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.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)