In 1787 at the beginning of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, John Rutledge of South Carolina stated the following, "Only by taking a position and then engaging in lively debate to defend it do we find its weaknesses and flaws. And once such flaws are discovered, prudent men change their minds accordingly."
We have many issues in this country. We have had lively debate on health insurance reform, cap n' trade, troops in Afghanistan and this should be encouraged. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of name calling instead of debate. Stop making it personal and make it about the issues. If we cannot have honest and open debate about the issues, we are never going to find solutions without flaws. If you cannot defend your position in a debate, then maybe your position is not right? If you can defend it, then maybe it is a solution to a problem.
This week we have seen officials at the White House resort to attacks on Fox News. If they don't agree with the views expressed on Fox News, then debate those views with them. Resorting to non-specific attacks does not help any of us. Only through lively debate will we figure out the solution to our problems.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Keeping your Eye on the Goal
There was another lesson I relearned while participating in my daughter's Crash Avoidance class last Saturday. There were a few exercises we did which helped to reinforce the idea that for safe driving, you should look well ahead of where you are. You are much better able to stay on course during routine driving or when avoiding an obstacle by keeping your eyes focused on where you want to go rather than where you are.
This is a good lesson for government and business. If we make decisions based on where we want to be years down the road rather than what we want right now, we will make better decisions. Politicians and business leaders too often make decisions based on short term gains. As citizens and shareholders, we should demand that our leaders think long term by keeping their eye on the goals rather than what is only right in front of them.
This is a good lesson for government and business. If we make decisions based on where we want to be years down the road rather than what we want right now, we will make better decisions. Politicians and business leaders too often make decisions based on short term gains. As citizens and shareholders, we should demand that our leaders think long term by keeping their eye on the goals rather than what is only right in front of them.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Defensive Driving School
As part of my daughter's driver education training, she signed up for a defensive driving and crash avoidance course. A parent was to attend with her so I had that duty yesterday on a Saturday morning. I was not excited about taking the course but knew that it would be good for my daughter's education. As it turned out, I learned a lot from the course and feel I am better prepared for my own driving.
The course involved a number of exercises in the car to give you the skills and knowledge to avoid an accident in different situations. The exercises became increasingly difficult as the morning went on. In the latter exercises, all of the students (myself included) failed on the first few attempts. As we practiced, however, all of us became proficient in a driving skill that would help us avoid an accident.
The instructors were asking us to do hard things and they knew we would experience early failure. If they had let us get away with failure, we would not have learned these important skills. Through practice and repetition, we eventually succeeded.
There are many important lessons we learn from failure. It is only through failure that we learn hard things and achieve success. We should celebrate failure if we don't give into it and use it as merely a stop on our journey towards something great.
Our politicians need to learn that a society that tries to make it so everyone succeeds without failure is a society that will fail. Only through the consequences of our failures will we learn to overcome our weaknesses and make them strengths. Americans throughout their history have risen above failure to accomplish great things. The government should stop trying to take care of us by protecting us from failure but rather allow us to succeed which will only come through our failures.
The course involved a number of exercises in the car to give you the skills and knowledge to avoid an accident in different situations. The exercises became increasingly difficult as the morning went on. In the latter exercises, all of the students (myself included) failed on the first few attempts. As we practiced, however, all of us became proficient in a driving skill that would help us avoid an accident.
The instructors were asking us to do hard things and they knew we would experience early failure. If they had let us get away with failure, we would not have learned these important skills. Through practice and repetition, we eventually succeeded.
There are many important lessons we learn from failure. It is only through failure that we learn hard things and achieve success. We should celebrate failure if we don't give into it and use it as merely a stop on our journey towards something great.
Our politicians need to learn that a society that tries to make it so everyone succeeds without failure is a society that will fail. Only through the consequences of our failures will we learn to overcome our weaknesses and make them strengths. Americans throughout their history have risen above failure to accomplish great things. The government should stop trying to take care of us by protecting us from failure but rather allow us to succeed which will only come through our failures.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Local Control
I read a business book several years ago that studied companies that had been at the top of their industry for a time but had then been overtaken by a much smaller competitor. The study was trying to determine what caused their downfall and how they could be blindsided by a competitor that had far fewer resources. The conclusion from this study is that smaller organizations work more efficiently, they are able to react to changes in the marketplace in a more timely manner, and tend to foster more innovation. The recommendation to companies is that they need to operate as a group of small companies and when they get too big, to spin off certain parts of their company into smaller business units. These small units should act like any other small company by securing their own capital, being responsible for profit and loss, and managing their human resources. The larger company can set certain guidelines for all of these but each smaller business units is responsible for running their business.
That lesson applies to our government as well. Local governments tend to be more efficient, better able to react to changes in the local community, and more creative in developing solutions to problems. When everything is being directed by a large central government that is many layers removed from the individual citizen, we end up with a system that delivers services in a very inefficient manner. We also introduce many levels in which corruption can enter into the system. The federal government can and should set some guidelines to enforce some consistency but they should be careful in adding so much regulation that it inhibits innovation and adds excessive costs from regulatory enforcement. Local governments also are much closer to the individual citizen which helps keep everyone honest.
Our founders realized that a central government was necessary but they also set up a system where the states had significant control over their governance. We need to get back to their original model of a smaller federal government and more control at the state and local levels.
That lesson applies to our government as well. Local governments tend to be more efficient, better able to react to changes in the local community, and more creative in developing solutions to problems. When everything is being directed by a large central government that is many layers removed from the individual citizen, we end up with a system that delivers services in a very inefficient manner. We also introduce many levels in which corruption can enter into the system. The federal government can and should set some guidelines to enforce some consistency but they should be careful in adding so much regulation that it inhibits innovation and adds excessive costs from regulatory enforcement. Local governments also are much closer to the individual citizen which helps keep everyone honest.
Our founders realized that a central government was necessary but they also set up a system where the states had significant control over their governance. We need to get back to their original model of a smaller federal government and more control at the state and local levels.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Food Chain
When I was in school, I remember learning about the food chain. An animal eats a plant, then a bigger animal eats that animal, a bigger animal eats that animal, and so on. Plants get their energy from the sun so in the end, you can trace all life back to the sun. Even though a coyote eats only meat, you can trace his energy back to the sun by following its food chain.
The government food chain is that all government revenue can be traced back to the individual. Our politicians often play the game of making you think that someone else is going to pay for this program but it can all be traced back to the individual. Let me illustrate with a few examples:
1) "We're going to pay for this by taxing big corporations" - Corporations are in business to make money and to be viable in the marketplace, you need to show profits that are consistent with others in your market. When governments collect revenue from corporations, this eventually gets passed onto the consumer through higher prices which is a tax on the consumer.
2) "We're going to pay for this by taxing the rich" - Rich people don't just put their money under a mattress. They buy things (houses, yachts, cars) and they invest. Both of these activities create jobs which helps the overall economy. When the rich have less money to spend due to taxation, there is less money in the economy for jobs which ends up being a tax on individual workers.
3) "We're going to pay for this through savings in other programs" - Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates are not sufficient to cover the costs of treatment so hospitals and doctors charge more to the non-Medicare patients to make up the difference. If the government chooses to further reduce Medicare reimbursement rates, costs will go up for everyone else and treatment options will go down for the Medicare patients. Both groups of individuals lose in this case and end up paying this tax. True savings that can really reduce costs need to come from efficiency and productivity gains in the system.
Therefore, when you hear some politician tell you that this program won't "cost you a dime", remember that all government revenue can be traced to you eventually. Just as all food chains can be traced back to the sun, all government revenue can be traced back to the individual. Think about that when being sold a new government program - if it were my money, would I spend it on that? In the end, it IS your money so spend it wisely :-)
The government food chain is that all government revenue can be traced back to the individual. Our politicians often play the game of making you think that someone else is going to pay for this program but it can all be traced back to the individual. Let me illustrate with a few examples:
1) "We're going to pay for this by taxing big corporations" - Corporations are in business to make money and to be viable in the marketplace, you need to show profits that are consistent with others in your market. When governments collect revenue from corporations, this eventually gets passed onto the consumer through higher prices which is a tax on the consumer.
2) "We're going to pay for this by taxing the rich" - Rich people don't just put their money under a mattress. They buy things (houses, yachts, cars) and they invest. Both of these activities create jobs which helps the overall economy. When the rich have less money to spend due to taxation, there is less money in the economy for jobs which ends up being a tax on individual workers.
3) "We're going to pay for this through savings in other programs" - Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates are not sufficient to cover the costs of treatment so hospitals and doctors charge more to the non-Medicare patients to make up the difference. If the government chooses to further reduce Medicare reimbursement rates, costs will go up for everyone else and treatment options will go down for the Medicare patients. Both groups of individuals lose in this case and end up paying this tax. True savings that can really reduce costs need to come from efficiency and productivity gains in the system.
Therefore, when you hear some politician tell you that this program won't "cost you a dime", remember that all government revenue can be traced to you eventually. Just as all food chains can be traced back to the sun, all government revenue can be traced back to the individual. Think about that when being sold a new government program - if it were my money, would I spend it on that? In the end, it IS your money so spend it wisely :-)
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Primrose Path
A primrose path was referred to by Shakespeare and others. It is often meant to denote an attractive path lined with flowers that eventually leads the traveler to an undesireble location.
When I was in college, there was a common thoroughfare from where the students lived to the school buildings. The path passed by a oval filled with grass surrounded by other buildings. There was a worn path across the grassy oval that represented the shortest path from Point A to Point B. The conscientious student would avoid the path so as to try and preserve the grass but the path was used regularly be others to save a few steps. An English professor approached a group of us one day and asked if we would be willing to help her in doing an experiment. She wanted to plant primroses and flowers along the path and put a sign at each end labeling the path as the "Primrose Path". We agreed, so late one night we went out to plant flowers along the path. The next morning, we watched the reaction of people. It appeared that it deterred some from walking along the path, to others it appeared to entice them to walk on the path and to others it seemed to make no difference. Over time, it didn't seem to change behavior much and the flowers eventually died and we pulled them up while the worn dirt path remained.
We are often enticed to take the easy path in life. It is good for a time helping us get to our destination with less work but after awhile, it leads us to places we don't want to be. For the path across the grassy oval, it started fairly innocently by some students who were in a hurry and could save a few steps walking across the grass. As others followed, it eventually became an eyesore. If those who had been first to walk across the oval would have thought about the eventual result of their actions, would they have acted differently?
In our government, we should be wary of taking the easy path. It often looks enticing and politically attractive. Who wouldn't want the promise of "free" this or "free" that? People keep reelecting their representatives because they are good at bringing back "goodies" to their districts. Many of the fiscal problems we are in now are due to the start of well-meaning programs that promised an easy fix to a problem.
We have many issues to resolve in our country. Let's demand that our representatives do the hard work that is required to develop long term solutions. If we keep asking them to "plant flowers" to make the solution attractive now, it will often lead us to an undesirable location. Grass is not as pretty as flowers but a grassy oval is better than one with a dirt path in the middle of it.
When I was in college, there was a common thoroughfare from where the students lived to the school buildings. The path passed by a oval filled with grass surrounded by other buildings. There was a worn path across the grassy oval that represented the shortest path from Point A to Point B. The conscientious student would avoid the path so as to try and preserve the grass but the path was used regularly be others to save a few steps. An English professor approached a group of us one day and asked if we would be willing to help her in doing an experiment. She wanted to plant primroses and flowers along the path and put a sign at each end labeling the path as the "Primrose Path". We agreed, so late one night we went out to plant flowers along the path. The next morning, we watched the reaction of people. It appeared that it deterred some from walking along the path, to others it appeared to entice them to walk on the path and to others it seemed to make no difference. Over time, it didn't seem to change behavior much and the flowers eventually died and we pulled them up while the worn dirt path remained.
We are often enticed to take the easy path in life. It is good for a time helping us get to our destination with less work but after awhile, it leads us to places we don't want to be. For the path across the grassy oval, it started fairly innocently by some students who were in a hurry and could save a few steps walking across the grass. As others followed, it eventually became an eyesore. If those who had been first to walk across the oval would have thought about the eventual result of their actions, would they have acted differently?
In our government, we should be wary of taking the easy path. It often looks enticing and politically attractive. Who wouldn't want the promise of "free" this or "free" that? People keep reelecting their representatives because they are good at bringing back "goodies" to their districts. Many of the fiscal problems we are in now are due to the start of well-meaning programs that promised an easy fix to a problem.
We have many issues to resolve in our country. Let's demand that our representatives do the hard work that is required to develop long term solutions. If we keep asking them to "plant flowers" to make the solution attractive now, it will often lead us to an undesirable location. Grass is not as pretty as flowers but a grassy oval is better than one with a dirt path in the middle of it.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Happy Labor Day
As we celebrate Labor Day, we should celebrate the value of hard work. Our founders did not give us liberty from work but liberty to work in whatever we choose to do. Hard work is good. It builds character, helps develop skills, provides mental and physical exercise, and improves the quality of life for all. The people that settled this country, the immigrants that came here to start a new life, those who fought in wars defending this country, the businesspeople, inventors, and innovators that run businesses, the farmers, laborers, and factory workers all worked hard to give us the life we have now. Labor Day is a day to honor them.
Our government should strive to promote hard work by discouraging laziness and rewarding hard work. Over the last several decades, we have unfortunately moved away from that ideal. We provide way too much to those who choose not to work and punish those that work hard. The intentions are often noble - help out those on hard times but are we really helping them when we provide little incentive for them to get back on their feet and be self-reliant? And by punishing those that do work hard and earn a lot, we take money that would otherwise be used to create jobs and new businesses and use it to fund more government and more laziness. A society that doesn't work will not survive. Now, let's get back to work!
Our government should strive to promote hard work by discouraging laziness and rewarding hard work. Over the last several decades, we have unfortunately moved away from that ideal. We provide way too much to those who choose not to work and punish those that work hard. The intentions are often noble - help out those on hard times but are we really helping them when we provide little incentive for them to get back on their feet and be self-reliant? And by punishing those that do work hard and earn a lot, we take money that would otherwise be used to create jobs and new businesses and use it to fund more government and more laziness. A society that doesn't work will not survive. Now, let's get back to work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
