No Runny Eggs

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.

According to Merriam-Webster, a populist is someone who is, “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.”  Historically, populist movements have gone beyond elevating the common man, and have condemned the institutions that make up the status quo. Today’s populists call themselves the Tea Party movement, and my gut tells me they are a different breed of populist.

The vast majority of Tea Party types are disaffected conservatives and libertarians.  I know the Sarah Palins of the world want us all to believe there are as many frustrated Democrats and independents in the Tea Party crowd as there are angry Republicans and libertarian leaners.  Nonsense.  The Tea Party folks are for limited, constitutionally constrained government, minimal regulation, low taxes, and a minimum of bureaucracy.  People who believe in that kind of stuff most likely have never met a Democrat.

But here is where it gets interesting.  I don’t believe these people are anti-establishment, or anti-Ivy League education, or anti-bank, or anti-business.  But they are against establishment types, Ivy League school graduates, bankers and businessmen who are able to stack the deck.  Big businesses, big banks, and well-educated people are all fine and even virtuous, so long as they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.  Let the big bank, the big car company or the big brokerage house go down if it fails.  Don’t allow Goldman Sachs to be a feeder system for the executive branch.

The 21st Century populist is not a Kansas farmer protecting agrarian interests, or a union member trying to “get his” from a Pittsburgh steel company.  Today’s populist is simply saying that he/she wants a fair shot, and does not want to be taxed to pay off the moron who drove Bank of America into the ground.  Seems reasonable to me.

I’ve periodically translated different phrases that President Obama uses on a recurring basis.  As an aside, can anyone think of a prior President who was so dependent on a small, recurring set of phrases?  Anyway, it’s been a while since I’ve published these in a coherent fashion.  As Obama and the Democrats become more vocal as they try to figure out which direction is up, I thought it would be helpful to publish these so that you can have them in the back of your mind as you hear published statements.

If you have any phrases that you’re aware of and that I haven’t captured, drop them to me at Shoebox@norunnyeggs.com.  I’ll provide a proper translation and include them in future updates.

I don’t want to run – should always be followed by “but I will take over.”

As I have repeatedly said – the fact that you haven’t agreed with me in the past on this issue is not a reason that I should reconsider my position. Rather, it is a reflection of your lack of intelligence and reverence for my omnipotence.

Shovel Ready – any project that rational taxpayers would vote you out of office for if you had voted to fund it.

Stimulus – a spending bill that contains “Shovel Ready” projects that is passed only with Democrat support

Uniquely Qualified – an individual who is either a tax cheat or has other ethical issues such that they wouldn’t be hired for and can only get a role through appointment to a Democrat legislator or Democrat Administration role.

Czar – An unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat, whose purpose is to expand government programs, imposes regulation, hire more conscripts for SEIU and reduce freedom for ordinary Americans.

Let me be clear – A phrase preceding a statement that certainly won’t be clear and is probably a lie.

Unprecedented – Does not mean “unprecedented” in the context of American history. Rather, it is unprecedented in the experience of Obama. Thus, he has no reference point from which to view or address the specific issue.

Inherited from the previous administration – I know this has nothing to do with other administrations. If I couldn’t blame those guys, how else could I get you to agree to the suicidal proposal that now follows?

I will not rest – I really don’t care what you or anyone else says about this matter. I will push this issue no matter how unpopular or how damaging it is to America. In fact, the louder you complain, the more sure I am that I am right!

Many on the left are now complaining that the Senate Republicans’ willingness to filibuster any major legislation has somehow tainted the process of legislating.  Or, as Jacob Weisberg writes in slate.com, the filibuster rule, ” . . . has devolved into a super-majority threshold for any important legislation.”  And to that charge I make two points: 1) Yes; and 2) that is the way it is supposed to be.

As hard as it is for liberals and progressives to accept, this country was founded on the notion that government action (especially action by the central government) should be viewed with suspicion.  Large scale changes dictated from Washington should not easily pass.  When one political party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress, the only protection against an over zealous government is the requirement that the controlling party must obtain at least some support from the minority party.

I hope some day we can actually turn this ship around and start moving back toward a constitutionally constrained government.  In the meantime, the only hope is to slow the ship down, which gives us a better chance to turn back before hitting the iceberg known as socialism.

Doublespeak is one of the hallmarks of corrupt government. That highly relied upon source, Wikipedia, defines doublespeak as follows: “Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning.” I will grant you that all politicians engage in this behavior to some degree. But just like a salesman’s “puffing” of a product can cross over into fraud, there is a point at which doublespeak crosses over into the realm of dangerous. Our President has crossed that line.

President Obama has responded to fear of excessive government spending by discussing his desire to get our federal deficits under control. He then rolls out a $3.83 trillion budget proposal. The assertion that such a budget proposal indicates any concern whatsoever for deficit spending is beyond comprehension. Doublespeak.

But it gets worse. Obama then goes on to repeat is mantra that it is all Bush’s fault. Believe me, I am no defender of Bush’s domestic policy or spending habits. But Bush’s last budget was $3.1 trillion. Obama has increased that number by 25%. But get this. The largest deficit under Bush was $407 billion. The current fiscal year deficit (Obama’s first) is about $1.5 trillion (the actual final number has not yet been determined).  That is nearly four times Bush’s final deficit. And under Obama’s current proposal, next year’s deficit will be about $1.8 trillion. Using that standard, one could argue that Bush was down right frugal.

Obama’s next doublespeak comes in the form of a promise to fix our profligate spending habits by imposing a freeze on discretionary spending. Let me make it really simple. Let’s say I told my family that we really need to get our living expenses down, and here is my plan. This year we are going to increase overall household spending by about 25%. We’ll do the same in 2011. And during that time we are going to increase spending on shirts by 24%. Then, starting in 2012 we will freeze shirt spending for three years. Voila!! Birdman household budget fixed!!

I literally pray to God that people see through this nonsense and understand the peril we face if we continue down this path. This president literally frightens me.