Time is Money and Does it Pencil Out

In 2014, Doug Ducey  a former CEO won the Governor’s race in Arizona with the slogan “government at the spreed of business.” Slogans rarely illuminate a problem,but this one hit the nail on the head. Before the 16th century, government and commerce moved at somewhat the same pace, glacially slow. Since then the private world has been gaining speed much like a bolder rolling down hill. Government has failed miserably to keep pace. This widening gap is causing great friction slowing our progress to “More”. In the real economy “time is money”. Wasted time hits right in the profits. Indeed, improper time management can and does lead to business failure. The Japanese kicked American butts using just in time inventory control and manufacturing to lower costs and gain flexibility, until we adopted better practices. Americans needed to remember time and motion study began here with combining the time studies of Frederick Winslow Taylor with the motion work of Frank and Lilian Gilbreth (the couple best remembered  by their children’s Frank B. Gilbreth, Jr., and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey’s 1950 book “Cheaper by the Dozen” and the very successful movie based on it. We recommend both for the whole family). This recognition of time value unfortunately fails to rule in the world of most governments.

How can we bring something close to the time discipline of the marketplace to the government rule makers?  First we have realize governments and their bureaucracies have totally different incentives. The greater the perceived work load the the larger the bureaucratic fiefdom. Quick action on whatever is before a bureaucracy actually works against their interest. Consider a government entity with ten projects before it. Five new projects per month are received on average. Let’s say one agency clears 5 per month and another clears just one. In the first instance there is no reason to add resources. In the second the work load demands expansion. The inefficient are rewarded, the exact opposite of private industry. How else can you explain the great growth of governments across the globe while they actually are completing less work per capita? Ideas are needed to bring this bureaucratic bloat under control. We’d like to present some ideas and invite any others that might help.

How can we speed the approval of proposed projects without taking undo risks? If a project is presented to the authorities, it might expire while waiting for approvals. How many horror stories have we heard about proposals endlessly bouncing between bureaucracies until they just give up. Even if  they finally get approved it comes at a high cost. Large Established businesses have the staffs, experience,relationships and lobbying to navigate the bureaucratic maze. This gives them an unfair advantage over new innovative enterprises. The more bureaucratic an entity is, the greater the space for crony capitalism. Let’s say you want to start an internet retail business requiring a warehouse to store and ship product. According to the World Bank, it takes half the time to form the business and a quarter the time to obtain the permits for the warehouse in Singapore as opposed to the US. Obviously some of our locales are better than others,but if you run up against a special interest such as environmental, animal rights or Native Americans all bets are off. No wonder since 2009 we have gone from the top ten business friendly countries to falling out of the top top 20 according to the Forbes 2015 Annual list.  More than 150 new major regulations have been added since 2009 at a cost of $70 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation. How can we regain our competitive edge while keeping reasonable protective rules?

On the battle field or in a disaster, multiple injuries must be processed as quickly and efficiently. Life and limb literately hang in the balance. In order to process each case expeditiously a triage nurse determines who gets the patient first. Even with multiple maladies the most needed specialty controls. You might think that’s all well and good in life and death situations but what has that to do in the process of say permitting projects? Everyday a multitude of projects show up at permitting authorities often needing numerous agencies to sign off. Someone with a project is faced with where to start first and are often ping ponged back and forth between them. As the days roll into weeks then months and even years, the project might get the final go ahead but at a unacceptable price. Often they just give up and the project dies. Would you direct multiple disaster victims to a hospital with no triage setup? Of course not.They need to be speedily assigned or there would be dire consequences. We don’t want worthy projects to die or be crippled with extra costs either. If we could make process easier and rational we’re bound to have better outcomes. Not every project deserves to be OK’d but they all deserve expeditious handling. Let’s put the triage principle to work.

Let’s say you have a project that needs federal, state and local permitting. Instead of applying to each and everyone, only an application would be made to a triage authority and entered on a public internet register. Upon examination the triage would assign the project to the agency most affected and/or the needed expertise. There a project manager would named. He or she would notify the other agencies involved. Those agencies would be given a short time to report to the project manager the time needed or what additional info would be needed for their part of the permitting. The manager upon having all the needed information,could give the project a timetable for completion of permitting. If an agency asks for an inordinate amount of time, the permitting could be reassigned to a more nimble one.  Checking the register, interested public parties would be able to contact and make their case to the appropriate agency. Instead of dealing with multiple confusing agencies the project would deal with only one person. Under this circumstance they could make a rational decision whether to go forward or not.

How would this actually work in the real world. Let’s take an extreme case. XYZ corp, a foreign or domestic company, wants to build a hyper-loop to move people between LA and NY City. Obviously, a multitude of agencies at the federal, state and local levels would  be involved. XYZ’s proposal would be filed with the triage agency. The agency  would  be put the proposal on the public internet registry and assign a lead agency. Maybe the Interstate  Commerce Commission (or some other), but the one selected would appoint a project manager and he or she would notify all affected agencies requesting their timetables. The manager could consolidate similar agencies under one lead. For instance, all the affected state EPA’s and the National EPA could have hearings dragging  on forever. In that case the manager could order the National EPA to consolidate hearings under their control and timetable to eliminate duplicate hearings. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Chamber of Commerce, the company itself and all other interested parties would have to make only one presentation. Additional information or clarification requests would be consolidated and coordinated by the lead agency and the project manager. With all the information in on timely fashion, the project manager render a decision. With problems resolved the manager issues all permits. If serious problems remain unresolved the project is rejected. If an agency or anyone else has remaining objections not considered germane by the project manager, they could sue but only on their own money and pay all costs if they lose. We have no idea if a Hyper Loop would pass or not, but they’d deserve a timely decision. An entity wanting “More” must be business friendly enough to respect possible investment with timely professionalism.

What about agency rules either proposed or already in place businesses consider uneconomic? Congress has said  agencies must give assurance that any rule is in fact cost effective. Good theory but in practice agencies either don’t have the capability or desire to do real cost/benefit analysis. They just can put down anything to justify their rule. If congress is really serious about this and they should be, they have the right place to do the job right under their jurisdiction, the Congressional Budget Office. When there is a sharp difference of opinion of the cost/benefit of a regulation, the agency and those adversely affected would simply send  their analysis to the CBO for review. The one who presents the most persuasive argument in in the CBO’s  judgement rules. While the CBO won’t always be right, the non-partisan body crunches numbers for a living. Who better to be counted on to look at two sets of numbers and judge who is closer to the truth. The CBO budget might have to be increased, but that’s a small price to pay if we can eliminate rules with adverse cost/benefit. Compliance costs are enormous. The competitive Enterprise Institute ‘s report Ten Thousand Commandments 2015 estimated that it costs consumers and businesses almost &1.9 trillion-more than  11%of our current GDP-to comply with current federal regulations. That amounts to a hidden tax of nearly $15,000per household each year. It would be nice to know if all these rules pencil out or are we placing uneconomic anchors on our quest for “More”.  Knowing they face rigorous review, agencies would have no choice but to do realistic analysis in the first place. Just as important, congress would’ve asserted control in  this area. Good rules should be able to pass CBO scrutiny, but we simply can’t afford the uneconomic ones.

These are a couple of our ideas to arrest our descent from the top group of business friendly countries to also ran.  We hope they bring forth even better ideas. Whether it’s a foreign company choosing a location to expand or a domestic one deciding to to stay or move abroad, if they decide to go elsewhere no Americans are hired.

 

IMAGINE THAT

“I can’t even imagine a third party president. How would he or she operate without any support in congress?” We hear that a lot. In the past we also wondered how this could possibly work. Wouldn’t both establishment parties gang up destroy anything the president proposed? If the Johnson-Weld ticket actually won this could well be the outcome and 4 years would go down the drain without anything accomplished. Maybe the only the only good from it might be the chastened establishment parties putting  up future candidates that don’t make us gag.  That alone would be reason to vote for them. With Johnson-Weld, however, one could imagine a much different outcome. As fiscal conservatives but culturally liberal they could propose much needed legislation that appeals to the opposition parties, just not the same ones.

Let’s take two areas absolutely in need of resolution, entitlements and immigration. If not resolved they will truly damage the nation. Just down the road entitlements will virtually eat the national budget. Anyone looking at the numbers knows this is frighteningly true. Yet Democrats will fight any attempt attempt at reform. Republicans in the house have tried to face up to the problem but the Dems ran ads showing them pushing granny off a cliff. To make matters worse their own presidential candidate mirrors the democrats “no touch” policy. Immigration can’t even be brought up in the Republican House, even though the lack of a cohesive policy is literately tearing the country apart. Consecutive two term Republican and Democrat Presidents failed to move the ball on either nor  is it likely to change if either party wins in ’16. By contrast Johnson-Weld actually favor tackling both and therein lies hope.

Continue reading

BAIT & SWITCH

Strange, the idea of supporting the Libertarian Ticket elicits little negative feedback from Democrats. Maybe they’re just unaware of the Libertarian Party or they don’t realize that they take about an equal amount of votes from them. Not so from Republicans. Beyond the “but Hillary is worse” nonsense, they point to Trump’s  policies presented in scripted and teleprompter supported major speeches. On Taxes, energy, healthcare, foreign policy and supreme court justices he appears to be  reasonably inline with longstanding conservative ideas. Even if you have to hold your nose over his numerous disqualifications,if you support these you’ve got to vote for him. We suggest they look a little closer. In every case they reflect well known conservative thinking, just regurgitated by Trump. By taking Steve Moore’s  and Larry Kudlow’s  ideas on taxes,he  gains both credibility and their active support. Same with John Bolton on foreign policy and the Heritage Foundation on the Supreme Court justices. He takes your ideas and you’re flattered and align with him. The bait is set and you and those who believe in you are hooked. Didn’t anyone notice in each area, he later left himself an out to go in entirely different direction? “I’m for lowering taxes but I may raise them, just an opening bid to negotiate with foreign powers, and I may add people to my list of judges later.” He can just change direction when he perceives it to be in his interest or go where he really wanted in the first place. Just wait for the Switch.

For instance,let’s take a realistic look his supporters main pillar,Trump and the Supreme Court.   Trumpsters support their position with the mantra, “Hillary wins and the court will be ultra liberal for decades.”  They may have to toss their principles on everything else but at least they’ll have prevented runaway government. Really? When has Donald Trump ever done anything that wasn’t in his own interest? He changes positions to align with his interests of the moment, even  changing in an amazingly short time. Given his expressed positions, why would he appoint Antonin Scalia type  justices? You can’t get past the 1st amendment without grave apprehension on where Trump would go. He wants to greatly expand the libel laws to prevent  press criticism, threatened the owner of the Washington Post with anti-trust and would impose a religious test on who could enter the US. We’ve seen his lack of respect for the separation of powers when went after the judge in his Trump University fraud cases and mentioned he would be president when the case went to trial. He’s for greatly expanding eminent domain. Sounds like he would appoint judges favoring an expanded view of government and his presidency. Why would he appoint judges that would rule against him? The Trumsters are kidding themselves.

Continue reading

OK, WE’RE CONVINCED

The Republican leaning media has convinced us that Hillary Clinton is totally unworthy to be President of the US. Just some of her failings such as  Whitewater Billings, lying to the parents of the Benghazi  victims, her  private server and the Clinton Foundation are enough to disqualify her from ever occupying the Oval office . Of course, the list is much longer. How can we elect someone whose proper residence is a jail? However, we are also aware of the arguments of the Democratic leaning media proving Donald Trump shouldn’t even be considered for the top job. An authoritarian bigot who seems to think the Constitution is a suggestion and whose shady business practices might be punctuated by a jury finding him a fraud, Trump would be a disaster. Well, they’re right. Trump should never be president. Our two great political parties have given us unacceptable choices.

How did the Greatest Country on Earth get in this position? Duopoly. Without  real competition our two major parties didn’t need to put forth the effort to insure they offered the best possible product. That’s the way it is with limited competition. After World War II GM and Ford dominated our auto choices. (yes there was Chrysler but they just followed along behind). By the end of the sixties we had cars where nothing fit and fell apart before their auto loans were paid off. The companies got big profits and their unions got outlandish wages and benefits. The consumer got screwed. Along came some foreign cars than actually were a value and the landscape changed. Cars like the legendary Datsun 240Z showed us what our money should buy. The Big Two had to either improve or go out of business. Under the gun of real competition they now produce cars that they can be proud. It’s time to look for that Datsun. Unless some people are willing to break ranks and and try something foreign to them nothing will ever change.

This election we have a real third choice, the Libertarian Ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld. They will be on the ballot in all 50 states. If for no other reason than to punish the two major parties for giving us unacceptable choices and delivering the message, “never insult us again”, vote for this ticket. But there are many more reasons to take this action beyond penalizing the two party political establishment. Johnson and Weld , both have been successful two term  Republican Governors in blue states. They actually have more executive experience than the two major party candidates combined and records of successfully working with the opposition. Having a President who is neither Republican or Democrat opens up possibility of tackling our most intractable problems. Entitlements and immigration are just two things we desperately need to confront now before we suffer real damage. The two major party candidates refuse to even  entertain entitlement reforms even with the absolute knowledge they can’t be sustained in their present form. The fight over immigration is tearing the country apart. (actually as we pointed out in recent post “On the Move” entitlement reform is in part dependent on immigration reform). With someone in the White House that favors both, we’d have someone to mediate solutions. More importantly, the parties would have someone to blame for the benefit of their respective bases. In this endeavor, William Weld in the Senate would be invaluable in forging the needed compromises as no vice-president before him ever could. With a ticket that is fiscally conservative and culturally liberal, they simply would have far more room to horse trade.  Just maybe it would give us a needed timeout from partisanship to achieve reasonable and needed outcomes.

This is supposed to be the year of the outsider and this ticket surely fits the bill better than the ultimate insider Hillary Clinton and the man who by his own admission paid often and well to obtain crony capitalist benefits, Donald Trump. Beyond change,we could actually solve some of our problems and bring the nation closer together. This would be tall order but for the guy who conquered Everest and cast 750 vetoes, Gary Johnson is tough enough to do the job. He and Bill Weld just might be inline with where the  majority of Americans actually are. If you take a look and compare, you’ll buy the Datsun.

 

On the Move

Humanity has always had a great migratory dimension. If it didn’t we’d still huddled in Africa.  Whether it was out of necessity, to seek economic betterment or curiosity or some combination, we have always been on the move. Yet today the idea of people changing their national location is under fire from one end of the globe to the other. Even the great melting pot, the United States, finds immigration both legal and illegal  under fire. The European Union is grappling with both internal and external migrations. Some nations such as Japan have never favored immigration. What a great time to determine what migratory policies are more likely to lead to “More”.

Throughout history a welcoming attitude towards “Strangers” seems to be associated an entity’s vibrancy and prosperity. Cross pollination of people benefited all. On the other hand those that cut themselves in self-contained entities remained stagnant backwaters. China and Japan limited contact with “barbarians” and lost their place in the upward march of mankind. Only when their leaders realized their own survival depended on a radical change of attitude did they crack open the door. Japan got the message looking down the cannon barrels of American  “black ships” and the Chinese communist party when they saw what happened to their communist brethren in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Opening up to the world while still not welcoming large numbers of “strangers” among them and without institutional changes that would attract them, they used lower wages initially and copying of other People’s innovations to gain “More” for their peoples. The jury is still out whether their restrictive policies can sustain them in the future. If history is our guide the future may be dim without greater opening.

Continue reading