The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
This is the Emergency Blogging System. It has been activated because for the first time in history, Drinking Right has been postponed due to the weather, with the main Drinking Right next week (aka Fat Tuesday and local non-partisan primary day). However, if one is brave stupid, Steve will still be at Papa’s somewhere around 7 tonight because he has a snow beast, and Nick might be there because he’s within walking distance.
This has been the Emergency Blogging System.
David Dodenhoff, Ph.D, took a look at the shocking growth of food stamps in Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, specifically the 50% growth between 2002 and 2008. The takeaway (emphasis in the original):
That, unfortunately, is the way government tends to work. When elected officials act, they typically claim to be addressing some public policy problem or other. It’s funny, though, how the solutions they proffer always seem to solve a political problem, namely, “How can I maximize my chances for reelection?” New programs and extensions of existing programs, like SNAP, allow politicians to distribute benefits to particular constituencies, while spreading the costs over a broad base of taxpayers. The political benefits are obvious; whether or not progress has been made on the underlying policy issue is almost beside the point.
Bureaucrats have a similar problem to solve: “How can I keep my job?” Negotiated civil service and union protections are part of the answer. Another answer, though, is this: “Make yourself indispensible.” New programs and extensions of existing programs mean that there’s always more work to be done, which makes the idea of bureaucratic downsizing a very hard sell.
The result is a public sector that sees its own unrelenting growth not as many Americans see it—that is, as an urgent problem—but as a solution; in fact, as the one solution that always makes sense.
Matt Lewis remembers that voting record matters, which tends to be bad news for one Paul Ryan –
Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property—if it doesn’t like you).
While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.
Because it is impossible to believe the highly intelligent and well read Rep. Ryan was unfamiliar with conservative economic principles, one must conclude he either 1). Doesn’t really believe in free market economics, or 2). Was willing to cast bad votes for purely political purposes.
From my standpoint, ignorance can be forgiven and overcome; the other explanations, however, seem to be disqualifiers for higher office.
Yes, folks, that is Nick Schweitzer Matt linked to. Speaking of that, Nick was prophetic on what the bailouts of GM and Chrysler would lead to…
What this bailout proposes is to replace that system with one in which the Executive branch, through a “car czar”, and also through various financial carrots and sticks, take control of that reorganization. The danger in doing so is that not only will the bailout money be wasted, but now politics will enter into how the reorganization takes place. If you thought the current system of ear marks, and special favors in bills was bad, just wait and see what little favors GM, Ford and Chrysler are forced to do… whether it will actually help make a successful company again or not. This is once again an unprecedented growth in executive power, which makes our President even more like a King that before.
As for the charges, damn near everybody who doesn’t have a conspiratorial mind got fooled on TARP. However, by the time the auto bailouts came around, the “fool me twice” principle came into play. Ryan’s suggestion was to use previously-programmed-yet-unspent money for plant modernization to do the bailout, which given that the bailout was used as leverage for a takeover, is not exactly defensible. I’ll note that neither the GM truck plant in Janesville (Ryan’s hometown) nor the Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha got saved in the end.
Regarding the pay limit, that is an off-the-record answer.
Shoebox is right (see previous post). The President and congressional leaders have proposed a draconian takeover of the healthcare system. So if they back off just a bit, Republicans might be comfortable. Just like going from a goal of 20% sales growth to 10%. So, how do the Republicans avoid this, and still win the argument in front of the American people? They need to be clear and concise right up front.
John Boehner or some other Republican spokesman needs to do an opening statement that goes something like this: “Mr. President, we are here tonight to discuss health care reform. We asked that the slate be wiped clean, and that we start over. You have not agreed to that. But it is important the American people understand why Republicans are unwilling to work within the current framework.
Mr. President, you have a very different view of how medical services should be delivered. You believe that government should be allowed to compete with private business; that politicians and bureaucrats should make critical decisions about who gets what kind and quantity of health care services. Republicans disagree.
People come to America from all over the world to obtain medical care. That, sir, is not an accident. It is the result of having the best health care delivery system in the world. And that system was built by making the doctor patient / relationship paramount, and allowing free markets to foster unparalleled innovation and efficiently allocate resources. And then there is our dedication to the sanctity of life, regardless of the age of the individual. Republicans have offered plenty of ideas, all of which have been ignored by Democrats and special interest groups meeting in private. Should you choose continue down the path that has destroyed the health care systems of many other nations, we will gladly be the party of “no.” And rest assured, Mr. President, the public will reward us in November 2010 and beyond.”
Now, put yourself in Mr. Obama’s position. What do you say next?
After over two decades of work with large wireless companies, you can bet that I’ve been exposed to nearly every main stream theory or philosophy on change management that has existed. Do this, don’t do that. Encourage these people, use a stick on those people etc. etc. While I don’t buy all of the theories, I have to admit that I did learn a few things from the training and put that knowledge to work in some of my current engagements.
One theory that was not precisely a change management technique but has application there is call a BHAG. A BHAG is a Big Hairy Audacious Goal. The BHAG was popularized by James Collins in his book “Good to Great.” Collins used a BHAG as a goal that an organization could focus on. While they may have been so large that they weren’t always attained, they provided a focal point for everyone in the organization to measure against and see if the work they were doing or the plan they were looking to implement, moved them closer to or further away from the BHAG.
The translation of a BHAG for use in change management worked like this. Let’s say you had a company that typically saw sales growth of 5% annually. Let’s also say that you needed to improve on that and get to 10%. In many institutions, a change like that will be met by numerous people who tell you how and why that growth can’t be achieved. Knowing that that would occur, on a few occasions, instead of saying we wanted to grow by 10%, we’d say that we wanted to grow by 20%. Upon saying that, we would get the same group of folks telling us how and why we couldn’t achieve that growth. We’d then sit down and put a plan together with our teams for achieving 20% growth. At the end of the plan, the same people who were complaining at the start were typically still complaining. Once we completed the detailed plan we’d come back and tell folks that after taking the input, 10% is a more attainable goal. In nearly every instance, once we let them back to 10%, people would let out a collective “Whew,” and move forward executing on the 10% plan which is what we wanted all along.
By using the BHAG approach, we went through the same caterwauling and planning that we would have gone through had we originally set a 10% target. But, by using the BHAG, we allowed people to expand the belief in their own abilities beyond that what they otherwise thought they could do. If we had started at 10%, it would have been very likely that we ended up with a plan that had 6% or 7% growth.
What’s this got to do with anything?
President Obama has invited Senate and House leadership to a televised meeting to discuss Placebocare. Ostensibly, President Obama wants to find a way for the Republicans and Democrats to “come together” and pass a plan.
Folks, there is nothing about this plan to like. Short of starting all over, there should be no negotiation of any kind.
I’m afraid that the Republican leadership will not have the spine or knowledge of their own principles to stand up to this takeover of health care. I’m afraid that what could happen is that Obama views the current plan as a BHAG, that he might come back and offer a couple of Republican carrots; say something like, “we’ll look at tort reform,” or “we’ll look at more competition across state lines,” without any commitment to actual legislation. The problem with this is that if the Republicans allow this line of discussion, they will get caught in the BHAG trap and end up looking like the losers of this event.
I was discussing this concern with Birdman today and he had the perfect approach to avoiding the BHAG trap. Read the next post to see if you don’t agree with his approach.
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
