungren cites failures by San Francisco to take measures to reduce HH water use.

Like all California water stories, this one reads like a suspense novel.  In 1913, many great public works were promoted to stimulate growth.  Yet, even then, a plan to build a dam in a National Park was met with huge resistance.  John Muir, a major figure in creation of Yosemite National Park, led the charge.  Leagues of colleagues joined him in advocating against the proposal at congressional hearings and in the press. Photos of pristine meadows, ancient forests and abundant wildlife augmented realms of opposition testimony. The battle was so significant; the building of the dam is considered the issue that launched the modern environmental movement.

The Raker Act was not the first attempt to capture HH water.  As early as 1882, proposals were considered but stalled for numerous reasons.  The tables turned after the 1906 earthquake.  The City, with grave needs for infrastructure and a growing population, applied for HH water rights, triggering the 7-year struggle and kicking the suspense up a notch.

An unlikely chorus of local irrigation districts and farmers joined the environmentalists in opposition.   Even so, these groups, with dramatically different motives, were unable to build a coalition.  The farmers’ sights were set on access to the same pristine HH water that San Francisco sought.  This fight marked an early battle in the now an on-going conflict triangle of California agriculture, urban areas, and environmental interests fighting over water goals.

From the beginning, accusations about the HH water and power management were front-page news stories.  In 1923, claims were made the City sold HH electricity to the private utility PG&E.  PG&E was said to resell it back to the public at a profit. Reacting to the scandal, the Interior Department moved to enforce the Raker Act and was close to revoking the City’s ownership when Pearl Harbor occurred. Today HH–generated power is managed via complex contracts due to expire in 2015.

Attempts to remove the HH dam continued.  In 1980, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior made an attempt and in 2003, the Bush Administration attempted to allocate funds to study dam removal.

In a repeat of history, Lungren, a conservative Republican, is joined by a coalition of environment groups led by Restore Hetch Hetchy in calling for the HH dam removal.  These groups point to studies showing removal is feasible without compromising San Francisco.

The San Francisco Public Utility Commission (PUC), which operates HH, is not persuaded by arguments lobbed its way.  Backed by formidable allies, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the PUC argues the dam is a crucial source of water for the region.

Meanwhile public opinion polls show interest by city residents in removing the dam.  Proponents say San Francisco does not need federal approval to drain the reservoir and restore the valley.  The San Francisco city charter would have to be amended and funds would need to be raised to restore the valley, and cover the cost of retrofitting the water delivery system.

With financial pressures and the on-going conflict triangle between agriculture, urban and environmental interests, the HH story will not end anytime soon.  Restore Hetch Hetchy is calling for action by 2014, the 100-year anniversary of the Raker Act, and the power generation contracts will be up for discussion soon.  Stay tuned for more front-page stories.

How Technology and Transparency Go Hand-In-Hand

Americans want transparency. Regardless of political affiliation, citizens want their government to be easily accessible and provide information that could benefit them.

One benefit of transparency is that it can build trust. Transversely, if someone is knowingly hiding information, that can build suspicion.

But people want to be able to trust their government – so how can technology help?

Put Data Online

The more information you proactively put online, the less chance there is that someone is going to fill out a Freedom of Information request for it (because the information is already there).

By putting data online, the data is more accessible. And since it’s online, you don’t need a person to answer every request for information – it’s self-service. Instead of wondering if the government keeps certain data, a citizen can check the website first and hopefully find it there. To find out more about the movement to make data more accessible, search for “open data” on your favorite search engine.

Be Social

Who do you trust more: a TV advertisement or a recommendation from a friend? How can government administrators do this? One way is by using social media (if possible). Talk with a human voice. People aren’t into Press Releases like they used to be. If people can tell that there’s a real person behind that Twitter message, it will go a long way. It can help them feel like they have a friend in government.

Social media has other potential benefits, such as saving time and it can also come in handy during disasters).

Archive Meetings Online

People don’t always have the time in their busy schedules to make meetings. Or maybe they’re disabled and would have a really difficult time making it. By putting the meetings on video and online (or on TV), you provide citizens (and government officials) with the chance to see what they missed. This can help build trust.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Disclaimer: I work for an IT company (CDS Group) that (among other things) specializes in products that assist with transparency, government, and technology (to include multi-camera digital video recording, hosting and web presentation of public and private content). The company works with the public and government sectors in multiple ways to provide Gov 2.0 and related technology solutions.

Most Americans view higher education as the key to social advancement and the ticket to a middle class lifestyle.  However, in this current economic downturn, the rising cost of college is putting higher education out of the reach of many Americans. According to the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, the cost of the average public four-year college education has doubled in the last decade, and is rising faster than the cost of the average private four-year college education. In their 2011-12 report, the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center stated that over the decade from 2001-2011, published tuition and fees for public four-year colleges and universities have increased at an average rate of 5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general inflation. Moreover, the report stated that for 2011 in-state tuition and fees for public four-year and public two-year universities had increased by 21 percent and 37 percent respectively.

Universities are claiming that the increase in college tuition is a reflection of the weak economy and states’ funding which have failed to keep up with the growth in college enrollment, causing the tuition cost for four-year public universities to be higher than the increase in cost of private universities.

Nevertheless, with the cost of college education increasing faster than the median household income, it is greatly affecting lower and middle class families, leaving many without a college education. Moreover, the amount of financial aid available to students has been impractical, since the maximum government subsidized student loan has remained at $23,000 for over a decade for a four-year education. With such a great disparity between income and the rising cost of tuition, families are either shortchanging their retirement fund to send their children to college or  are cutting down on their children’s college education experience by opting for them to attain a two-year degree rather than a four- year one. Regardless of the choice, there is great sacrifice now more than ever in sending one’s child to college.

On the other hand, there are those students who fund their own education and are graduating with a considerable amount of debt. Over the past years, the outstanding student loan debt is approximately in excess of $1 trillion, which exceeds national credit card debt. On average, students graduating from a public university are about $25,500 in debt with an even higher figure for those graduating from private universities. This high debt figure coupled with an already high unemployment rate and low starting salary makes it very difficult for students to repay their loans. Moreover, with the accumulation of late fees and interests on student loan debts, it is becoming a deadly financial medium– worst than the mortgage crisis. With so many students, owing more than what their degree is worth, and losing the capability of repaying their student loan debt, the financial bubble of student loan debt will inevitably burst.

As a solution, the Obama Administration recently announced that they are implementing new programs that will ease the repayment of student loans by changing the income based repayment program for the upcoming year to allow lower monthly payments and shorter durations for low-income borrowers as well as offering a slight lower interest rate for borrowers who consolidate their loans. In addition, in 2009 the Obama Administration increased the funding of the federal Pell Grant Program and tied annual increases to the Consumer Price Index in order to increase grant aid each year.

These solutions, however, do not address the issue of college education affordability. It is time the federal and state government work with universities on limiting the drastic, continuous increases in college tuition in order to avoid the impending ‘bubble’ from bursting. Without such intervention, such increase will eventually result in the next financial catastrophe.

 It is apparent that with the mounting cost of college education the stakes and the warning signs of a serious crisis are also increasing. The day of reckoning for higher education is drawing near, and if our leaders continue to ignore the warnings signs allowing the cost of college to keep rising, this will undoubtedly results in higher education being farfetched for many Americans.