Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are running one of the better third-party races and that’s the problem. Stop running a third party race. Third parties historically are associated with fringe politics.You on the other hand reflect the big center. Right now you’re fielding endless objections from the left and the right have always leveled at libertarians. Big government from the left and culture from the right. “Have you stopped smoking dope?’ “Without regulations we’ll all choke to death.” .You’re on the defensive. How do you overcome this? Deflect this line of questioning by just stating a fact evident to everyone, a President Gary Johnson without a single member of congress would have zero ability pass any kind of extreme legislation. The best you could do would be to guide legislation in the direction of smaller leaner government and enhancing personal freedom and advancement. Instead, paint a big picture so people can visualize.your administration as the best and logical choice. You sell a house by encouraging the prospective buyers to see themselves in it. How this house takes care of their needs. Good schools in the neighborhood, each kid has a bedroom, the great kitchen and family time in the backyard, just visualize.. How do you apply this to this campaign? First layout the problems in dire need of attention. Extraction from costly wars and nation building while maintaining peace and open trade routes abroad. Getting control of entitlements including Obama care and our debt before they swallow our national budget. Showing how a rational immigration policy would greatly contribute to a solution. Confronting our rising drug problem and bringing education into the 21st century along with sensible tax and regulatory policies returning the US to the top rank of places to do business.all need to be faced.
Author: Dave Davis
A STRONG PEOPLE
Thinking about government’s relationship to its citizens especially in these times, we remembered some memorable lines Marlon Brando spoke as Mexican revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata in the movie “Viva Zapata”
….You’ve always looked for leaders. Strong men without faults. There aren’t any. They’re only men – like yourselves. They change, they desert, they die. There are no leaders but yourselves. A strong people is the only lasting strength! …..That’s how things really change – slowly through people. They don’t need me anymore. A strong man makes a weak people. Strong people, don’t need a strong man.
We have had the good fortune through our inherited English common law and our constitution for individuals in the United States to enjoy the protections and freedoms that have enabled us to bring about unprecedented “More”. An expansive open home market and “Yankee” traders abroad led to a rising standard of living. Never perfect (for instance just think about slavery), we have moved forward in our irregular fashion enhancing the abilities of each and every individual to achieve the best that’s in them. While this may always be a work in progress, we must first avoid backsliding while implementing ways to ever strengthen individuals.
Paging Mr. Magoo
Our morning email inviting us to read the latest Washington Post Opinions led us to the erudite Marc A. Thiessen’s latest column “The Election is a Train Wreck.” In it he cites the erudite Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens’s conclusion that in light of Trumps numerous transgressions one couldn’t possibly vote for him as he “morally unfit for any office, high or low.” Without any challenge to Stephen’s position, Thiessen countered that “That Hillary Clinton is also morally unfit for any office, high or low’. He likened it the dilemma of seeing speeding train headed bearing down on unsuspecting workers. You could pull a switch lever but that would divert the train onto a relative, ultimately summing up the choice between one set policy and appointment horrors against the another. He especially pointed to the supreme court as his greatest terror. He sums it all up:
TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE
This week we had both Trump and Clinton present their economic plans. Since then we have been inundated with media contrasting and comparing them. We saw it differently. What struck us was how similar the plans were in fact and tone. First of all their shared hostility to trade. Both turned thumbs down on the pending Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement while vowing to upset agreements already in place such as NAFTA. In our series on “More” we pointed out governmental entities can gain “More” in only three ways. 1. Take from someone else 2.Trade for it 3. Innovate. As we have seen, the latter two often go hand in hand. Before you can talk about how it’s distributed “More” has to exist. If you aren’t creating “More” you are dividing the same old pie with those closest to power grabbing the biggest slices. Without incentive to even maintain, the entity will stagnate or implode. Cuba and Venezuela are just the latest examples. Trade is at the heart of capitalism. Obviously these two have no acquaintance with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (What do they teach at the Wharton School of Business?).
Both would severely penalize businesses relocating operations beyond our borders. It takes by most estimates more than $100,0000 in invested capital to create the average private sector job. Who would want to invest in production in the US if like the Hotel California you can check in but never checkout? We’ve historically benefited from foreign investment but this would be an enormous beware sign. The same problem would affect US corporations that hold huge amounts profits overseas that otherwise might take advantage of Trump’s lower Corporate tax rate. The US has already dropped out of the top-tier of countries rated best to do business. This could position us to bring up the rear. How is this a plausible plan to expand employment? Likely it would have the opposite result.
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.
Detour on the Road 