As politicians and public leaders across the country try to work to find sustainable, long-term solutions to the major challenges confronting our country, one debate that has largely gone unnoticed is the validity of the data that is used to support each solution. Recently, we have seen politicians and public leaders at all levels propose policy solutions for health care, taxation, and economic stimulus, and it is not surprising to see Democrats or Republicans provide supporting data for their policies that are diametrically opposed to the other side’s data. Given the wide variety of conclusions drawn from the same set of data, how are we to know which solutions are more accurate?
At the core of the debate is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is charged with “[o]bjective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget; and the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.”. Both parties have a love/hate relationship with the CBO, promoting their analysis when it favors their position and discrediting it when it doesn’t. To provide data that support their policy positions, each party turns to outside sources, notably liberal or conservative think tanks.
In looking at this dynamic with some of the issues being debated today, neither Republicans nor Democrats were satisfied with the conclusions drawn by the CBO with regard to the possible extension of the Bush tax cuts. In forecasting out a possible extension of the Bush tax cuts, the CBO concluded that the short-term result of the tax cuts would result in an increase in economic output, income, and employment in the next two years. But, based on their modeling scenarios, the CBO concluded that these tax cuts would reduce income and add to federal debt relative to what would otherwise occur by 2020. In short, they concluded that the tax cuts should not be extended; a permanent tax cut or a temporary extension of the cuts would result in a negative impact on the economy.
This didn’t make either party happy. Using their own assumptions, Republicans rely on conclusions detailed by the Heritage Foundation, which claim that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hurt the economy in the long run . Fundamentally, they believe that tax cuts are always good for voters. The White House, in contrast, wants to renew the tax cuts to all households making under $250,000 a year. Two different conclusions from the same data source.
Another example is the debate over health care reform. The CBO forecasted that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would reduce deficits $143 billion in its first decade. This conclusion was soundly rebuked by the White House as a conservative estimate.
Ultimately, both parties reject the objective analysis of the CBO if it doesn’t advance their desired policies. In the hyper-partisan environment in which our national politics currently operates, we need an independent source of data analysis that can provide us with an objective look at how our possible solutions will impact the country.
But, the writing on the wall indicates that the fight over data, and its legitimacy, will continue. Conservatives, sensing the potential for a Republican majority in one or both chambers, have already advocated for a “reform” of the CBO through “housecleaning”. Whether the Conservative argument that the CBO skews its results in favor of a “big government” approach is valid or not, an independent analytical voice is needed in our policy making process, as long as the assumptions made in the analysis are clear and transparent. To have a common ground for a rational debate on policy, we need the CBO as an independent body to provide our public leaders with an unbiased analysis of the impact of potential laws and spending bills.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Why Mayor Fenty on September 14th
Nearly four years ago Mayor Fenty was handed the keys to the Wilson building, and the responsibilities of the District’s executive. He was elected on the promise that he would bring change to the District by creating a place where parents would want to send their children to school, where residents would feel safe and where government would be accountable to the people.
On these three important promises, his record is clear. He delivered. How often do you get to say that in politics? Mayor Fenty’s strong leadership needs to continue in the District for the next four years.
Washington, D.C. was the murder capital of the world in the 90’s. After four years of Mayor Fenty’s leadership, we have decreased crime by unprecedented levels, and we are on pace to decrease last year’s 43 year low in homicides by another 15 percent!
Math and reading scores are increasing in our public schools by historical margins, libraries are popping up or being improved all over the District, more students have competent teachers and President Obama just chose our public schools as one of the few “Race to the Top” jurisdictions in the country, granting the city $75 million for our leadership in education reform.
Under Mayor Fenty, each District agency has been required to publicly post a performance plan and a performance accountability report every fiscal year. This plan and the subsequent report provide demonstrable results on how District agencies are performing in providing services and support to District residents. District agencies are held accountable for their progress in achieving results and, consequently, residents have seen dramatic improvement across District government over the past four years.
Today, however, after unprecedented and undeniable results in a very challenging time, Mayor Fenty trails his Democratic Primary challenger Vincent Gray in the polls. He has transformed the city and accomplished results, but he has done so without appeasing the “interest groups” (where I come from, these “interest groups” are called “lobbyists”).
Because of this, he has been labeled arrogant and interest groups have refused to endorse his re-election because he would not meet with them to let them set policy. Others have called him insensitive when he trimmed budgets and made the hard decisions he was elected to make about how best to provide services for all District residents. And when he takes decisive action to make common sense decisions instead of spending two years on a commission to get to obvious answers, he is called secretive, irresponsible and out of touch.
In essence, he has done everything we demand of our elected officials except act like a politician. With Mayor Fenty, we have exactly what we ask for – an honest, smart, efficient and effective leader that makes decisions he knows to be right, even if they are unpopular.
The most perplexing issue regarding Gray’s popularity is that he has not disagreed with Mayor Fenty on one substantive policy issue. He merely wants to talk longer and act slower. He wants to give more opportunity for “interest groups” to influence policy. In short, he wants to slow down our progress. I don’t know about you, but I like progress – particularly when it can be done efficiently, effectively and responsibly, which is exactly how it has been done under Mayor Fenty.
Mayor Fenty has turned the corner on the dark days of corruption under Marian Barry, a strong, vocal and consistent supporter of Gray. To be fair, Gray is no Marian Barry, but he is also not the hard-charging, quick-thinking executive we need. Given the challenges the District will continue to face over the next four years, we need a leader that will act in the best interest of all District residents at the risk of upsetting some “interests groups.”
The last four years Mayor Fenty has responded to both well-established and unforeseen challenges, and the next four years promise to bring the same. We need a leader we know can rise to the challenge, lead our District, and continue to move us forward. Most importantly, we need a leader who is willing to make hard choices at the risk of being seen as unpopular.
Care about where you live. Demand results. Reward tough choices and stand against the status quo. Vote for Mayor Fenty on September 14th, because results matter and Fenty has delivered.
On these three important promises, his record is clear. He delivered. How often do you get to say that in politics? Mayor Fenty’s strong leadership needs to continue in the District for the next four years.
Washington, D.C. was the murder capital of the world in the 90’s. After four years of Mayor Fenty’s leadership, we have decreased crime by unprecedented levels, and we are on pace to decrease last year’s 43 year low in homicides by another 15 percent!
Math and reading scores are increasing in our public schools by historical margins, libraries are popping up or being improved all over the District, more students have competent teachers and President Obama just chose our public schools as one of the few “Race to the Top” jurisdictions in the country, granting the city $75 million for our leadership in education reform.
Under Mayor Fenty, each District agency has been required to publicly post a performance plan and a performance accountability report every fiscal year. This plan and the subsequent report provide demonstrable results on how District agencies are performing in providing services and support to District residents. District agencies are held accountable for their progress in achieving results and, consequently, residents have seen dramatic improvement across District government over the past four years.
Today, however, after unprecedented and undeniable results in a very challenging time, Mayor Fenty trails his Democratic Primary challenger Vincent Gray in the polls. He has transformed the city and accomplished results, but he has done so without appeasing the “interest groups” (where I come from, these “interest groups” are called “lobbyists”).
Because of this, he has been labeled arrogant and interest groups have refused to endorse his re-election because he would not meet with them to let them set policy. Others have called him insensitive when he trimmed budgets and made the hard decisions he was elected to make about how best to provide services for all District residents. And when he takes decisive action to make common sense decisions instead of spending two years on a commission to get to obvious answers, he is called secretive, irresponsible and out of touch.
In essence, he has done everything we demand of our elected officials except act like a politician. With Mayor Fenty, we have exactly what we ask for – an honest, smart, efficient and effective leader that makes decisions he knows to be right, even if they are unpopular.
The most perplexing issue regarding Gray’s popularity is that he has not disagreed with Mayor Fenty on one substantive policy issue. He merely wants to talk longer and act slower. He wants to give more opportunity for “interest groups” to influence policy. In short, he wants to slow down our progress. I don’t know about you, but I like progress – particularly when it can be done efficiently, effectively and responsibly, which is exactly how it has been done under Mayor Fenty.
Mayor Fenty has turned the corner on the dark days of corruption under Marian Barry, a strong, vocal and consistent supporter of Gray. To be fair, Gray is no Marian Barry, but he is also not the hard-charging, quick-thinking executive we need. Given the challenges the District will continue to face over the next four years, we need a leader that will act in the best interest of all District residents at the risk of upsetting some “interests groups.”
The last four years Mayor Fenty has responded to both well-established and unforeseen challenges, and the next four years promise to bring the same. We need a leader we know can rise to the challenge, lead our District, and continue to move us forward. Most importantly, we need a leader who is willing to make hard choices at the risk of being seen as unpopular.
Care about where you live. Demand results. Reward tough choices and stand against the status quo. Vote for Mayor Fenty on September 14th, because results matter and Fenty has delivered.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Should Business Leaders be Public Leaders?
Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of California, recently gave an interview, where she said, “…[W]hat I want to convince voters of is I am the very best person to fix the economy in California… I am a businessperson. I am not actually a politician. I am a businessperson. I have created jobs, I have met budgets, I have done, figured out how to do more with less, and that is actually a really important thing for the state right now.”
With the nomination of Whitman, fellow Californian Carly Fiorina , and professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon on Connecticut to November’s ballot, it has to be asked whether the experience these businesswomen gained by running private companies provides them with experience to be a public sector leader. It seems it is assumed by the public at large that the experience a candidate gains by being an executive at a private or public for-profit company provides a candidate with the necessary experience to run a government. Are the outcomes that for-profit companies value the same outcomes that we want our public leaders to implement in our governments, whether it be local, state, or federal?
To look at this, we need to look at what the things that executives are rewarded for in the private sector. For-profit companies are, by definition, profit maximizing entities. Private companies, companies that are not publically traded, exist to maximize the return of that company’s owners and investors. Publically traded for-profit companies exist to maximize the return to their share holders. This return is gained through a company’s profit, the excess of the company’s revenue to its costs. Profit is collected in one of two ways, either by reducing the company’s costs or by increasing the revenue. Private companies gain revenue by providing various goods or services to the marketplace, and the market decides which products succeed or fail.
Public organizations, on the other hand, are governments and nonprofits. They exist to provide services for the common good. They provide services and support for those that cannot afford the services or services for the public good. They maintain roads, police our streets, and educate our children. They provide the common infrastructure that is needed for a market economy to exist, and they ensure that no established laws are broken.
The key differentiator is profit. For-profit executives are expected to do more with less and have a surplus left over, regardless of the public good. Public executives are not expected to generate a profit; they are expected to increase the quality of life of their constituents. For-profit executives have a limited number of stakeholders: either their owners or their shareholders. Public executives count every man, woman, and child as their stakeholders.
Candidates who claim to have the experience for a public sector job, whether they are running for mayor, legislator, governor, Congress, or president, because of their prior work at for-profit companies are really telling us that they know how to “control” spending and “give government back to the people.” Whatever this rhetoric means in practice, we need to be careful that they are not still working to provide profits to the stakeholders they served while running those for-profit companies. Serving the bottom line and serving human beings result in two very different outcomes. We need to be sure that our leaders are serving our best interest, not theirs.
With the nomination of Whitman, fellow Californian Carly Fiorina , and professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon on Connecticut to November’s ballot, it has to be asked whether the experience these businesswomen gained by running private companies provides them with experience to be a public sector leader. It seems it is assumed by the public at large that the experience a candidate gains by being an executive at a private or public for-profit company provides a candidate with the necessary experience to run a government. Are the outcomes that for-profit companies value the same outcomes that we want our public leaders to implement in our governments, whether it be local, state, or federal?
To look at this, we need to look at what the things that executives are rewarded for in the private sector. For-profit companies are, by definition, profit maximizing entities. Private companies, companies that are not publically traded, exist to maximize the return of that company’s owners and investors. Publically traded for-profit companies exist to maximize the return to their share holders. This return is gained through a company’s profit, the excess of the company’s revenue to its costs. Profit is collected in one of two ways, either by reducing the company’s costs or by increasing the revenue. Private companies gain revenue by providing various goods or services to the marketplace, and the market decides which products succeed or fail.
Public organizations, on the other hand, are governments and nonprofits. They exist to provide services for the common good. They provide services and support for those that cannot afford the services or services for the public good. They maintain roads, police our streets, and educate our children. They provide the common infrastructure that is needed for a market economy to exist, and they ensure that no established laws are broken.
The key differentiator is profit. For-profit executives are expected to do more with less and have a surplus left over, regardless of the public good. Public executives are not expected to generate a profit; they are expected to increase the quality of life of their constituents. For-profit executives have a limited number of stakeholders: either their owners or their shareholders. Public executives count every man, woman, and child as their stakeholders.
Candidates who claim to have the experience for a public sector job, whether they are running for mayor, legislator, governor, Congress, or president, because of their prior work at for-profit companies are really telling us that they know how to “control” spending and “give government back to the people.” Whatever this rhetoric means in practice, we need to be careful that they are not still working to provide profits to the stakeholders they served while running those for-profit companies. Serving the bottom line and serving human beings result in two very different outcomes. We need to be sure that our leaders are serving our best interest, not theirs.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Shared Infrastructure Development
While on a recent trip to Ireland, we saw the country by car. We started on the west coast and moved our way east, and the difference in road development between the eastern hub of Dublin and the western cities of Galway and Limerick is remarkable. Dublin is surrounded by multi-car expressways, while many of the roads in the west barely have enough room for two cars to pass each other (which led to many harrowing moments). The west is the part of the country that Oliver Cromwell famously sent the eastern Irish landowners when he confiscated the land on behalf of the English crown and told the Irish to go “to hell or to Connaught,” and, due to its isolation from the rest of the country, is the home of the Irish Gaelic language and culture. Notoriously, some of the roads are unpaved and were largely developed when people primarily used horses for travel.
But, throughout the west, there were signs of large scale infrastructure development, with many roads being built, all with prominent signs proudly attributing the development to the NDP or National Development Plan. For a country that has faced its own economic crisis over the last few years, this scope of investment surprised me, especially since Moody's recently downgraded Ireland's bond rating. It surprised me until I learned of how it was being financed. Approximately one third of the financing for the Irish National Development Plan comes from E.U. Structural Funds.
The E.U. Structural Funds are grants of financial assistance that strengthen “the EU's economic and social cohesion by reducing developmental disparities between its regions.” Essentially, if there are regions within the E.U. that need infrastructure investment to improve their roads so that they can compete economically, the E.U. provides that region with a grant to bring that region on par with the rest of Europe. They know that Europe's collective economy won't grow if the laggards in the economy did not have the ability to initially develop as the rest of Europe has.
Given the recent cascading impact of the Euro’s valuation, the Europeans know that areas that have relatively weaker economies as compared with the economic leaders of the continent (Germany, France, UK) can bring down the whole house. That is why this fund to develop remote areas of Europe in order to build the overall economy of the country needs to be replicated elsewhere.
In the U.S., President Eisenhower solved the issue of the roads back in the 1950s. But, some of these roads are in need of repair or upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a cumulative grade of D for the current condition of our infrastructure. They estimate that a five year investment of $2.2 trillion will be needed to upgrade our collective infrastructure.
If you focus on bridges alone, ASCE states on its website:
And there are still other areas of the country that need further road and rail development to continue to remain competitive in the current global economy. The key factor here is that the E.U. is helping its member countries modernize by providing direct grants for infrastructure development. We've pumped a lot of money into the economy in the last two years but, in the larger budgetary and deficit discussions, the growing and pressing need for further infrastructure development is not being discussed.
But, throughout the west, there were signs of large scale infrastructure development, with many roads being built, all with prominent signs proudly attributing the development to the NDP or National Development Plan. For a country that has faced its own economic crisis over the last few years, this scope of investment surprised me, especially since Moody's recently downgraded Ireland's bond rating. It surprised me until I learned of how it was being financed. Approximately one third of the financing for the Irish National Development Plan comes from E.U. Structural Funds.
The E.U. Structural Funds are grants of financial assistance that strengthen “the EU's economic and social cohesion by reducing developmental disparities between its regions.” Essentially, if there are regions within the E.U. that need infrastructure investment to improve their roads so that they can compete economically, the E.U. provides that region with a grant to bring that region on par with the rest of Europe. They know that Europe's collective economy won't grow if the laggards in the economy did not have the ability to initially develop as the rest of Europe has.
Given the recent cascading impact of the Euro’s valuation, the Europeans know that areas that have relatively weaker economies as compared with the economic leaders of the continent (Germany, France, UK) can bring down the whole house. That is why this fund to develop remote areas of Europe in order to build the overall economy of the country needs to be replicated elsewhere.
In the U.S., President Eisenhower solved the issue of the roads back in the 1950s. But, some of these roads are in need of repair or upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a cumulative grade of D for the current condition of our infrastructure. They estimate that a five year investment of $2.2 trillion will be needed to upgrade our collective infrastructure.
If you focus on bridges alone, ASCE states on its website:
Simply maintaining the current overall level of bridge conditions—that is, not allowing the backlog of deficient bridges to grow—would require a combined investment from the public and private sectors of $650 billion over 50 years, according to AASHTO [the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials], for an average annual investment level of $13 billion. The cost of eliminating all existing bridge deficiencies as they arise over the next 50 years is estimated at $850 billion in 2006 dollars, equating to an average annual investment of $17 billion.
And there are still other areas of the country that need further road and rail development to continue to remain competitive in the current global economy. The key factor here is that the E.U. is helping its member countries modernize by providing direct grants for infrastructure development. We've pumped a lot of money into the economy in the last two years but, in the larger budgetary and deficit discussions, the growing and pressing need for further infrastructure development is not being discussed.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Unplugging
I recently got back from a trip to Ireland, and I had the most amazing experience. I unplugged. I didn’t unplug in the extreme sense, but, while there, I didn’t have a cell phone, e-mail, computer, or iPod. The rooms we stayed in at two B&Bs didn’t have televisions and I read only one newspaper the entire trip (which focused mostly on Irish topics). In fact, the only television I watched while on my trip was the U.S./England World Cup football, ne soccer, match at the pub. Having left all my electronic leashes behind, I spent some time reading a book (you know, those things made out of paper) instead of blogs and the internet, and found myself thinking more clearly.
Which is not to say that I don’t think clearly. However, given the dominating role the internet plays in our lives, I believe that more people than not find that their thinking or thought process can be improved. In his new book The Shallows, Nicholas Carr attributes the decline in our ability to concentrate to the growth of the internet as a primary source of information and reading . This lack of concentration is also seen in technology’s ability to help us multitask, and have us focus poorly on multiple tasks at one time rather than focusing well on one task at a time. A recent New York Times article focused on the role of technology in our life and its impact on our ability to think. As cited in the article, recent research has found that multitaskers suffer from fractured thinking and a lack of focus even when not multitasking. Carr has taken this idea one step further, likening our use of the internet to multitasking by reading a book while trying to do a crossword puzzle.
What does this all mean? With the ubiquity of technology and gadgets, our concentration is being pulled and taxed, hurting the quality of our thought and work. As a result, our ability to think strategically has suffered. Anecdotally, I know of many public sector leaders that have sacrificed their preference to address challenges strategically and comprehensively and now spend most of their time addressing issues tactically. To combat this, we need to force ourselves to unplug. Turn off the computer. Put down the blackberry. This can be hard when we’re in our comfort zone and routine, at home or at the office. To do the job well, we need to discipline ourselves not to always be working in our e-mail, and focus on the long-term projects on our plate.
Which is not to say that I don’t think clearly. However, given the dominating role the internet plays in our lives, I believe that more people than not find that their thinking or thought process can be improved. In his new book The Shallows, Nicholas Carr attributes the decline in our ability to concentrate to the growth of the internet as a primary source of information and reading . This lack of concentration is also seen in technology’s ability to help us multitask, and have us focus poorly on multiple tasks at one time rather than focusing well on one task at a time. A recent New York Times article focused on the role of technology in our life and its impact on our ability to think. As cited in the article, recent research has found that multitaskers suffer from fractured thinking and a lack of focus even when not multitasking. Carr has taken this idea one step further, likening our use of the internet to multitasking by reading a book while trying to do a crossword puzzle.
What does this all mean? With the ubiquity of technology and gadgets, our concentration is being pulled and taxed, hurting the quality of our thought and work. As a result, our ability to think strategically has suffered. Anecdotally, I know of many public sector leaders that have sacrificed their preference to address challenges strategically and comprehensively and now spend most of their time addressing issues tactically. To combat this, we need to force ourselves to unplug. Turn off the computer. Put down the blackberry. This can be hard when we’re in our comfort zone and routine, at home or at the office. To do the job well, we need to discipline ourselves not to always be working in our e-mail, and focus on the long-term projects on our plate.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Do we miss "Crossfire"?
Five years ago this month, CNN hosted its final “Crossfire” episode at George Washington University. For those of you that don’t remember, or have made the conscience decision to block it from your memory, this relatively popular show pitted two political pundits (one from the left and the other from the right) against each other in what CNN called “debate.”
For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.
There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.
We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.
Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.
We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.
For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.
There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.
We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.
Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.
We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Constructive Criticism or Insubordination?
President Obama recently removed Gen. Stanley McChrystal from his post as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan because ofdue to remarks he and he staff made about members of the Obama administration in a recent Rolling Stone feature. In the article, McChrystal and members of his staff made frank remarks of other members of the U.S. diplomatic team, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones; the Vice President; and members of Congress. Much of the vitriol in their comments focus on how the various players involved in creating a lasting democracy in Afghanistan, at times, work against the interests of McChrystal’s Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategy.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Is Utah the New Standard?
A few weeks ago, three-term Utah Senator Bob Bennett was denied the opportunity to hold his party’s banner in the 2010 general election, which he would have undoubtedly carried to his fourth term in the upper chamber. Okay, fair enough. The GOP in Utah grew tired of his representation of them and, after 18 years, wanted change. That is understandable and it is democracy (other than the fact that the vote was only open to the people that participated in the convention).
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Another Bellwether from California: local government consolidation
A recent story on PRI’s Marketplace radio show got me thinking about how the current economy is impacting local governments and what may come in the future: the cities of Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena are considering merging and consolidating all or parts of their government in order to save costs. Due to a reduction in taxes and state-level budget cuts, the cities are exploring whether a consolidation will help them do more with less.
It makes logical sense that less government translates into lower cost: larger entities have a better negotiating position in purchasing goods and services (gas, paper, various outsourced administrative services, etc). But there may be other reason why government consolidation may be beneficial. A 1980 study in Administrative Science Quarterly found that “the number of administrative units per capita is significantly and negatively related to quality of services.” In other words, fewer government entities lead to an improvement in the public’s perception of the quality of the government services being provided.
Whether or not Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena go forward with their consolidation, the issue of government simplification may remain a hot topic at the local level for the foreseeable future. State and local government across the country are considering a variety of new measure to reduce expenses and raise revenue . Where else could simplifying the government help reduce costs? Two states where simplifying the complexity of government could result in not only an improvement in perception but actual improvements in how the government is managed are New Jersey and my home state of Rhode Island.
New Jersey has 21 counties, yet has 566 municipalities, and more than 600 school districts, some of which actually have no schools but Rhode Island, to its credit, has only four counties, but has 39 individual municipalities and 50 school districts, all of which do have at least one school (thank goodness for the previous efforts to consolidate the State’s 67 officially recognized villages into its 39 cities and towns).
Even though New Jersey is seven times as large, it is “relatively efficient” (if New Jersey were the size of Rhode Island, it would have 79 municipalities and 83 school districts). Then again, Rhode Island has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country at 12.5%, compared with New Jersey’s 9.8%. The striking numbers here are the number of governmental entities each state has. Each of these municipalities and school districts require its own administrative body, and each needs to generate revenue to pay for its operations (even if it doesn’t have a school).
Because one of the only ways local government can generate revenue is through property taxes, the situation has resulted in higher property taxes for these two states. As a result, New Jersey home owners pay the most in property taxes, Rhode Islanders pay the fifth most in property taxes. New Jersey home owners pay the highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income (and Gov. Christie may increase these taxes statewide), and Rhode Islanders pay the seventh highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income . In New Jersey, this has hurt the state as a whole when governors and state legislators, in an effort to gain votes, pass “property tax relief” bills, which passes along tax rebates to home owners, further inflating the state’s deficit. To balance the budget, Gov. Christie has encouraged local residents to reject their school board’s budget, allowing the state to reduce its obligations to the local school districts. In Rhode Island, the state assembly has already cut funding to local school districts .
While these efforts to blindly cut funding to schools may appear to be the “fiscally responsible” answer, without an accompanying plan to maintain and improve the strength of the educational system, it is not the social responsible solution. In a larger sense, both states’ efforts to manage public pension obligations present a larger and more long-term threat to their budgets (and both education reform and public pensions are an entirely more complicated bag of worms which will be addressed another day).
So, why can’t our public leaders find improvements and efficiencies through consolidation? The main threat to simplification and consolidation comes from the public leaders who run these micro-governments. All politics is local, and with these small municipalities, this rule is twice as true. Ballot efforts to consolidate governments do not have a history of success, due to the support by the residents of their local leaders. With their tiny fiefdoms to rule over, these public leaders are actually working against the public good when they refuse to take action to (or even discuss the possibility of) streamline government. Yes, it may eliminate their job, but it’s for the public good, which is why we hired them in the first place.
It makes logical sense that less government translates into lower cost: larger entities have a better negotiating position in purchasing goods and services (gas, paper, various outsourced administrative services, etc). But there may be other reason why government consolidation may be beneficial. A 1980 study in Administrative Science Quarterly found that “the number of administrative units per capita is significantly and negatively related to quality of services.” In other words, fewer government entities lead to an improvement in the public’s perception of the quality of the government services being provided.
Whether or not Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena go forward with their consolidation, the issue of government simplification may remain a hot topic at the local level for the foreseeable future. State and local government across the country are considering a variety of new measure to reduce expenses and raise revenue . Where else could simplifying the government help reduce costs? Two states where simplifying the complexity of government could result in not only an improvement in perception but actual improvements in how the government is managed are New Jersey and my home state of Rhode Island.
New Jersey has 21 counties, yet has 566 municipalities, and more than 600 school districts, some of which actually have no schools but Rhode Island, to its credit, has only four counties, but has 39 individual municipalities and 50 school districts, all of which do have at least one school (thank goodness for the previous efforts to consolidate the State’s 67 officially recognized villages into its 39 cities and towns).
Even though New Jersey is seven times as large, it is “relatively efficient” (if New Jersey were the size of Rhode Island, it would have 79 municipalities and 83 school districts). Then again, Rhode Island has one of the worst unemployment rates in the country at 12.5%, compared with New Jersey’s 9.8%. The striking numbers here are the number of governmental entities each state has. Each of these municipalities and school districts require its own administrative body, and each needs to generate revenue to pay for its operations (even if it doesn’t have a school).
Because one of the only ways local government can generate revenue is through property taxes, the situation has resulted in higher property taxes for these two states. As a result, New Jersey home owners pay the most in property taxes, Rhode Islanders pay the fifth most in property taxes. New Jersey home owners pay the highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income (and Gov. Christie may increase these taxes statewide), and Rhode Islanders pay the seventh highest amount of property tax as a percent of their income . In New Jersey, this has hurt the state as a whole when governors and state legislators, in an effort to gain votes, pass “property tax relief” bills, which passes along tax rebates to home owners, further inflating the state’s deficit. To balance the budget, Gov. Christie has encouraged local residents to reject their school board’s budget, allowing the state to reduce its obligations to the local school districts. In Rhode Island, the state assembly has already cut funding to local school districts .
While these efforts to blindly cut funding to schools may appear to be the “fiscally responsible” answer, without an accompanying plan to maintain and improve the strength of the educational system, it is not the social responsible solution. In a larger sense, both states’ efforts to manage public pension obligations present a larger and more long-term threat to their budgets (and both education reform and public pensions are an entirely more complicated bag of worms which will be addressed another day).
So, why can’t our public leaders find improvements and efficiencies through consolidation? The main threat to simplification and consolidation comes from the public leaders who run these micro-governments. All politics is local, and with these small municipalities, this rule is twice as true. Ballot efforts to consolidate governments do not have a history of success, due to the support by the residents of their local leaders. With their tiny fiefdoms to rule over, these public leaders are actually working against the public good when they refuse to take action to (or even discuss the possibility of) streamline government. Yes, it may eliminate their job, but it’s for the public good, which is why we hired them in the first place.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thank You Foster Parents
Most people don’t know, but May is National Foster Care Month. It is a month to raise awareness and properly recognize foster care parents and organizations. I have had the privilege of spending some time working with this population and, let me tell you, it was eye-opening.
To be sure, not every foster care situation turns out well. In truth, many don’t – at least not by society’s standard. But children would not be placed in the foster care system if they enjoyed all of the privileges many of us claim. The foster care kids I worked with often knew their parents, but most certainly communicated that it would be easier if they didn’t.
I remember the first day I was hit with words that felt as if I had been punched in the gut. I was with a kid that was 12 years old, which, at the time was half of my age. He and I were talking about how his mom was getting out of court-ordered drug rehab in the coming week. I asked if he was excited to have visitation “privileges” with his mom (expecting the answer was an obvious one). I was shocked when he told me how he wished she would stay locked up forever.
Immediately, I said “you don’t believe that.” Without hesitation he said that he did. He rattled off the problems his mom caused, the revolving door between she, jail and rehab and about how her brief stints on the outside only further aggravated him and “screwed up” his visitation with his grandmother, who was the one family member he remained in contact with throughout his foster care placements. Hearing his story, I actually took his side (albeit I did not tell him) and wished his mom would just leave him alone unless she could promise she would not be out of his life for another jail term in the near future. He simply did not deserve the torture of her sporadic appearances in his life.
That night, I told my parents I loved them and wanted them to know that our differences and disagreements were not that bad. They, along with my brother, with whom I fought incessantly, had always been there for me; even if I was not there for them. They provided meals, shelter, protection, and, most importantly, unconditional love: things I took for granted, but are not universally known. This was my first sob story and it happened in my second week on the job. It certainly was not the last.
As I listened to stories like this, and far worse, I realized what a difficult world it is out there for so many kids. They do not enter their foster home in an ideal situation and they certainly don’t always make life easy on their foster parents. But through the dedication and commitment of foster parents, orphaned and abused kids might gain some stability, some nurturing, some structure and some direction. They might even, gain a loved one.
Foster parents, during National Foster Care Month and beyond, deserve society’s thanks. They provide hope and opportunity to kids that have too often lost both. They provide a future to kids that want to forget their past.
To be sure, not every foster care situation turns out well. In truth, many don’t – at least not by society’s standard. But children would not be placed in the foster care system if they enjoyed all of the privileges many of us claim. The foster care kids I worked with often knew their parents, but most certainly communicated that it would be easier if they didn’t.
I remember the first day I was hit with words that felt as if I had been punched in the gut. I was with a kid that was 12 years old, which, at the time was half of my age. He and I were talking about how his mom was getting out of court-ordered drug rehab in the coming week. I asked if he was excited to have visitation “privileges” with his mom (expecting the answer was an obvious one). I was shocked when he told me how he wished she would stay locked up forever.
Immediately, I said “you don’t believe that.” Without hesitation he said that he did. He rattled off the problems his mom caused, the revolving door between she, jail and rehab and about how her brief stints on the outside only further aggravated him and “screwed up” his visitation with his grandmother, who was the one family member he remained in contact with throughout his foster care placements. Hearing his story, I actually took his side (albeit I did not tell him) and wished his mom would just leave him alone unless she could promise she would not be out of his life for another jail term in the near future. He simply did not deserve the torture of her sporadic appearances in his life.
That night, I told my parents I loved them and wanted them to know that our differences and disagreements were not that bad. They, along with my brother, with whom I fought incessantly, had always been there for me; even if I was not there for them. They provided meals, shelter, protection, and, most importantly, unconditional love: things I took for granted, but are not universally known. This was my first sob story and it happened in my second week on the job. It certainly was not the last.
As I listened to stories like this, and far worse, I realized what a difficult world it is out there for so many kids. They do not enter their foster home in an ideal situation and they certainly don’t always make life easy on their foster parents. But through the dedication and commitment of foster parents, orphaned and abused kids might gain some stability, some nurturing, some structure and some direction. They might even, gain a loved one.
Foster parents, during National Foster Care Month and beyond, deserve society’s thanks. They provide hope and opportunity to kids that have too often lost both. They provide a future to kids that want to forget their past.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Rules
I’m currently in the process of reading Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. The book is a “refresher” of basic economic theory, both micro and macro, and presents the fundamental concepts that underlie economic s in simple and direct prose (for anyone that wants a nice econ refresher, I highly recommend it). Early in the book, Wheelan confronts the role of government in economics; presenting an argument that government has a role in economics but should not be involved in the market. In other words, “[g]overnment has the potential to enhance the productive capacity of the economy and make us much better off as a result.” The basic underpinning of Wheelan’s argument is this: the government exists to set the rules, and, without the rules, we wouldn’t have an economy.
The idea is this: the free market is great and we should do our best to make sure that free markets exist, but, without a democratic government (and the laws, rules, and regulations that go along with a democratic government), the cost of doing business would be too high for any rational person or business to chose to engage in the economy. Businesses would need to pay for basic security that they get for free in a democratic society. He cites a 2000 column from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, where Friedman argues that developing countries envy the U.S. because of its government bureaucracy.
Without the laws, rules, regulations, and uncorrupted government agencies that make up a stable western democracy, economic development is nearly impossible. These regulations provide the framework for protecting patents, ensuring that monopolies don’t price gauge us, and define property rights. Plus infrastructure investment – it sure is nice not driving on dirt roads (I’ll comment on this in greater depth in another post). As Wheelan writes, “Good government makes a market economy possible. Period. And bad government, or no government, dashes capitalism against the rocks…the reality is that nobody ever likes the umpire, but you can’t play the World Series without one.” For Wheelan, the proper role of government is to deal with externalities, those consequences of individuals acting freely in their own best interests that impact other people.
Juxtaposed against this is the wave of anti-government populism embodied by the “tea party.” These populists want less government in their life. The irony is that I would wager that they don’t want to eliminate the role of government in their life; the inherent sense of fairness and justice that permeates the rhetoric from this group leads me to believe that some government is good. When the “tea partiers” wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, they’re really saying, “Don’t tread on me, unless treading on me will benefit me.” So, it’s not, “Don’t tax me.” It’s more, “I don’t want you to tax me, unless it’s going to the fire department, which will save my house from burning down after I had the unlicensed electrician do some work on my house.” The challenge is in defining the limits of good government. What negative things have an impact on you that are the result of someone “exercising their freedom”? And who decides?
The idea is this: the free market is great and we should do our best to make sure that free markets exist, but, without a democratic government (and the laws, rules, and regulations that go along with a democratic government), the cost of doing business would be too high for any rational person or business to chose to engage in the economy. Businesses would need to pay for basic security that they get for free in a democratic society. He cites a 2000 column from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, where Friedman argues that developing countries envy the U.S. because of its government bureaucracy.
Without the laws, rules, regulations, and uncorrupted government agencies that make up a stable western democracy, economic development is nearly impossible. These regulations provide the framework for protecting patents, ensuring that monopolies don’t price gauge us, and define property rights. Plus infrastructure investment – it sure is nice not driving on dirt roads (I’ll comment on this in greater depth in another post). As Wheelan writes, “Good government makes a market economy possible. Period. And bad government, or no government, dashes capitalism against the rocks…the reality is that nobody ever likes the umpire, but you can’t play the World Series without one.” For Wheelan, the proper role of government is to deal with externalities, those consequences of individuals acting freely in their own best interests that impact other people.
Juxtaposed against this is the wave of anti-government populism embodied by the “tea party.” These populists want less government in their life. The irony is that I would wager that they don’t want to eliminate the role of government in their life; the inherent sense of fairness and justice that permeates the rhetoric from this group leads me to believe that some government is good. When the “tea partiers” wave their “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, they’re really saying, “Don’t tread on me, unless treading on me will benefit me.” So, it’s not, “Don’t tax me.” It’s more, “I don’t want you to tax me, unless it’s going to the fire department, which will save my house from burning down after I had the unlicensed electrician do some work on my house.” The challenge is in defining the limits of good government. What negative things have an impact on you that are the result of someone “exercising their freedom”? And who decides?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
How Should Obama Prioritize?
A few months ago, I wrote a post where I said I do not envy the president for having to make such difficult decisions. Sure, it would be great to have such an impact, but making the decisions President Obama must make in the next few months would, well, quite frankly, suck.
President Obama has been very clear that he wants jobs legislation, energy legislation, immigration reform and financial regulatory reform. And advocates for each issue want this done now, and done perfectly. But let’s face it; there are going to be a lot of disappointed people.
We saw how long healthcare took, which even though it was a very contentious issue, shows how long the legislative process can take (discounting the fact that politicians have tried to achieve universal healthcare for many decades) when strong emotions are evoked.
Yesterday Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made headlines when he decided to step away from his work with Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) on energy legislation because Democrats have decided to try to pass immigration reform right now.
So why would President Obama and the Democrats do this? Well, Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed very stringent legislation last week that will allow police officers to question and detain illegal immigrants if they suspect them of being in the country illegally. Now, both sides of the immigration issue want to see the fight become national.
On the heels of Earth Day, and in the midst of immigration turmoil, you have other issues that are, arguably, even more important. We still need to do something about the huge job losses caused by the economic collapse of 2008. We also, according to two-thirds of Americans, need to do something about the circumstances that allowed banks to be so reckless with our economy in the first place.
These four issues are huge right now (should I mention the Supreme Court vacancy or budget process?)! Assuming you can’t do all four (which the Democrats are trying to do), which one should be the priority? The obvious answer, for the unemployed, is jobs. But then is that so obvious to the environmentalists who argue inaction now will cause global catastrophe and create an uninhabitable planet? Is that so obvious to the people that are being rounded up by police officers in Arizona or Americans that truly believe immigrants are stealing their jobs? Are we supposed to forget the serious fear we all felt when the stock market crashed and our grandparents reminded us of their childhoods during the depression? It’s not so easy, but it sure would be nice if it were.
Every president comes into office with an agenda. Both parties have to deal with circumstances beyond their control. Do you think Obama wanted to be president immediately after an economic collapse? Do you think Bush wanted to lead a post 9-11 world? Their priorities were hijacked and they had to adapt. We complain government is in our lives too much, but we expect Obama to solve our economic woes and expected Bush to keep us safe.
Let us recognize the realities of America and its infinite competing interests. We don’t need perfect policy, just like we don’t need a perfect union. We need better policy, which will allow us to create a more perfect union. That is what American democracy is about. It is time we start living up to the principles of our founding fathers.
President Obama has been very clear that he wants jobs legislation, energy legislation, immigration reform and financial regulatory reform. And advocates for each issue want this done now, and done perfectly. But let’s face it; there are going to be a lot of disappointed people.
We saw how long healthcare took, which even though it was a very contentious issue, shows how long the legislative process can take (discounting the fact that politicians have tried to achieve universal healthcare for many decades) when strong emotions are evoked.
Yesterday Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made headlines when he decided to step away from his work with Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) on energy legislation because Democrats have decided to try to pass immigration reform right now.
So why would President Obama and the Democrats do this? Well, Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed very stringent legislation last week that will allow police officers to question and detain illegal immigrants if they suspect them of being in the country illegally. Now, both sides of the immigration issue want to see the fight become national.
On the heels of Earth Day, and in the midst of immigration turmoil, you have other issues that are, arguably, even more important. We still need to do something about the huge job losses caused by the economic collapse of 2008. We also, according to two-thirds of Americans, need to do something about the circumstances that allowed banks to be so reckless with our economy in the first place.
These four issues are huge right now (should I mention the Supreme Court vacancy or budget process?)! Assuming you can’t do all four (which the Democrats are trying to do), which one should be the priority? The obvious answer, for the unemployed, is jobs. But then is that so obvious to the environmentalists who argue inaction now will cause global catastrophe and create an uninhabitable planet? Is that so obvious to the people that are being rounded up by police officers in Arizona or Americans that truly believe immigrants are stealing their jobs? Are we supposed to forget the serious fear we all felt when the stock market crashed and our grandparents reminded us of their childhoods during the depression? It’s not so easy, but it sure would be nice if it were.
Every president comes into office with an agenda. Both parties have to deal with circumstances beyond their control. Do you think Obama wanted to be president immediately after an economic collapse? Do you think Bush wanted to lead a post 9-11 world? Their priorities were hijacked and they had to adapt. We complain government is in our lives too much, but we expect Obama to solve our economic woes and expected Bush to keep us safe.
Let us recognize the realities of America and its infinite competing interests. We don’t need perfect policy, just like we don’t need a perfect union. We need better policy, which will allow us to create a more perfect union. That is what American democracy is about. It is time we start living up to the principles of our founding fathers.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Cooking Your Way to Public Sector Change
In general, we won’t discuss a lot of television in this blog space. However, I feel the need to take a small departure from this informal rule to discuss a recent television program that, for me, exemplifies the difficult and complex challenges that public leaders face. Over the last few weeks, ABC has been showing Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, a reality-TV program about British Chef Jamie Oliver’s effort to change the way the residents of Huntington, West Virginia eat. His goal is to shift the town away from processed foods and teach them how to cook nutritious meals using real ingredients at a low cost. Many of the recipes he cooks on the show can be found in his cookbook (which I own and absolutely love).
Let me tell you that this television show is an eye opener. Just watching the show makes my wife and I want to go out for a run, no matter how late at night. The primary goal of Chef Oliver’s “Revolution” is to change the food that is being fed to the children in our public schools. He does this by showing the people of Huntington the negative health implications of the processed food that they are eating (including one particular experiment where he shows children how chicken nuggets are made even though chicken nuggets in the U.S. are not prepared this way) and emphasizing how easy the people of the city can switch to cooking with fresh ingredients.
With the help of Ryan Seacrest Productions, the show is, admittedly, a typical reality television show, with villains and foils, and the show would be remiss without some typical controversy, particularly about whether the changes implemented by Chef Oliver are truly lasting .
However, the show switched from a typical reality television show to a show that demonstrates the implications of our public during one particular exchange between Jamie and Rhonda McCoy. Ms McCoy, the Director of Food Services for Huntington Schools, forced Chef Oliver to serve French fries with a vegetable noodle dish because he had an insufficient number of vegetables in his lunch that day and, according to the federal guidelines, potatoes are considered a vegetable.
Setting aside the debate of whether a potato is a vegetable or a supercarb, I scoured the USDA school lunch program regulations to, hopefully, refute this position. But the vaguely written regulations that school districts have to implement are a good example of how public policies have created negative externalities in our school lunch system and how the public leaders charged with implementing those policies have their hands tied. It’s a situation where the schools don’t give the children butter knives to eat with, and we are forced to feed them finger foods (vegetables, potatoes aside, aren’t good finger foods). It is so concerning that some retired military officers consider our current school lunches a threat to national security.
But, the policies also reinforce the challenges with school funding. The crux of the problem is that the USDA has created the regulations for the school lunch program, but Congressional funding for the school lunch program fluctuates, forcing the local school districts to find funding sources to cover the funding gap between what is provided federally and what is provided locally. This is usually results in the use of mass produced processed foods and the sale of “competitive foods” such as soda and candy to supplement their funding.
These rules without the funding (or inverse funding) from Congress is exactly why a Big Mac costs less than a salad. It reinforces the research that has shown that industrial processed foods can contribute to illness and that foods with higher levels of fat and sugar could be as addictive as heroin or cocaine.
By, highlighting the negative, the show has helped increase the momentum for changing the system. This is being done in a few ways. First, the attention the show has given to the current state of school lunch programs, in conjunction with the pet projects of the First Lady, has helped push for a change of the policy with the Child Nutrition Act, which is currently making its way through Congress. While not the be all and end all, the bill would provide the first substantial funding for the School Lunch Program in 40 years, while giving the Department of Agriculture more flexibility in setting policy.
Second, in the long run, hopefully, changing the school lunches will also contributed to a decrease in the cost of health care. Finally, whether they play a hero or a heel on the show, the Food Revolution is also starting a dialog about the type of leadership it takes to change eating habits. As one writer highlights, the key elements for getting decent food into schools are:
• A principal who cares about what kids eat
• Teachers who care about what kids eat
• Parents who care about what kids eat
• Food service workers who not only care about what the kids eat but also know their names
Now, if only Alice and her compatriots would come out from behind the lunch counter and get to know the kids in Huntington…
Let me tell you that this television show is an eye opener. Just watching the show makes my wife and I want to go out for a run, no matter how late at night. The primary goal of Chef Oliver’s “Revolution” is to change the food that is being fed to the children in our public schools. He does this by showing the people of Huntington the negative health implications of the processed food that they are eating (including one particular experiment where he shows children how chicken nuggets are made even though chicken nuggets in the U.S. are not prepared this way) and emphasizing how easy the people of the city can switch to cooking with fresh ingredients.
With the help of Ryan Seacrest Productions, the show is, admittedly, a typical reality television show, with villains and foils, and the show would be remiss without some typical controversy, particularly about whether the changes implemented by Chef Oliver are truly lasting .
However, the show switched from a typical reality television show to a show that demonstrates the implications of our public during one particular exchange between Jamie and Rhonda McCoy. Ms McCoy, the Director of Food Services for Huntington Schools, forced Chef Oliver to serve French fries with a vegetable noodle dish because he had an insufficient number of vegetables in his lunch that day and, according to the federal guidelines, potatoes are considered a vegetable.
Setting aside the debate of whether a potato is a vegetable or a supercarb, I scoured the USDA school lunch program regulations to, hopefully, refute this position. But the vaguely written regulations that school districts have to implement are a good example of how public policies have created negative externalities in our school lunch system and how the public leaders charged with implementing those policies have their hands tied. It’s a situation where the schools don’t give the children butter knives to eat with, and we are forced to feed them finger foods (vegetables, potatoes aside, aren’t good finger foods). It is so concerning that some retired military officers consider our current school lunches a threat to national security.
But, the policies also reinforce the challenges with school funding. The crux of the problem is that the USDA has created the regulations for the school lunch program, but Congressional funding for the school lunch program fluctuates, forcing the local school districts to find funding sources to cover the funding gap between what is provided federally and what is provided locally. This is usually results in the use of mass produced processed foods and the sale of “competitive foods” such as soda and candy to supplement their funding.
These rules without the funding (or inverse funding) from Congress is exactly why a Big Mac costs less than a salad. It reinforces the research that has shown that industrial processed foods can contribute to illness and that foods with higher levels of fat and sugar could be as addictive as heroin or cocaine.
By, highlighting the negative, the show has helped increase the momentum for changing the system. This is being done in a few ways. First, the attention the show has given to the current state of school lunch programs, in conjunction with the pet projects of the First Lady, has helped push for a change of the policy with the Child Nutrition Act, which is currently making its way through Congress. While not the be all and end all, the bill would provide the first substantial funding for the School Lunch Program in 40 years, while giving the Department of Agriculture more flexibility in setting policy.
Second, in the long run, hopefully, changing the school lunches will also contributed to a decrease in the cost of health care. Finally, whether they play a hero or a heel on the show, the Food Revolution is also starting a dialog about the type of leadership it takes to change eating habits. As one writer highlights, the key elements for getting decent food into schools are:
• A principal who cares about what kids eat
• Teachers who care about what kids eat
• Parents who care about what kids eat
• Food service workers who not only care about what the kids eat but also know their names
Now, if only Alice and her compatriots would come out from behind the lunch counter and get to know the kids in Huntington…
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What's up with our National Debt?
I am fiscally responsible. And I truly believe that if I were an elected official I would follow my principles when allocating the budget. Many, if not all, elected officials believe they will do the same, at least before they are elected. So what changes when they are given America’s purse strings?
I am sure you have heard members of both parties talk about taking a stand and not running up massive government debt that future generations will have to pay. Additionally, they often take aim at political opponents and point out fiscal recklessness. Other than Dick Cheney (who pointed out that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”), there seems to be consensus among politicians that deficits matter and make us weaker. Yet, year after year we see the budget fall further and further in the red.
The truth – sorry Mr. Cheney – is most politicians are right that deficits and national debt DO matter and they WILL be passed down to future generations, who will have to make huge and unfair sacrifices to pay for our mistakes. The solution, unfortunately, is extremely difficult and guaranteed to be unpopular – which matters to politicians who have to rely on popularity to keep their jobs.
According to Senator Voinovich’s Web site, who was my childhood Governor, the national debt is 12.5 trillion dollars and growing. So with such a ridiculously high debt, why don’t our elected officials simply spend within our means?
The answer is that it is even less popular to actually do something about the debt then to be blamed for being fiscally reckless. If you were an elected official, how would you decrease this monstrous debt?
First, it is important to note that less than 40 percent of our budget can be cut, without difficult changes in the law. The part of the budget that can be axed is called discretionary spending. Of these expenses half is spent on the Department of Defense budget, which is nearly $700 billion per year.
Would you cut earmarks? Sweet, you just stopped money from going straight to your state for that new hospital, research center, highway or park. And even if you are okay with that, you are only saving $20 billion a year – barely a drop in the bucket with more than $12 trillion debt.
I have it! Let’s stop helping states avoid cutting teachers, police, firefighters and judges! That would be perfect! Not quite. Even if we did, it would barely dent our debt but leave future generations even worse off than if we just saddled them with insurmountable debt.
We, the taxpayers, always expect government to do more with less; that is why we want tax cuts and service increases. But we must be pragmatic with the federal budget and demand our elected officials do the same. We irresponsibly demand tax cuts to stimulate the economy (by the way, how did those $1.8 trillion tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 work for the financial crisis of 2008?), and then are outraged that our communities are falling apart, federal scholarships are not increasing at the rate of tuition and pot holes become the norm. We want government to solve our problems – and polls show this to be true – yet expect this to happen at no cost.
We, the voters, either need to allow (and reward) politicians to make tough decisions or quit pretending that we are appalled they are doing EXACTLY what we demand.
I am sure you have heard members of both parties talk about taking a stand and not running up massive government debt that future generations will have to pay. Additionally, they often take aim at political opponents and point out fiscal recklessness. Other than Dick Cheney (who pointed out that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”), there seems to be consensus among politicians that deficits matter and make us weaker. Yet, year after year we see the budget fall further and further in the red.
The truth – sorry Mr. Cheney – is most politicians are right that deficits and national debt DO matter and they WILL be passed down to future generations, who will have to make huge and unfair sacrifices to pay for our mistakes. The solution, unfortunately, is extremely difficult and guaranteed to be unpopular – which matters to politicians who have to rely on popularity to keep their jobs.
According to Senator Voinovich’s Web site, who was my childhood Governor, the national debt is 12.5 trillion dollars and growing. So with such a ridiculously high debt, why don’t our elected officials simply spend within our means?
The answer is that it is even less popular to actually do something about the debt then to be blamed for being fiscally reckless. If you were an elected official, how would you decrease this monstrous debt?
First, it is important to note that less than 40 percent of our budget can be cut, without difficult changes in the law. The part of the budget that can be axed is called discretionary spending. Of these expenses half is spent on the Department of Defense budget, which is nearly $700 billion per year.
Would you cut earmarks? Sweet, you just stopped money from going straight to your state for that new hospital, research center, highway or park. And even if you are okay with that, you are only saving $20 billion a year – barely a drop in the bucket with more than $12 trillion debt.
I have it! Let’s stop helping states avoid cutting teachers, police, firefighters and judges! That would be perfect! Not quite. Even if we did, it would barely dent our debt but leave future generations even worse off than if we just saddled them with insurmountable debt.
We, the taxpayers, always expect government to do more with less; that is why we want tax cuts and service increases. But we must be pragmatic with the federal budget and demand our elected officials do the same. We irresponsibly demand tax cuts to stimulate the economy (by the way, how did those $1.8 trillion tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 work for the financial crisis of 2008?), and then are outraged that our communities are falling apart, federal scholarships are not increasing at the rate of tuition and pot holes become the norm. We want government to solve our problems – and polls show this to be true – yet expect this to happen at no cost.
We, the voters, either need to allow (and reward) politicians to make tough decisions or quit pretending that we are appalled they are doing EXACTLY what we demand.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Leadership and Polls
In the days prior to and following the passage of health care reform, it seemed as if the media was reporting on a new public opinion poll every day. The headlines from these polls ranged from broad public opposition to the bill to broad public support for the bill. For example,
• An early USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 50% of respondents call passage of the bill "a bad thing" while 47% say it was "a good thing."
• A Mason-Dixon poll of Florida voters showed that 34% of voters support health care reform while 54% are against it.
• A nation-wide Gallup poll showed that ~50% of respondents were supportive and pleased with the passage of health care reform while a combined 42% were disappointed or angry with the result.
In trying to parse through these (and others) public opinion polls on health care reform, I’m reminded of a famous quote, who Mark Twain attributed to former British PM Benjamin Disraeli:
Both sides use public opinion polls to validate and support their position in the health care debate. They have enlisted any poll that comes out that shows that they are doing what people around the country want, and the other side is acting against the public interest. They’re using the polls to either stoke the vitriolic flames or playing the victim.
Polls are not the only contributing factor, and part of the blame lies in the fact that the bill itself is ambiguous on some points and has been distorted by some. But, the larger point here is that what we’re not hearing as often in this debate is that lawmakers voted for (or against) the bill because they, personally, feel it is the right thing to do. Lawmakers are hiding behind public opinion polls rather than following their own convictions.
At the end of the day, we’re never going to be able to know where every leader stands on every issue. As issues change, we can’t expect to have every person’s opinion heard by our leaders. We have placed our trust in our leaders to follow their convictions, whether we share those convictions or not, and we have to trust that they will act with our best interests in mind. If we don’t approve of the job or agree with their convictions, let’s not forget that the only poll that matters is held every two, four, or six years and can result in pink slips.
• An early USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 50% of respondents call passage of the bill "a bad thing" while 47% say it was "a good thing."
• A Mason-Dixon poll of Florida voters showed that 34% of voters support health care reform while 54% are against it.
• A nation-wide Gallup poll showed that ~50% of respondents were supportive and pleased with the passage of health care reform while a combined 42% were disappointed or angry with the result.
In trying to parse through these (and others) public opinion polls on health care reform, I’m reminded of a famous quote, who Mark Twain attributed to former British PM Benjamin Disraeli:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Both sides use public opinion polls to validate and support their position in the health care debate. They have enlisted any poll that comes out that shows that they are doing what people around the country want, and the other side is acting against the public interest. They’re using the polls to either stoke the vitriolic flames or playing the victim.
Polls are not the only contributing factor, and part of the blame lies in the fact that the bill itself is ambiguous on some points and has been distorted by some. But, the larger point here is that what we’re not hearing as often in this debate is that lawmakers voted for (or against) the bill because they, personally, feel it is the right thing to do. Lawmakers are hiding behind public opinion polls rather than following their own convictions.
At the end of the day, we’re never going to be able to know where every leader stands on every issue. As issues change, we can’t expect to have every person’s opinion heard by our leaders. We have placed our trust in our leaders to follow their convictions, whether we share those convictions or not, and we have to trust that they will act with our best interests in mind. If we don’t approve of the job or agree with their convictions, let’s not forget that the only poll that matters is held every two, four, or six years and can result in pink slips.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Reconciliation
Healthcare legislation has passed. The effectiveness of the bill is yet to be determined. There has been a lot of talk over the past year about whether this is a bill can increase access and decrease costs, whether there was enough bipartisanship and whether the process was appropriate. In fact, I even addressed the lack of bipartisan collaboration in my first post.
Long ago Chris and I had a conversation about the importance of bringing people together and discussing solutions and calling out inaccurate or misleading rhetoric. And so here is a discussion on the latter.
Republicans act like someone insulted their mother when they talk about how the Democrats used reconciliation to pass healthcare. Reconciliation allows legislation to proceed without the possibility of a filibuster. In other words, bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote, just like the House, as opposed to a supermajority of 60 votes. This was originally used as a way to reconcile budget differences between the House and Senate, so they could send one bill to the president. Instead of compromising on the whole bill (in this case more than 2,000 pages), they could proceed with the common language and then just “reconcile” the differences in a separate bill. It is actually a very useful tool in saving countless hours in the legislative process. Sounds okay, right?
Well, Republicans are arguing that the majority is trampling the rights of the minority and voters will condemn this unacceptable action at the polls. Are they serious? They claim to be upset that the Democrats used a procedural move to get healthcare passed. Yet, what do they call a filibuster to stop a bill? Are voters really supposed to overlook one procedural tactic and not the other? Actually, do voters really care how a bill was passed?
I am not accusing the Republicans of having a monopoly on hypocrisy, because they certainly don’t. But when you want to complain that the rights of the minority are being egregiously stomped on, let’s think about whether you would have done the same to get one of your priorities passed. Of course the answer is yes, you would have. In fact, during my lifetime this is the 22nd time reconciliation has been used, and 16 of those times it was a Republican president signing the bill.
Long ago Chris and I had a conversation about the importance of bringing people together and discussing solutions and calling out inaccurate or misleading rhetoric. And so here is a discussion on the latter.
Republicans act like someone insulted their mother when they talk about how the Democrats used reconciliation to pass healthcare. Reconciliation allows legislation to proceed without the possibility of a filibuster. In other words, bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote, just like the House, as opposed to a supermajority of 60 votes. This was originally used as a way to reconcile budget differences between the House and Senate, so they could send one bill to the president. Instead of compromising on the whole bill (in this case more than 2,000 pages), they could proceed with the common language and then just “reconcile” the differences in a separate bill. It is actually a very useful tool in saving countless hours in the legislative process. Sounds okay, right?
Well, Republicans are arguing that the majority is trampling the rights of the minority and voters will condemn this unacceptable action at the polls. Are they serious? They claim to be upset that the Democrats used a procedural move to get healthcare passed. Yet, what do they call a filibuster to stop a bill? Are voters really supposed to overlook one procedural tactic and not the other? Actually, do voters really care how a bill was passed?
I am not accusing the Republicans of having a monopoly on hypocrisy, because they certainly don’t. But when you want to complain that the rights of the minority are being egregiously stomped on, let’s think about whether you would have done the same to get one of your priorities passed. Of course the answer is yes, you would have. In fact, during my lifetime this is the 22nd time reconciliation has been used, and 16 of those times it was a Republican president signing the bill.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Don't Question Tom Coburn's Character
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is very conservative; most even rightly refer to him as radical. But on February 25th, he proved to the world (or at least to those paying attention) what I already knew; he is very thoughtful and very good for our country.
During the health care summit, Senator Coburn provided thoughtful, measured and sincere policy differences from President Obama and the Democrats. Early in the summit it became clear that he, the president and a few others came into the summit with the clear intention of talking through policy differences. Other participants, led by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John McCain (R-AZ), clearly had something else in mind.
Although Senator Coburn is an admitted obstructionist, do not question his integrity. He, unlike many elected officials, does not say no simply to make the other party look bad. He sticks to his principles and tries to do what he thinks is right – he will offer his opinion and if his objections are substantial enough (in his mind) and other members don’t agree, he will impede the bill’s progress. He does not care how popular he is or how he is viewed. I wish the same could be said for all of our elected officials.
Senator Coburn, or “Dr. No” as he likes to call himself, does not deny that he has stopped more legislation than most legislators have passed; in fact, he takes pride in it. He believes the less government intervenes, the better.
It is easy for other members – and even huge blocs of the public – to get frustrated at his obstructionist ways and often unwillingness to compromise. Of course I, like many others, get mad when he uses procedural tactics to stop important legislation, but no one should attack his character instead of his positions, even if they disagree with both his positions and inflexibility.
I know many people, particularly on the left, just wish Senator Coburn would go away. But at least he (unlike some other members) is thoughtful and clear about his opposition to legislative progress. I don’t wish we had more senators trying to block legislation, but I do find his honesty and thoughtfulness refreshing.
If you are going to obstruct progress, then be thoughtful in opposition. If you support legislation, then be a passionate advocate. But regardless of your position, do what you believe is good for the country, not just your party; Senator Coburn does.
During the health care summit, Senator Coburn provided thoughtful, measured and sincere policy differences from President Obama and the Democrats. Early in the summit it became clear that he, the president and a few others came into the summit with the clear intention of talking through policy differences. Other participants, led by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John McCain (R-AZ), clearly had something else in mind.
Although Senator Coburn is an admitted obstructionist, do not question his integrity. He, unlike many elected officials, does not say no simply to make the other party look bad. He sticks to his principles and tries to do what he thinks is right – he will offer his opinion and if his objections are substantial enough (in his mind) and other members don’t agree, he will impede the bill’s progress. He does not care how popular he is or how he is viewed. I wish the same could be said for all of our elected officials.
Senator Coburn, or “Dr. No” as he likes to call himself, does not deny that he has stopped more legislation than most legislators have passed; in fact, he takes pride in it. He believes the less government intervenes, the better.
It is easy for other members – and even huge blocs of the public – to get frustrated at his obstructionist ways and often unwillingness to compromise. Of course I, like many others, get mad when he uses procedural tactics to stop important legislation, but no one should attack his character instead of his positions, even if they disagree with both his positions and inflexibility.
I know many people, particularly on the left, just wish Senator Coburn would go away. But at least he (unlike some other members) is thoughtful and clear about his opposition to legislative progress. I don’t wish we had more senators trying to block legislation, but I do find his honesty and thoughtfulness refreshing.
If you are going to obstruct progress, then be thoughtful in opposition. If you support legislation, then be a passionate advocate. But regardless of your position, do what you believe is good for the country, not just your party; Senator Coburn does.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
When is it appropriate for the government to step-in?
While the most contentious dispute of the last 100 years may be Yankees vs Red Sox, the second most contentious, but no less vitriolic, is the dispute between free marketers and economic interventionists. Free marketers think that government should only intervene in a market to prevent collusion, theft, fraud, and coercion, while interventionists think governments should act to correct deficiencies and balance the playing field.
The decision as to whether the government should intervene was put on full display on March 7th, or “Oscar Night”, as it is known in some circles. In my television market, the dispute between Avatar and The Hurt Locker was preceded by the dispute between Cablevision and ABC 7. In a dispute over retransmission consent fees, ABC 7 pulled its broadcasting stream from Cablevision until the cable company agreed to pay the television station $1 per customer for their 4 million customers for the right to broadcast its transmission. In this instance, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts asked the FCC to intervene to resolve the dispute, while Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas feels the government should refrain.
Under cable television’s “must-carry” rules, which were enacted by Congress in 1992 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1994, local television stations have to option of either electing “must-carry” rights with the cable and satellite television operators or electing retransmission consent, which grants the cable provider permission to transmit their signal. So, our local television affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, as well as other smaller local television stations have the option of asking cable providers for retransmission consent, where the local stations opt out of the “must-carry” option and negotiate compensation from each cable provider granting them the right to carry the station. But, if the station opts for retransmission consent, the cable company does not need to carry the station. So, if you’re a large local affiliate of one of the major networks, you’re going to opt for retransmission consent, where you have the option to make some additional money. If you’re a smaller station with limited leverage, you will opt for the “must-carry” option.
So, if you’re a cable provider, you’re in a tight spot. Either you are forced to carry a marginal local television station or, if you want to carry the station, you may have to pay for retransmission consent. We have to remember that this law was enacted twenty years ago when there were far fewer cable television channels that could be broadcast, and the cable providers had the leverage in choosing which stations it would carry on its lines. If the cable provider didn’t think that it would add viewers or subscribers by adding the local CBS affiliate, it didn’t carry the station. These regulations reversed that abuse.
But I’m not an apologist for either side. This regulation is being used today by cable providers and national broadcast networks to generate more revenue and higher profit margins. As national networks are using their local stations to negotiate higher fees from each local affiliate (fees which should stay with the local station), media experts fully expect for more retransmission consent battles across the country, as broadcasters look to make up for low advertising sales and cable providers look to preserve their profit margins.
So, should government intervene in a dispute between a television station with a federal broadcast license and cable service provider, both of which are regulated by the FCC? It certainly isn’t a matter of national security or economic stability. One could argue that this is simply the market attempting to correct a problem. Another perspective, however, holds that this dispute will result in the end of local television, the market that this regulation was designed to protect in the first place.
Economists will never agree on what constitutes an appropriate government intervention, and both sides are trying to persuade lawmakers to enact legislation in their favor. But, while it may seem absurd to take umbrage with a dispute between billion dollar companies over a self-congratulating Hollywood awards show, it seems clear that a government intervention designed to correct a 20-year old market problem is resulting in reduced choice for the every-day American, and, potentially, increased fees to access a critical tool of media communication. Perhaps government intervention should be limited to those options that expand choice and reduce cost for the citizens rather than the corporations. But wait, the Supreme Court already struck that down .
The decision as to whether the government should intervene was put on full display on March 7th, or “Oscar Night”, as it is known in some circles. In my television market, the dispute between Avatar and The Hurt Locker was preceded by the dispute between Cablevision and ABC 7. In a dispute over retransmission consent fees, ABC 7 pulled its broadcasting stream from Cablevision until the cable company agreed to pay the television station $1 per customer for their 4 million customers for the right to broadcast its transmission. In this instance, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts asked the FCC to intervene to resolve the dispute, while Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas feels the government should refrain.
Under cable television’s “must-carry” rules, which were enacted by Congress in 1992 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1994, local television stations have to option of either electing “must-carry” rights with the cable and satellite television operators or electing retransmission consent, which grants the cable provider permission to transmit their signal. So, our local television affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, as well as other smaller local television stations have the option of asking cable providers for retransmission consent, where the local stations opt out of the “must-carry” option and negotiate compensation from each cable provider granting them the right to carry the station. But, if the station opts for retransmission consent, the cable company does not need to carry the station. So, if you’re a large local affiliate of one of the major networks, you’re going to opt for retransmission consent, where you have the option to make some additional money. If you’re a smaller station with limited leverage, you will opt for the “must-carry” option.
So, if you’re a cable provider, you’re in a tight spot. Either you are forced to carry a marginal local television station or, if you want to carry the station, you may have to pay for retransmission consent. We have to remember that this law was enacted twenty years ago when there were far fewer cable television channels that could be broadcast, and the cable providers had the leverage in choosing which stations it would carry on its lines. If the cable provider didn’t think that it would add viewers or subscribers by adding the local CBS affiliate, it didn’t carry the station. These regulations reversed that abuse.
But I’m not an apologist for either side. This regulation is being used today by cable providers and national broadcast networks to generate more revenue and higher profit margins. As national networks are using their local stations to negotiate higher fees from each local affiliate (fees which should stay with the local station), media experts fully expect for more retransmission consent battles across the country, as broadcasters look to make up for low advertising sales and cable providers look to preserve their profit margins.
So, should government intervene in a dispute between a television station with a federal broadcast license and cable service provider, both of which are regulated by the FCC? It certainly isn’t a matter of national security or economic stability. One could argue that this is simply the market attempting to correct a problem. Another perspective, however, holds that this dispute will result in the end of local television, the market that this regulation was designed to protect in the first place.
Economists will never agree on what constitutes an appropriate government intervention, and both sides are trying to persuade lawmakers to enact legislation in their favor. But, while it may seem absurd to take umbrage with a dispute between billion dollar companies over a self-congratulating Hollywood awards show, it seems clear that a government intervention designed to correct a 20-year old market problem is resulting in reduced choice for the every-day American, and, potentially, increased fees to access a critical tool of media communication. Perhaps government intervention should be limited to those options that expand choice and reduce cost for the citizens rather than the corporations. But wait, the Supreme Court already struck that down .
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Problem with College
United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan has spent all month aggressively advocating for student loan reform. He is trying to force the Senate to act on H.R. 3221, which the House passed in September.
H.R. 3221 would make the federal government the sole provider of student loans, which the administration argues will save $87 billion over 10 years, providing more opportunity to college students and funding early education programs.
The Republicans are threatening to filibuster. The Democrats can’t pass it without Republican support, and of course they don’t have that. It is the exact same argument we hear on every issue: Republicans urging market competition and the Democrats urging government intervention. Consequently, it is the exact same outcome: inaction. Nothing will change and nothing will improve.
Regardless of where you side on this legislation, there is a more important issue here, one that nobody disputes. College tuition costs way too much.
We are competing in an increasingly global economy and yet, we are making it increasingly difficult to pay for college. According to Evan Thomas’ recent article in Newsweek, tuition has been rising at twice the rate of inflation since 1982. Attending a four-year private university, he continues, costs 76 percent of median family income. Heck, even a public university costs 28 percent of the median family income.
Due to this, the next generation in America – for the first time ever – may have less formal education than previous ones. One does not require a college degree or “formal” education to be successful, but in key areas – science, technology, engineering and math – it certainly helps us maintain our leadership in the world.
I was struck while reading an article about a medical student that owes $555,000 in student loans. Obviously, she is the extreme case, but there is still something disturbingly wrong about this picture.
As someone who will be paying off student loans for at least the next decade, I ask that we focus less on from whom students should borrow (although admittedly, it does matter) and start asking why students have to borrow so much. The result of such high tuition costs is a disincentive for the next generation of students to attend college. This impacts the ability of America to compete globally; and that seems pretty important to me.
H.R. 3221 would make the federal government the sole provider of student loans, which the administration argues will save $87 billion over 10 years, providing more opportunity to college students and funding early education programs.
The Republicans are threatening to filibuster. The Democrats can’t pass it without Republican support, and of course they don’t have that. It is the exact same argument we hear on every issue: Republicans urging market competition and the Democrats urging government intervention. Consequently, it is the exact same outcome: inaction. Nothing will change and nothing will improve.
Regardless of where you side on this legislation, there is a more important issue here, one that nobody disputes. College tuition costs way too much.
We are competing in an increasingly global economy and yet, we are making it increasingly difficult to pay for college. According to Evan Thomas’ recent article in Newsweek, tuition has been rising at twice the rate of inflation since 1982. Attending a four-year private university, he continues, costs 76 percent of median family income. Heck, even a public university costs 28 percent of the median family income.
Due to this, the next generation in America – for the first time ever – may have less formal education than previous ones. One does not require a college degree or “formal” education to be successful, but in key areas – science, technology, engineering and math – it certainly helps us maintain our leadership in the world.
I was struck while reading an article about a medical student that owes $555,000 in student loans. Obviously, she is the extreme case, but there is still something disturbingly wrong about this picture.
As someone who will be paying off student loans for at least the next decade, I ask that we focus less on from whom students should borrow (although admittedly, it does matter) and start asking why students have to borrow so much. The result of such high tuition costs is a disincentive for the next generation of students to attend college. This impacts the ability of America to compete globally; and that seems pretty important to me.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Investment for the Long-Term
Recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the “stimulus,” “celebrated” its one year anniversary, and many have asked for an accounting of what it has accomplished. The President’s 2011 budget, which realistically forecasts the level of the federal deficit years into the future, has drawn the ire and rebuke of conservatives, who would like to reign in federal spending. Fiscal conservatives believe that we need to control federal spending, while Keynesians believe that the federal government needs to spend to stimulate the economy. The debate is focused on immediate spending control versus short-term economic stimulus.
While the rhetoric is littered with references to the unparalleled financial burden we are handing over to our grandchildren, the key salient point that’s missing from this discussion is the long-term value of government investment. To be frank, the country’s economic growth over the last two decades is primarily the result of the growth and spread of information technologies, i.e. computers and the internet. Today, we are still leveraging the technologies that were produced during a major period of government investment in technological innovations from ~1930s – 1970. A brief recap:
• IBM’s heavy investment in R&D in the early 1930s left the company at risk to bankruptcy, as it carried a large, unused inventory of equipment without a private market to sell it to. It was the Social Security Act of 1935 that allowed IBM to sell this inventory to the federal government.
• As has been frequently repeated, the internet was born out of the research and technology put into creating the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ARPANET project in the 1960s.
• Philip Taubman’s Secret Empire details the way in which the president and other government leaders had private companies compete against one another to develop more innovative technologies during the infancy of our Cold War spy program.
While our Cold War technology investments may be sustaining our economy today, the trends show that we are falling behind in making the necessary investment to ensure that we have an economy that can sustain our population. A recent report from Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, two nonprofit organizations in Silicon Valley, asserts that the technological innovation in our traditional technological hub is declining, and the World Intellectual Property Organization reports that the U.S. showed an 11.4% decrease in the number of international patent filings while China showed a 29.7% increase in patent applications.
How do we recapture the momentum in investment to ensure that we maintain a strong knowledge base in our economy? A reinvestment in math and science education is one way. But, this will only get us so far. We need to invest in foundational elements that serve as the basis for long-term economic growth, but no private company will make these technology or infrastructure investments alone. The prevailing value structure of Wall Street makes it prohibitive for any company to make long-term R&D or infrastructure investments that don’t show an improvement to the bottom line in THIS fiscal year. In the end, we need to accept that government plays a partnering role with private companies that allow them to invest in long-term R&D. There will be a lot of misses, but somewhere in that research is the seed of our next great economic driver. We may not be able to conceptualize what that driver is right now, but we need to invest in it now.
While the rhetoric is littered with references to the unparalleled financial burden we are handing over to our grandchildren, the key salient point that’s missing from this discussion is the long-term value of government investment. To be frank, the country’s economic growth over the last two decades is primarily the result of the growth and spread of information technologies, i.e. computers and the internet. Today, we are still leveraging the technologies that were produced during a major period of government investment in technological innovations from ~1930s – 1970. A brief recap:
• IBM’s heavy investment in R&D in the early 1930s left the company at risk to bankruptcy, as it carried a large, unused inventory of equipment without a private market to sell it to. It was the Social Security Act of 1935 that allowed IBM to sell this inventory to the federal government.
• As has been frequently repeated, the internet was born out of the research and technology put into creating the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ARPANET project in the 1960s.
• Philip Taubman’s Secret Empire details the way in which the president and other government leaders had private companies compete against one another to develop more innovative technologies during the infancy of our Cold War spy program.
While our Cold War technology investments may be sustaining our economy today, the trends show that we are falling behind in making the necessary investment to ensure that we have an economy that can sustain our population. A recent report from Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, two nonprofit organizations in Silicon Valley, asserts that the technological innovation in our traditional technological hub is declining, and the World Intellectual Property Organization reports that the U.S. showed an 11.4% decrease in the number of international patent filings while China showed a 29.7% increase in patent applications.
How do we recapture the momentum in investment to ensure that we maintain a strong knowledge base in our economy? A reinvestment in math and science education is one way. But, this will only get us so far. We need to invest in foundational elements that serve as the basis for long-term economic growth, but no private company will make these technology or infrastructure investments alone. The prevailing value structure of Wall Street makes it prohibitive for any company to make long-term R&D or infrastructure investments that don’t show an improvement to the bottom line in THIS fiscal year. In the end, we need to accept that government plays a partnering role with private companies that allow them to invest in long-term R&D. There will be a lot of misses, but somewhere in that research is the seed of our next great economic driver. We may not be able to conceptualize what that driver is right now, but we need to invest in it now.
Monday, February 15, 2010
President's Day - A Time to Celebrate
Love ‘em or hate ‘em. The 43 men (Cleveland counts twice because he had a split term) who have occupied the White House have affected the lives of more people in one day than many of us will in a lifetime. For those of us that think politics is a bit insane, think about all the good that is done – or, at the least, can be done.
The president can provide food for the hungry, homes for the homeless and help for the hopeless. He, and perhaps one day “she,” is counted on to fix a broken economy, to protect us from outside threats while maintaining a free and open society, to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law, to clean the air, to maintain national peace, to manage a staff of nearly 2 million and a budget of trillions, and…well, you get the point. In the end, every president simply wants to create a more a perfect union.
Given these heavy responsibilities, the presidency must be the most stressful job in the world, as evidenced by the graying of their hair throughout their tenure. On top of this, there is a near certainty that a large portion of the country will hate him and think he is ill-equipped to perform the duties of his position. There are even some that root for his failure – which is our failure – yet claim they love their country (note the contradiction there).
The truth is, it is easy to criticize the president, and that is our right as Americans. But let’s not forget, in the course of civil debate, that Presidents Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) and Obama all love our country and try to do what’s right. They all agree in the importance of national security, economic prosperity and human rights. Where they differ is on how to best accomplish our national priorities. Let’s never forget that.
Regardless of the ease in which we critique the president’s policies, it is still the most important position in the world. The stakes are never higher, the impact never greater. Aspiring to be the President of the United States should continue to be the highest goal of idealistic kids determining what they want to be when they grow up.
Let’s treat today as more than simply a day off of work. Let’s thank these men who committed themselves to serving the greatest country in the world and worked to make this world a little better than they found it.
The president can provide food for the hungry, homes for the homeless and help for the hopeless. He, and perhaps one day “she,” is counted on to fix a broken economy, to protect us from outside threats while maintaining a free and open society, to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law, to clean the air, to maintain national peace, to manage a staff of nearly 2 million and a budget of trillions, and…well, you get the point. In the end, every president simply wants to create a more a perfect union.
Given these heavy responsibilities, the presidency must be the most stressful job in the world, as evidenced by the graying of their hair throughout their tenure. On top of this, there is a near certainty that a large portion of the country will hate him and think he is ill-equipped to perform the duties of his position. There are even some that root for his failure – which is our failure – yet claim they love their country (note the contradiction there).
The truth is, it is easy to criticize the president, and that is our right as Americans. But let’s not forget, in the course of civil debate, that Presidents Bush (41), Clinton, Bush (43) and Obama all love our country and try to do what’s right. They all agree in the importance of national security, economic prosperity and human rights. Where they differ is on how to best accomplish our national priorities. Let’s never forget that.
Regardless of the ease in which we critique the president’s policies, it is still the most important position in the world. The stakes are never higher, the impact never greater. Aspiring to be the President of the United States should continue to be the highest goal of idealistic kids determining what they want to be when they grow up.
Let’s treat today as more than simply a day off of work. Let’s thank these men who committed themselves to serving the greatest country in the world and worked to make this world a little better than they found it.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Problem of Certainty in Uncertain Times
While reading one of my favorite blogs and podcasts, Planet Money, I was introduced to the recently released hip-hop video entitled “Fear the Boom and Bust - a Hayek vs Keynes Rap Anthem”. In a very simple way, this mock battle-rap distills and contrasts two complicated economic theories in a fun and amusing way, and, in a larger sense, the video mirrors the great economic debate that is at the top of our economic agenda: regulation vs. deregulation; market interventions vs. free markets.
However, while watching the video, I was struck with the certainty that each economist communicated the supremacy of their theory (albeit, through their rapping actor stand-ins). I never met F. A. Hayek or John Maynard Keynes, but I imagine they, like many philosophers or academics, possessed an absolute certainty with the Truth of their positions (and corresponding rejection of any idea that may refute their position) that is similar to today’s rappers. It is a similar belief in one’s own certainty that has polarized otherwise civil discussions about the problems confronting our country today.
For instance, five years ago, some of the best mathematical thinkers (or “quants”) in the world were absolutely certain that mortgage-backed securities would do nothing but grow exponentially for the indefinite future. As we since learned, this new type of investment was so new that we could not accurately predict how they would perform in the future. (see page 10)
Similarly, economist Richard Florida developed a strategy to help post-industrial cities transform their economies from stagnant manufacturing hubs to centers of knowledge-based workers. Inspired by the certainty of the proposed success of his strategy, so many cities and public servants around the country adopted his strategy of The Rise of the Creative Class to change their governing policies that this idea grew into a broad movement. These cities are now facing a dose of reality, as Mr. Florida has since updated his theory to assert that, "We need to be clear that ultimately, we can't stop the decline of some places and that we would be foolish to try." And this debate continues.
Towards the end of the “Fear the Boom and Bust” video, two quotes from Hayek and Keynes are presented on the screen:
While these two quotes come from two great thinkers, each certain he is right and the other is wrong, it seems that each is telling us: nothing is certain, and don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
However, while watching the video, I was struck with the certainty that each economist communicated the supremacy of their theory (albeit, through their rapping actor stand-ins). I never met F. A. Hayek or John Maynard Keynes, but I imagine they, like many philosophers or academics, possessed an absolute certainty with the Truth of their positions (and corresponding rejection of any idea that may refute their position) that is similar to today’s rappers. It is a similar belief in one’s own certainty that has polarized otherwise civil discussions about the problems confronting our country today.
For instance, five years ago, some of the best mathematical thinkers (or “quants”) in the world were absolutely certain that mortgage-backed securities would do nothing but grow exponentially for the indefinite future. As we since learned, this new type of investment was so new that we could not accurately predict how they would perform in the future. (see page 10)
Similarly, economist Richard Florida developed a strategy to help post-industrial cities transform their economies from stagnant manufacturing hubs to centers of knowledge-based workers. Inspired by the certainty of the proposed success of his strategy, so many cities and public servants around the country adopted his strategy of The Rise of the Creative Class to change their governing policies that this idea grew into a broad movement. These cities are now facing a dose of reality, as Mr. Florida has since updated his theory to assert that, "We need to be clear that ultimately, we can't stop the decline of some places and that we would be foolish to try." And this debate continues.
Towards the end of the “Fear the Boom and Bust” video, two quotes from Hayek and Keynes are presented on the screen:
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”- John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” - F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
While these two quotes come from two great thinkers, each certain he is right and the other is wrong, it seems that each is telling us: nothing is certain, and don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The "P" Word
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claimed, amid harsh questioning and criticism by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the AIG bailout, “I have worked in public service all my life. I have never been a politician.”
In response, Representative Mike Turner, one of the two Congressmen from my home town (I grew up on the border of two districts) in Ohio, responded “I want to assure you from your answers today that you are absolutely a politician,” with no small level of contempt.
What Geithner said is telling. He wanted to garner sympathy for being an honorable life-long public servant, not a “dirty” politician. What Rep. Turner said is disturbing. In an effort to kick a man while he was down, he called a man the “P” word.
But wait a minute, you might plead. Isn’t CONGRESSMAN Turner a politician? The answer, simply, is yes. So why would Rep. Turner belittle himself and his occupation?
The answer, again, is simple. Elected officials understand that the best way to be popular with constituents is to be on their side and oftentimes this means hating politicians. It is easy and popular to be a party that rails against the establishment. Just ask the Republicans of 1994, who won 54 additional seats in the House due to discontentment with Clinton, or the Democrats of 2006, who added 31 seats to their House ranks thanks to the unpopularity of Bush.
Following up on my most recent post, this is very sad for democracy. I work very closely with the Hill and I will tell you, most Members of Congress are there representing their districts honorably and effectively. Of course there is dead weight and abuse of power in D.C. But the only reason it is noticed so much more in D.C. is because more people pay attention and the stakes are so high; not necessarily because it is more frequent.
The truth is that most people run for public office to do good for others. Yes, there is a level of narcissism, but most politicians endure public scrutiny and false accusations in the hopes that they might be able to make this world a little better for future generations. The media and voters beat up this profession enough; do the politicians really need to jump in and help?
In response, Representative Mike Turner, one of the two Congressmen from my home town (I grew up on the border of two districts) in Ohio, responded “I want to assure you from your answers today that you are absolutely a politician,” with no small level of contempt.
What Geithner said is telling. He wanted to garner sympathy for being an honorable life-long public servant, not a “dirty” politician. What Rep. Turner said is disturbing. In an effort to kick a man while he was down, he called a man the “P” word.
But wait a minute, you might plead. Isn’t CONGRESSMAN Turner a politician? The answer, simply, is yes. So why would Rep. Turner belittle himself and his occupation?
The answer, again, is simple. Elected officials understand that the best way to be popular with constituents is to be on their side and oftentimes this means hating politicians. It is easy and popular to be a party that rails against the establishment. Just ask the Republicans of 1994, who won 54 additional seats in the House due to discontentment with Clinton, or the Democrats of 2006, who added 31 seats to their House ranks thanks to the unpopularity of Bush.
Following up on my most recent post, this is very sad for democracy. I work very closely with the Hill and I will tell you, most Members of Congress are there representing their districts honorably and effectively. Of course there is dead weight and abuse of power in D.C. But the only reason it is noticed so much more in D.C. is because more people pay attention and the stakes are so high; not necessarily because it is more frequent.
The truth is that most people run for public office to do good for others. Yes, there is a level of narcissism, but most politicians endure public scrutiny and false accusations in the hopes that they might be able to make this world a little better for future generations. The media and voters beat up this profession enough; do the politicians really need to jump in and help?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Is there such thing as “Slow Policy”?
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion (and criticism) about the pace of policy making, both in Washington and around the country. While many who voted for the President are unhappy that he is making changes too slowly, Republicans have advocated for a return to the drawing board with health care reform and an overall slowdown of policy making. In hearing this push from Republicans, I am struck by the timeliness of the Winter 2010 edition of Good Magazine, which is devoted solely to all facets of the Slow Movement. Originating with the Slow Food Movement, which advocates eating only local, sustainable, more nutritious, and eco-friendly foods, the Slow movement has spawned a number of offshoots, including the Slow Cities Movement, the Slow Money Movement, and even the Slow Parenting Movement.
This begs a question: is there such thing as “Slow Policy”? What can the Slow movement teach us about public policy and policy implementation? The answer may lie in the Slow Design Movement. While Slow Design advocates argue longer design processes with more time for research, contemplation, real life impact tests, and fine tuning, Slow Design also incorporates longer cycles of human behavior and sustainability into the design. Its focus is to design something that has a lifecycle longer than its current user. The design process advocates openness and collaboration, and designers are seen as the ones who make the informed decisions about what to include and what not to include in the design. Saul Griffith, a Slow Designer and MacArthur Genius grant recipient, advocates for “heirloom” design, which is an object that will last multiple generations because of its function, timelessness, and beauty. While the Slow Design process and philosophy was started as a way to approach the design of tangible items (furniture, cars, etc), the principles of Slow Design can be applied to public policy, with elected officials and public administrators serving as the lead designers.
A week ago on this Blog, Craig advocated for voters to move beyond looking at the personal failures of our leader and focus on the larger issues at play. A second failure with democracy is that every politician will do what they need to do to win the next election. This leads politicians to focus on short-term results. In Slow Design, short-term thinking and short product life cycles lead to a cultural sense of a world speeding up. Through one lens, the results of the special Massachusetts Senate election can be seen as slowing movement. But from a Slow Movement perspective, the result is a speeding up of the policy design process by focusing on the immediate rather than the longer-term, regenerative policy solutions that are needed at this time.
This begs a question: is there such thing as “Slow Policy”? What can the Slow movement teach us about public policy and policy implementation? The answer may lie in the Slow Design Movement. While Slow Design advocates argue longer design processes with more time for research, contemplation, real life impact tests, and fine tuning, Slow Design also incorporates longer cycles of human behavior and sustainability into the design. Its focus is to design something that has a lifecycle longer than its current user. The design process advocates openness and collaboration, and designers are seen as the ones who make the informed decisions about what to include and what not to include in the design. Saul Griffith, a Slow Designer and MacArthur Genius grant recipient, advocates for “heirloom” design, which is an object that will last multiple generations because of its function, timelessness, and beauty. While the Slow Design process and philosophy was started as a way to approach the design of tangible items (furniture, cars, etc), the principles of Slow Design can be applied to public policy, with elected officials and public administrators serving as the lead designers.
A week ago on this Blog, Craig advocated for voters to move beyond looking at the personal failures of our leader and focus on the larger issues at play. A second failure with democracy is that every politician will do what they need to do to win the next election. This leads politicians to focus on short-term results. In Slow Design, short-term thinking and short product life cycles lead to a cultural sense of a world speeding up. Through one lens, the results of the special Massachusetts Senate election can be seen as slowing movement. But from a Slow Movement perspective, the result is a speeding up of the policy design process by focusing on the immediate rather than the longer-term, regenerative policy solutions that are needed at this time.
Monday, January 18, 2010
American Democracy: An Incomplete Experiment
Sir Winston Churchill, on November 11, 1947, is famously quoted as having said, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe… democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms…”
So why would a former British prime minister, who was a public servant for the better part of a century, a Nobel Prize winner and the first honorary citizen of the United States – the oldest democracy in the world – say such a thing? A simple conversation with an average voter or a look at a newspaper will highlight the inherent problem with American democracy.
Effective policy is, to most Americans, boring; scandal and sound bites are much more entertaining. Americans are, and always have been, driven by emotion. People don’t get excited when the VA releases a report that they have many of the highest performing hospitals in the country or that Medicare overhead costs are nearly ten times lower than the average health insurance plan, which are both true; but the first time one of these programs does not work perfectly, it is “proof” that government is fundamentally “broken.”
Don’t get me wrong. Government should be held to a higher standard in providing for the public good, but not at the expense of recognizing the positive impact government has on our lives. Capitalism is driven by business failure, but the first time government – which free-market proponents argue should be run more like a business – fails, everyone is up in arms, quickly forgetting businesses fail more often then they succeed.
Elected officials and media understand this public appetite for scandal and controversy. The people want to know why Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, why Peter Orszag has a child on the way with someone other than his fiancée and why Senator Vitter and former Governor Spitzer turned to prostitutes. This is why elected officials prefer to bash an opponent’s personal shortcomings than talk about long-term solutions to our most important challenges; it is simply easier to divert the conversation with an attack than to counter sound policy proposals.
Americans are never going to quit reading about scandal (for various reasons), but they should also make sure they base their votes and opinions on something more substantive. When that happens and voters are voting for candidates for the right reasons, democracy shines and we prove that it is, as Sir Churchill argues, (at least) better than the other forms of government.
So why would a former British prime minister, who was a public servant for the better part of a century, a Nobel Prize winner and the first honorary citizen of the United States – the oldest democracy in the world – say such a thing? A simple conversation with an average voter or a look at a newspaper will highlight the inherent problem with American democracy.
Effective policy is, to most Americans, boring; scandal and sound bites are much more entertaining. Americans are, and always have been, driven by emotion. People don’t get excited when the VA releases a report that they have many of the highest performing hospitals in the country or that Medicare overhead costs are nearly ten times lower than the average health insurance plan, which are both true; but the first time one of these programs does not work perfectly, it is “proof” that government is fundamentally “broken.”
Don’t get me wrong. Government should be held to a higher standard in providing for the public good, but not at the expense of recognizing the positive impact government has on our lives. Capitalism is driven by business failure, but the first time government – which free-market proponents argue should be run more like a business – fails, everyone is up in arms, quickly forgetting businesses fail more often then they succeed.
Elected officials and media understand this public appetite for scandal and controversy. The people want to know why Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, why Peter Orszag has a child on the way with someone other than his fiancée and why Senator Vitter and former Governor Spitzer turned to prostitutes. This is why elected officials prefer to bash an opponent’s personal shortcomings than talk about long-term solutions to our most important challenges; it is simply easier to divert the conversation with an attack than to counter sound policy proposals.
Americans are never going to quit reading about scandal (for various reasons), but they should also make sure they base their votes and opinions on something more substantive. When that happens and voters are voting for candidates for the right reasons, democracy shines and we prove that it is, as Sir Churchill argues, (at least) better than the other forms of government.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Why Tax Increases Are Inevitable
If you haven’t heard of Club Wagner, you may start hearing more about it in the coming months. While not a reference to a night club, the actor who portrayed Dr. Evil’s Number 2, the former mayor of New York City, his senator father, or the two schools named after him, Club Wagner is an unofficial collection of public policy thinkers who dare to advocate what everyone knows, but few publicly acknowledge: tax increases are inevitable.
Created by David Leonhardt on the New York Times Economix Blog back in July, this assortment of thinkers is named after the 19th-century German economist Adolf Wagner, who predicted that taxes would rise as societies became wealthier. Economix’s bi-partisan list Club Wagner members include John D. Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, former Director of the Obama transition, the head of the Center for American Progress; Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner; former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan; Peter Orszag, the Director of the OMB; New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks; and Bruce Bartlett, the former domestic policy advisor to President Reagan.
So, why should public sector practitioners care about this? Because the next phase of the economic recovery is going to impact public sector financing and government deficits. For example, a December 22nd Washington Post article reports that many states will begin to exhaust their funding for their unemployment benefit programs in 2010. According to the projection,
“…[T]he budget gaps are expected to spread and become more acute in the coming year, compelling legislators in many states to reconsider their operations. Currently, 25 states have run out of unemployment money and have borrowed $24 billion from the federal government to cover the gaps. By 2011, according to Department of Labor estimates, 40 state funds will have been emptied by the jobless tsunami.”
The situation is reinforced by a recent study by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies that found that the number of people applying for benefits has increased (no big surprise in this economy), while the payroll tax rate supporting those benefits is at historically low levels. So, in an effort to encourage and support businesses in their state, legislators cut the payroll taxes, exposing the program administrators to risk if there should be an increase in the number of unemployed. With the economic downturn, they find their unemployment benefits substantially underfunded.
Everyone who balances a checkbook knows that you need to have more income than expenses, and when you don’t, you need to find more revenue from another source. For these benefits, which are separated from each state’s general fund, there are two options: cut benefits or raise taxes. However, while the policy makers in each state choose which challenge to address, providing benefits or creating jobs, the program administrators have been boxed into a corner. The news of the increase in underfunded programs is likely to spark a debate among policy-makers about whether to cut benefits or borrow more to cover a temporary increase in demand.
Where do these difficult choices lead us? Unless each state makes the hard decisions about their long-term fiscal strategy that are necessary today, we could end up with what David Ignatius calls the “Californization of America”, where the opposing forces of spending big and taxing small result in federal bailouts to the states. In today’s economy, there is a general paralysis in taking any action that is seen as having a negative impact on business. However, with bipartisan support for increasing taxes growing with Club Wagner, public officials need to look at tax increases as a common sense solution to budgetary shortfalls.
Created by David Leonhardt on the New York Times Economix Blog back in July, this assortment of thinkers is named after the 19th-century German economist Adolf Wagner, who predicted that taxes would rise as societies became wealthier. Economix’s bi-partisan list Club Wagner members include John D. Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, former Director of the Obama transition, the head of the Center for American Progress; Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner; former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan; Peter Orszag, the Director of the OMB; New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks; and Bruce Bartlett, the former domestic policy advisor to President Reagan.
So, why should public sector practitioners care about this? Because the next phase of the economic recovery is going to impact public sector financing and government deficits. For example, a December 22nd Washington Post article reports that many states will begin to exhaust their funding for their unemployment benefit programs in 2010. According to the projection,
“…[T]he budget gaps are expected to spread and become more acute in the coming year, compelling legislators in many states to reconsider their operations. Currently, 25 states have run out of unemployment money and have borrowed $24 billion from the federal government to cover the gaps. By 2011, according to Department of Labor estimates, 40 state funds will have been emptied by the jobless tsunami.”
The situation is reinforced by a recent study by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies that found that the number of people applying for benefits has increased (no big surprise in this economy), while the payroll tax rate supporting those benefits is at historically low levels. So, in an effort to encourage and support businesses in their state, legislators cut the payroll taxes, exposing the program administrators to risk if there should be an increase in the number of unemployed. With the economic downturn, they find their unemployment benefits substantially underfunded.
Everyone who balances a checkbook knows that you need to have more income than expenses, and when you don’t, you need to find more revenue from another source. For these benefits, which are separated from each state’s general fund, there are two options: cut benefits or raise taxes. However, while the policy makers in each state choose which challenge to address, providing benefits or creating jobs, the program administrators have been boxed into a corner. The news of the increase in underfunded programs is likely to spark a debate among policy-makers about whether to cut benefits or borrow more to cover a temporary increase in demand.
Where do these difficult choices lead us? Unless each state makes the hard decisions about their long-term fiscal strategy that are necessary today, we could end up with what David Ignatius calls the “Californization of America”, where the opposing forces of spending big and taxing small result in federal bailouts to the states. In today’s economy, there is a general paralysis in taking any action that is seen as having a negative impact on business. However, with bipartisan support for increasing taxes growing with Club Wagner, public officials need to look at tax increases as a common sense solution to budgetary shortfalls.
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Path to Healthcare Reform
The healthcare debate has taken so many twists and turns that nobody will truly get what they want. Sure, some Democrats will still talk about how great the bill is and how they are turning a page in history. But in their most honest moments, they will admit that this does not go far enough in either of their two major goals: increased access and decreased costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)