It has not taken long to see a critical flaw in President Obama. He believes you can get a different result doing the same things.

After winning a contentious election running on a platform of 'change', Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with the appointees who have spent lifetimes upholding the very values and core beliefs that caused our current crises. You cannot simply adopt new tactics to make change. There has to be a willingness to let go of the most fundamental assumptions before you can begin to have a clearly different view, and possibly see opportunities for change.

Secretary Geitner's bailout plan was rooted in the same philosophy that government cannot intervene to deeply into the affairs of private enterprise. Result, a plan with bold initiative and vague details. The market ran from the plan siting it did not provide enough transparency and oversight. How about a new approach where the market considers a new kind of relationship with the fed, and where the fed acts as a representative of the public interest and holds the market accountable for the many areas of public power it manages.

I propose the market should integrate a new governmental role into its model. A shift away from a pure fiscal growth and profit model, to a social development and fiscal profit model.

Under such a model both growth and profit would be measured not simply in monetary gains, but rather by new metrics that incorporates a baseline of social and quality of life measurements into the equation.

Consider a CEO and the market prioritizing a company's investments in human capital and other intangible assets to deliver new operating efficiencies and growth in social equity as driving motivators and a key success metric. There are proven fiscal benefits to this type of model by the way. Balanced Scorecard strategies, a hot corporate tool, show that strategic investment in 'social processes' make human resource processes more effective and efficient.

What is clear is public government cannot continue to be run by private enterprise elites. This represents a fundamental conflict of interest and renders public government incapable of doing its much needed job - serving the public interest. Let these people do what they do best run companies. And get new leadership in government who will take on the tough job of making change and adopting, sometimes by mandate, new approaches to these serious problems we face.

It is time for change. Let's hope we get it, and soon.