Methods to dramatically reduce our annual deficit and, in turn, national debt, have taken center stage in 2012 as both major parties gear up for the Presidential and Congressional elections. Beyond the traditional political posturing and rhetoric, this debate must address two major questions to avoid anesthetized solutions:

(1) How can each level of government set up a process for evaluating and prioritizing programs competing for limited funds?

(2) How do we navigate through a budget-balancing process without stultifying the vision and capabilities that transformed 13 British colonies into an international superpower in a mere 236 years?

In an op ed piece published in the L.A. Times eight years ago entitled, "State of the Vision Thing", Arthur Schlesinger quoted FDR:

"All of our great Presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified. Washington personified the idea of federal union; Jefferson typified the theory of democracy, which Jackson reaffirmed; Lincoln, by condemning slavery and secession, put two great principles of government forever beyond question; Cleveland embodied rugged honesty in a corrupt age; and Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson were both moral leaders using the Presidency as a pulpit. Without leadership alert and sensitive to change, we are bogged down to lose our way."

Today the big issue is how to reign in annual deficits and the national debt without disastrous societal consequences. The national options on the table include plans crafted by the tough-minded Bowles-Simpson bipartisan commission (authorized by President Obama), and the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties. Criticisms of each of the plans range from "too Draconian" relative to their impact on the safety nets of the New Deal and the Great Society to "too tame" relative to their ability to cut deeply into exploding debt fast enough to prevent the U.S. from being in the same fix as the "PIIGS" nations in Europe (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).

If today's big issues are to be solved in a thoughtful way as illustrated by the above quote, a new bolder vision may be needed. Such a vision should avoid wholesale dismantling of agencies and industries that support bold missions such as space exploration without fully considering the consequences. Such dismantling may dissipate our nation's experience base in important scientific and manufacturing specialties – making future efforts to reconstitute such capabilities incredibly challenging, expensive and perhaps impossible in a reasonable period of time.

The USA can and must do better by applying our best minds and spirit of innovation to solve these complex problems using a systems approach.

But before we charge off on a new mission, Schlesinger warns that "a vision, per se, is not necessarily a good thing" and he cites Hitler and Stalin as the most dangerous and defective of visionaries. He concludes by asserting, "In a democracy, it is up to the people themselves to make the fateful choice."

The Shenandoah Press plans a series of articles in the coming months that explores the tough decisions that need to be made by local and state government, presents alternative viewpoints, and challenges citizens and government officials to develop new visions supported by creative prioritization of programs that get the budget back on track. Perhaps some of these ideas will trickle up to our national leaders and candidates. Some of these articles will be published in the Middleburg Eccentric as part of our ongoing collaboration. Others will be available for reading, pondering, and action at www.ShenandoahPress.org.

This series has just begun with a point-counterpoint discussion of the Space Program's possible future that you can check out on the Shenandoah Press website.

The goal of this series is to stimulate an active discussion among readers of the Middleburg Eccentric and Shenandoah Press that will influence government priorities, policy and action and explore new definitions of "affordability". Your ideas and comments, via online letters to the Editor, are not only welcome, but are essential.

Please contact The Shenandoah Press at www.shenandoahpress.org.