Hope Street Group has likened our pressing national challenges - particularly around the recovery legislation - to "fixing the car while driving it," an evocative metaphor underscoring the somewhat counterintuitive nature of such a feat.

Blogging at Huffington Post, Hope Street Group leader and contributor Hoyt Hilsman picks up on the thread of our recent statement and expounds on the imperative to see the long-term forest for the short-term trees.

The challenge of "fixing a car while we're driving it" is to make sure that we don't let the economy crash, while at the same time making the fundamental repairs necessary to keep it running well into the future. And while there is no good reason to delay passage of an economic stimulus package -- which would send the economy into a ditch -- we need to make room in the package has the kind of long-term reconstructive features that will lead to jobs and other kinds of economic opportunities for all Americans well into the future.

So where do we go from here? Nothing about this process is going to be easy - that's the bad news. The good news is that we appear to have leadership that isn't afraid to tackle something this tough and far-reaching, even in the face of a true crisis. That's the kind of foresight we'll need to achieve true and lasting economic opportunity.

Access to quality health care and higher education is a fundamental human right to which all Americans should be entitled regardless of socioeconomic background, race, or gender.  Health and education are the most important drivers of economic opportunity in the United States according to Hope Street Group's Economic Opportunity Index, and yet our current system is set up in a way that essentially only allows those who are already benefiting from economic opportunity to profit from decent health care and education.

In their article, Viewpoint: Parallel crises in health care, higher education, Patrick Callan and Andrew Yarrow argue that this crisis is enormously dangerous to "a prosperous, optimistic American future" - but I would take their argument one step further and add that this crisis is detrimental to the survival of America as we know it, and the signs are beginning to show already.  The United States was a major force behind the creation of the global knowledge economy, and yet, compared to many industrialized countries, it is churning out one of the most ill-prepared workforces entering this economy.  If this continues, our nation will see an increasingly larger portion of future generations working harder and achieving less.  If we reach a point where hard work is no longer rewarded, we will in essence create a system that mimics an old arch-enemy that haunted our very existence during the Cold War.  Ironically, we continue to fight wars to protect our democracy from foreign influences, while our internal politics slowly chips away at the very foundations on which our democracy is based.

Our forefathers built a democracy on the intentional use of the word suffrage, signifying the right rather than the privilege to vote, and to maintain this great democracy our policymakers need to continue to build on our rights by including quality health and education.

There's been some hand-wringing in the press lately about why so many young people, from Ivy League graduates to Law School students, are forgoing public sector and non-profit jobs in favor of the private sector and corporate law firms. Are young people just more materialistic and apathetic these days? Or is there something else at work?

Journalist Daniel Brook has a compelling answer. His book "The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America" gets to the heart of the problem: the rising cost of living in most American cities is making it nearly impossible for young people with public sector jobs to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. Saddled with education debt and the spiraling cost of health care, unable to afford most real estate markets, to say nothing of the costs of raising children, is it any wonder our best and brightest are flocking to high-paying corporate jobs? As Brooks writes, "When a middle-class income no longer buys a middle-class life, things that rarely or never make one rich become harder and harder to pursue."

Although Brook's book is clearly partisan in tone, his subject matter transcends political boundaries, and the conundrum he exposes is at the core of Hope Street Group's mission. Following is an interview with Brook exploring some of his book's main themes.

HSG: Your book focuses on places where the cost of living a middle-
class lifestyle is most expensive, mainly in the northeast and in
California. In doing research for your book, did you find a similar
phenomenon happening in other places in the country as well, or is this something that is primarily limited to the coasts? Could a well-
educated person who wants to go into the public sector or a creative
field do better in Cleveland, for example?

Brook: Some of the phenomena I write about are local--like housing prices--while others are national--like health insurance and higher education. So by relocating, you can dodge some of the bullets. But even in Cleveland, teachers, for example, are priced out of almost all the desirable neighborhoods and suburbs.

But the main reason I focus on certain cities is because they're the places where it's most crucial people be able to afford public service jobs. Washington, DC, our nation's capital, is the clearest example of all. If you can't afford a middle-class lifestyle on a public service salary--and you can't, even senators at the top of the federal pay scale are priced out of the local housing market--it creates lousy government. Either only rich people can serve--which you now see in the millionaire's club that is the Senate--or you get the revolving door where public service becomes a career stepping stone on the way to lobbying in the private sector. (Before he lost his bid for reelection, one of the only middle-class members of the Senate, Rick Santorum, was commuting two hours a day from the Virginia exurbs, the only place he could afford a home for his family on a salary in excess of $150,000.)

HSG: You describe in frightening detail the rising cost of attaining
the American Dream, even for young people who are well-educated.
Your clear bias is for a liberal approach to solving these challenges
and yet, I would argue that at least some of the pragmatic solutions
you call for are at the heart and soul of many centrist post-partisan
(or at least bi-partisan) coalitions for health care and education
reform. For example, you write:

"In today's knowledge-based economy, it is clear that egalitarian
policies that guarantee higher education, health care and child care-
the sorts of policies that release talented individuals from reliance
on employers, spouses, and accident of birth-are in fact best for
ensuring social mobility and unleashing creativity."

This is the project, not only of Hope Street Group, but also major
national multi-sectoral coalitions such as Divided We Fail, which works on health care reform and financial security issues. In your
view, is their room for bi-partisan approaches, or is this
fundamentally a progressive project? What do you believe are the
limits of bi-partisanship?

Brook: It will be interesting to see how the so-called 'conservative crack-up' shakes out. If the Republican party moves back towards the center, or if individual Republicans do, there would be partners for some of the reforms I call for. (After all, the Republican party supported steeply progressive taxation in the past--under President Eisenhower, a Republican, the top income tax rate was 91%). But that's a hypothetical situation. As it stands now in the US, unlike in other developed democracies, there is no left-right consensus that health care is a right not a privilege. Sadly, there is not even consensus on the left side of the aisle that the extreme economic inequality is a bad thing. So to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you propose reform strategies for the country you have, not the country you'd like to have.

HSG: You describe a retreat into domesticity that you say tends to
happen whenever life in the public sphere is unfulfilling,
financially or otherwise. However, you don't mention the internet
and how that may or may not be part of that trend-what do you make
of, for example, the rise of web-based activism and social movements?

Brook: I think the web is a potentially powerful tool for organizing like-minded citizens to action though I don't think it's a substitute for more traditional forms of activism. I'm concerned though that the Internet is as susceptible to domination by entrenched interests as other platforms. In DC, for example, grassroots organizations are routinely mimicked by corporate-backed 'astro-turf' organizations that masquerade as membership organizations. Couldn't the same thing happen on the web? At the end of the day, inequality matters. We're only going to build a more vibrant democracy if we build a more equal country.

HSG: I'm sure you saw last week's article in the New York Times about
the rising number of Ivy League-educated students who are forgoing
public sector work in favor of highly-paid private sector jobs. Even
without reading your book it is obvious to me why this is happening,
and yet, the author seems mystified. Nowhere in the article, nor in
the letters that were published in response to it, did it mention the
reasons that are central to your book's thesis. Why do you think
this is?

Brook: I did see the article. I agree that the author seemed mystified that these kids today are so ostensibly committed to public service, but are still making a bee-line towards whatever post-graduate job pays them the most. It's frustrating because the author is implicitly saying it wasn't always thus--that's the implicit argument of any 'trend' story--but she never actually fleshes out how career choices have changed in recent decades, let alone the cost of living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, surely an important benchmark for Harvard students. In my book, I often bring out intergenerational comparisons to give readers a broader framework for understanding individual decisions (for example, the fact that in 1970 a starting teacher in New York City made $2000 less than a starting corporate lawyers; now they make $100,000 less). Without some historical consciousness about how we got into this mess, there's really no way out.

HSG: There seems to be a real hunger for young people to go into public service. What do you make of movements like ServiceNation and the proposed U.S. Public Service Academy?

Brook: There is indeed a real hunger among young people to go into public service. ServiceNation and the US Public Service Academy are evidence of this as is the surge in applications to organizations like the Peace Corps and Teach for America. The issue is not whether there is interest in public service careers--there certainly is--it's what we as a society can do to make public service a viable career again, not just a post-graduate stint. That has to be attacked at the national level. For example, the US Public Service Academy can address the issue of student debt, allowing would-be public servants to graduate debt-free, but it can't address the new inequality which has rendered Washington, DC and state capitols like Boston and Austin unaffordable for public servants.

Lee Sevilla's story is touching and sad, but unfortunately it is a story that is all too common in a country that many consider to be the greatest economic powerhouse in the world.  Like many older women living in poverty today, Lee's descent started when she divorced, left to care for three children on her own with a flailing business.  In frail health and refusing to depend on her children for financial support, she worked low-paying jobs and ultimately could never afford to pay rent in a sky-rocketing real estate market.

As a society, we cannot stand by as hard-working citizens live in their cars.  A closer look at Lee's story points to a myriad of public policy shortcomings in this country that will only continue to become more severe as the gap between the rich and the poor widens.  A lack of personal finance awareness left Lee in a vulnerable position after her divorce, while frail health and an insufficient educational background left her no choice but to accept low-paying jobs.  Meanwhile, another sector of society was prospering and driving up general living expenses, making it impossible for Lee to survive with integrity.  We must heed the warnings that are so deeply engrained in Lee's story - we can't afford to give our children anything less than a world-class education, health care and real-life mentoring - because unlike Lee, our children will be competing for jobs and homes with their peers around the world.     

The demand for flexible work arrangements and extended leave after the birth of a child is no longer the sole purview of working moms. In a trend that the media has annoyingly dubbed the "Daddy Wars" (is anybody else tired of the combative and polarizing language used to describe these kinds of debates?), an increasing number of fathers are fighting to spend more time with their families without forfeiting their careers. And many want to, or already do, share equal childcare responsibilities with their partners. According to USA Today, almost 70 percent of working fathers would consider staying home with the kids if money wasn't a consideration.

As women continue to outnumber men in higher education and enter the workforce in rising numbers, many men have seen an increase in their responsibilities for childcare. This new generation of fathers faces the same struggles as legions of mothers before them, including the stress of juggling work and family, but without the benefits that many moms have. As a result, men are starting to demand similar benefits that will allow them to care for their children. And really, why shouldn't they get them? Flexible work policies and arrangements that allow for dads to be more involved in childrearing should appeal to conservatives and liberals alike. A bevy of studies has shown that strong paternal involvement helps kids get higher grades and test scores, improves their self esteem, and even increases their assets.

As for the "Daddy Wars" and "Mommy Wars," we need a détente--no more moralizing or sparring over who is superior for spending more time with kids than at work, or vice versa. The trade-offs parents face when it comes to career and family are fraught with financial and emotional repercussions for everybody. If you are a dad, we'd love to hear your thoughts about what some sensible policies would look like.

After years of dismissing the hordes of street protestors denouncing free trade and the pernicious effects of globalization, it appears that our nation's leaders have suddenly, and definitively, turned against free trade. Everywhere you look these days, the zeitgeist is anti-globalization. For a while, I thought it was just because I spend a lot of time in San Francisco and Berkeley, where the "localvore" movement reigns supreme. But the directive to grow, buy and eat local is even permeating the heart of Silicon Valley, which thrives on and could not even exist without globalization. A cynic would say that the growing anti-globalization vibe is merely a marketing ploy, and indeed in some situations that seems to be the case (to wit: tiny downtown Menlo Park has put up a banner in recent days urging people to "Shop Menlo Park: Buy Local-Support Local Economy," even if the vast majority of goods sold there are not, in fact, produced in our fair town).

It used to be that the only people you could find being very vocal against free trade were those who lived in places where their (mostly manufacturing) jobs had been outsourced, or environmental and labor groups concerned about a global race to the bottom in standards and wages. But as growing numbers of Republicans and Democrats alike turn against free trade and question the effects of globalization on economic opportunity and prosperity (for a window into one Republican's change of heart, check out this article on realclearpolitcs.com), it's worth trying to get to the heart of the matter.

Like immigration, the current debate over free trade is dominated by emotion- many middle-class Americans blame globalization in general and free trade in particular for the tremendous anxiety they feel about their economic security. The traditional economic wisdom-that a rising ride lifts all boats-clearly doesn't cut it anymore. And why should it when an increasing number of job categories from lawyers to tech workers are being outsourced? Americans are right to question whether the expansion of free trade agreements is beneficial to them. After all, markets cannot be ethical or moral. But the current move toward market isolationism is a misguided throwback to a time that does not exist anymore, and sets up an unnecessary tension between local needs and broader prosperity that can be shared through globalization.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and questions about labor and environmental standards, farm subsidies, and economic competitiveness will trip up even the most astute policymaker. But globalization need not be the death knell of American prosperity. The challenge we face as a nation is how to harness the power of free trade to benefit us all.

The Brookings Institute launched their "Blueprint for American Prosperity - Unleashing the Potential of a Metropolitan Nation" this morning with Bruce Katz, VP at Brookings and founding director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, leading the discussion on the importance of the changing demands of our nation and the urgent, catalytic government reform necessary for America to sustain global competitiveness.  The Blueprint for American Prosperity was developed to enhance America's metropolitan areas which are increasingly the core of the economy providing the majority of jobs and homes.  Although the top 100 metropolitan cities account for only 12% of land area, 65% of the population resides in these cities and 78% of our national GDP is generated here.  The blueprint is intended to promote various government reforms in order for metropolitan areas to strive in areas of innovation, infrastructure, human capitol and quality places.

The world is changing, America is changing and the federal government is failing to ignite necessary reforms to drive prosperity.  Instead of becoming more advanced, America has fallen behind other countries in education, infrastructure, energy, and technology.  How will America keep up? How will America accommodate a growing population?  Katz believes the answer is provided within the blueprint which outlines the proactive reforms the federal government should implement including productive and inclusive growth plans for metropolitan areas.  Furthermore, it is vital that local, state and federal governments work together along with business, civic, and government professionals to counter problems with collaborative problem solving that focuses on strengthening metropolitan areas to increase overall competitiveness. Katz's work is extraordinary and simplicity construes the problems America is facing and HOW they can be addressed in a productive and efficient way.  To read more about The Blueprint for American Prosperity, please visit http://www.blueprintpropserity.org/ .