I was on the road at the beginning of the week again this week, so I didn't get my full dose of current events. But, it was a pretty slow week on the national stage again leading up to the Olympics. The opening ceremony was very good, I thought, and W was there to represent. Former presidential candidate, John Edwards, admitted to an affair in the moments leading up to the media's distraction with the games in China. I'm going to skip talking about national issues in this post and focus on some local items of interest.
This week, I actually brought in the mail one day and was treated with a pamphlet from my state representative, David Frizzell. Admittedly, I don't know too much about him. I'm going to need to change that - especially before the election in November. The talking points in his pamphlet are pretty focused on small government. Here are a couple key phrases: "Government is not the answer to all problems"; "We should hold the line on government interference and spending". He also highlights the following five points in what appears to be his platform:
1. Give taxpayers a vote on projects that will increase their taxes.
2. Non-elected boards should not have the power to raise taxes.
3. Trim the fat in state government.
4. Focus on classrooms.
5. Hoosier benefits for Hoosiers.
It is this fifth point which he dedicates two pages (50% of the total content) towards in the pamphlet in expressing his "[frustration] with the federal government's longstanding unwillingness" to address illegal immigration. Seems like a bit of overkill to me, but this is an area where I need to do some further research before this November's elections.
In other local election news, on the way to work listening to Abdul in the Morning I caught about half of their interview with Nels Ackerson, Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Indiana's 4th District. The bit that I caught was good. He scolded both sides of the aisle for the on-going political games and posturing pitting the #dontgo Republicans against Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). I plan on spending some more time on Ackerson's site and researching all of the Indiana races. Could this be a Democrat receiving my endorsement? He won't get my vote, because I live in the 5th District.
Finally, tonight, while watching primetime Olympic coverage, the local news commercial highlighted a story of a campaign to reform Indiana's blue laws. Currently, it is against state law to purchase packaged liquor on Sundays in this state. Check out the "Hoosiers for Beverage Choices" website. I tried to sign the online petition, but the site was having technical difficulties. I'll blame it on website issues instead of a prohibitionist conspiracy... for now.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
T. Boone Pickpocket... or American Hero?
If you watch any TV at all, you've probably seen "oilman" T. Boone Pickens in his new commercials discussing his plan for America's energy future. It's quite impressive in my opinion to see a guy step up, develop a strategy, and execute a marketing plan to get the public excited about reducing our dependency on foreign oil. But, what are the real details of his plan? Why does he need to spend over $50 million raising public awareness and support? His plan calls for a massive investment in infrastructure for wind power - a bold entrepreneurial move. Can't he just do it without all the buzz, sit back and watch the money roll in?
A review of the plan on his own website is concise and well-marketed. We should reduce our foreign oil dependency by switching to natural gas powered vehicles. Natural gas, he argues, is cheaper, proven, and sourced domestically. The second key component is expanding wind power to generate electricity (partially replacing natural gas generated electricity). Again, wind power would be a domestic energy source and he argues that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." The plan calls for the development of massive and expansive wind farms across a corridor stretching from Texas to North Dakota. He created enough buzz that he was invited to testify before Congress.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on June 17, featuring Mr. Pickens. In his opening statement, he gives us more information which begins to explain his desire to generate massive support in the court of public opinion. Pickens outlines his concerns and calls on Congress to help address a few issues:
1. Siting Authority - The first point of concern is the ability for Pickens to secure the land rights required to build his wind farms and the necessary transmission of the energy. He calls for the power of eminent domain to be employed to secure this land.
2. Federal Lands - The Pickens Plan would require land which spans across Federal land. He notes there are provisions to secure these rights, but they are cumbersome. He asks that process be streamlined.
3. Federal Permitting - The construction of new transmission lines requires permits from the U.S. Government. Again, he asks that the existing process be streamlined and expedited.
4. Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery - Pickens is willing to put up the capital for building the infrastructure. But, once it is built, he wants to pass the costs back to those who use the energy. This is more complicated since the energy will be used by residents of many states including states where no investment is made. He calls on the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to modify regulations to meet his needs.
5. Equitable Allocation of Capacity - Existing regulation allows for energy producers to share transmission lines. Pickens argues that if he invests in the development of new transmission lines, that he should receive preferential treatment and priority in the use of those lines.
6. Financial Incentives: Pickens calls for a loan guarantee program and tax incentives to reduce risk in his investments and encourage others to do the same.
I'd say that most of his arguments are fair, or at least they make sense from his perspective. Energy markets, like just about everything else, are highly regulated creating barriers for entry. But, I do have one big problem with this plan which I cannot reconcile immediately. This is his call for the power of eminent domain.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution governs the use of eminent domain in the United States. The text states, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase here is "public use" whereas Mr. Pickens is seeking private investment. Eminent domain powers have been used by allowing states to broadly interpret public use. The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. The City of New London upheld the actions of the city who seized land from Kelo and others for the purpose of economic development, namely a research facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This was (and still is) a controversial decision as it allows for very broad interpretation of public use. As such, Pickens is more than happy for the government to step in and ensure that he can have any land he wants for his project. (The Court's opinion can be read here.)
Pickens is not new to leveraging government to get what he wants. Should we really blame him if it will help him get what he wants? Not sure I can blame him for that. But, I don't believe that he is being straightforward in his desire to have the government take land from private citizens by force for his own benefit. I suppose that story wouldn't go over as well in his commercials.
Pickens and his wife have given a lot of money this election cycle including the maximum $2300 to Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
A review of the plan on his own website is concise and well-marketed. We should reduce our foreign oil dependency by switching to natural gas powered vehicles. Natural gas, he argues, is cheaper, proven, and sourced domestically. The second key component is expanding wind power to generate electricity (partially replacing natural gas generated electricity). Again, wind power would be a domestic energy source and he argues that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." The plan calls for the development of massive and expansive wind farms across a corridor stretching from Texas to North Dakota. He created enough buzz that he was invited to testify before Congress.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on June 17, featuring Mr. Pickens. In his opening statement, he gives us more information which begins to explain his desire to generate massive support in the court of public opinion. Pickens outlines his concerns and calls on Congress to help address a few issues:
1. Siting Authority - The first point of concern is the ability for Pickens to secure the land rights required to build his wind farms and the necessary transmission of the energy. He calls for the power of eminent domain to be employed to secure this land.
2. Federal Lands - The Pickens Plan would require land which spans across Federal land. He notes there are provisions to secure these rights, but they are cumbersome. He asks that process be streamlined.
3. Federal Permitting - The construction of new transmission lines requires permits from the U.S. Government. Again, he asks that the existing process be streamlined and expedited.
4. Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery - Pickens is willing to put up the capital for building the infrastructure. But, once it is built, he wants to pass the costs back to those who use the energy. This is more complicated since the energy will be used by residents of many states including states where no investment is made. He calls on the Federal Energy Regulation Commission to modify regulations to meet his needs.
5. Equitable Allocation of Capacity - Existing regulation allows for energy producers to share transmission lines. Pickens argues that if he invests in the development of new transmission lines, that he should receive preferential treatment and priority in the use of those lines.
6. Financial Incentives: Pickens calls for a loan guarantee program and tax incentives to reduce risk in his investments and encourage others to do the same.
I'd say that most of his arguments are fair, or at least they make sense from his perspective. Energy markets, like just about everything else, are highly regulated creating barriers for entry. But, I do have one big problem with this plan which I cannot reconcile immediately. This is his call for the power of eminent domain.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution governs the use of eminent domain in the United States. The text states, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase here is "public use" whereas Mr. Pickens is seeking private investment. Eminent domain powers have been used by allowing states to broadly interpret public use. The Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. The City of New London upheld the actions of the city who seized land from Kelo and others for the purpose of economic development, namely a research facility for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. This was (and still is) a controversial decision as it allows for very broad interpretation of public use. As such, Pickens is more than happy for the government to step in and ensure that he can have any land he wants for his project. (The Court's opinion can be read here.)
Pickens is not new to leveraging government to get what he wants. Should we really blame him if it will help him get what he wants? Not sure I can blame him for that. But, I don't believe that he is being straightforward in his desire to have the government take land from private citizens by force for his own benefit. I suppose that story wouldn't go over as well in his commercials.
Pickens and his wife have given a lot of money this election cycle including the maximum $2300 to Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Gas Stats
Over the last few months, gas prices having been receiving a lot of attention. According to AAA, gas prices reached an all-time high on July 17 this year at a national average of $4.11 for regular unleaded. It's been talked about as one of the most important issues of the upcoming election. PollingReport.com has a lot of information on various polls conducted by various groups. This particular page gives detailed polling information regarding the priorities of the voters. As you peruse, you can see that "the economy" is generally number one. "Energy" and/or "gas prices" also show up quite a bit. I'd expect when not specifically called out, people think of gas prices and the economy as quite similar. This set of polls is directed specifically at energy issues and includes people's opinions on what is causing the rise in gas prices.
In discussing the relationship of the dollar and oil prices, Ron Paul (R-TX) had this statement before the House Financial Services Committee. In summary, Paul suggested a strong link between inflation and oil prices. I've been thinking about this for a while myself and was curious to see how much of a relationship there actually is between gas prices and some measure of inflation. I also seemed to recall new stories in the past that gas prices increase in the summer which makes since due to increased travel in the summer vacation season. This article from 2005 corroborates my recollections as well as basic supply and demand economics.
So, I decided to build a simple statistical model using regression. Basically, this model takes certain variables as inputs and tries to predict the value of another variable. I decided to build a model that would try to explain (or predict) gas prices based on "inflation" (more in a moment) and the month of the year (to pick up seasonal travel patterns). To capture the impact of inflation, I decided to look at the money supply adjusted for the strength of the U.S. Dollar. There is significant debate amongst economists in discussing the link between inflation and the money supply. There's plenty to read about the thoughts of the monetarists, Keynesians, and the Austrian School economists which I do not intend to get into here. For the money supply, I chose to use M2 (read the money supply article if you care to understand) and sourced the information straight from the FED. I wanted to use data from Shadow Stats, but didn't want to pay the subscription to get the data. The FED is nice enough to make the money supply data available for free. Additionally, I used the FED's own trade-weighted dollar index (I used the "major currencies" index) which tracks the value of the dollar relative to a basket other world currencies. Finally, my gas prices came from the Energy Information Administration - yet another division of the federal government (at least the data is free).
The following charts summarize my process and results:
1. This first chart shows the price of gas (regular grade, nationwide average) from January 1991 until July 21, 2008. As you can see, and already knew, gas prices have seen a sharp increase beginning sometime around early 2002. There is also a little bit of an increase right around 1999, but it reaches a plateau and dips again before the big climb.
What's the point of all this?! We should expect a decrease in gas prices. This is for two reasons: first, as we exit July and enter into August, gas prices do tend to decrease (roughly four cents until October where it is a more pronounced decline); second, we are in a period where gas prices are higher than expected based on the money supply. What's causing this? There are a lot of opinions out there: speculation, demand from growing economies, supply constraints, and geopolitics are the main reasons that people discuss. Certainly each of these play a role, some more than others, but simple inflation and seasonality explain much of the issue. Here are few other interesting articles for further reading.
In discussing the relationship of the dollar and oil prices, Ron Paul (R-TX) had this statement before the House Financial Services Committee. In summary, Paul suggested a strong link between inflation and oil prices. I've been thinking about this for a while myself and was curious to see how much of a relationship there actually is between gas prices and some measure of inflation. I also seemed to recall new stories in the past that gas prices increase in the summer which makes since due to increased travel in the summer vacation season. This article from 2005 corroborates my recollections as well as basic supply and demand economics.
So, I decided to build a simple statistical model using regression. Basically, this model takes certain variables as inputs and tries to predict the value of another variable. I decided to build a model that would try to explain (or predict) gas prices based on "inflation" (more in a moment) and the month of the year (to pick up seasonal travel patterns). To capture the impact of inflation, I decided to look at the money supply adjusted for the strength of the U.S. Dollar. There is significant debate amongst economists in discussing the link between inflation and the money supply. There's plenty to read about the thoughts of the monetarists, Keynesians, and the Austrian School economists which I do not intend to get into here. For the money supply, I chose to use M2 (read the money supply article if you care to understand) and sourced the information straight from the FED. I wanted to use data from Shadow Stats, but didn't want to pay the subscription to get the data. The FED is nice enough to make the money supply data available for free. Additionally, I used the FED's own trade-weighted dollar index (I used the "major currencies" index) which tracks the value of the dollar relative to a basket other world currencies. Finally, my gas prices came from the Energy Information Administration - yet another division of the federal government (at least the data is free).
The following charts summarize my process and results:
1. This first chart shows the price of gas (regular grade, nationwide average) from January 1991 until July 21, 2008. As you can see, and already knew, gas prices have seen a sharp increase beginning sometime around early 2002. There is also a little bit of an increase right around 1999, but it reaches a plateau and dips again before the big climb.
What's the point of all this?! We should expect a decrease in gas prices. This is for two reasons: first, as we exit July and enter into August, gas prices do tend to decrease (roughly four cents until October where it is a more pronounced decline); second, we are in a period where gas prices are higher than expected based on the money supply. What's causing this? There are a lot of opinions out there: speculation, demand from growing economies, supply constraints, and geopolitics are the main reasons that people discuss. Certainly each of these play a role, some more than others, but simple inflation and seasonality explain much of the issue. Here are few other interesting articles for further reading.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Oops
I'm far too tired tonight to write anything moderately insightful (nor have I had the time to do any "research") but I just happened to catch this story mentioned on Dan Abrams earlier tonight and couldn't help but share (copied from KTAR News in Phoenix)--
Oops. McCain volunteers wife for topless contest
John McCain may have some explaining to do to his wife after he told a crowd at a Sturgis, South Dakota motorcycle rally he wants Cindy to enter their beauty contest.
"I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip," McCain told the crowd on Monday.
Sounds like a nice thing to say, right? Trouble is, that particular beauty pageant features mostly topless contestants.
McCain obviously didn't know how risque the contest can get, but the crowd he was speaking to sure did, as they met McCain's statement with hoots and whistles.
I highly suggest watching the clip of him making a fool of himself...it sure gave me a good laugh.
Oops. McCain volunteers wife for topless contest
John McCain may have some explaining to do to his wife after he told a crowd at a Sturgis, South Dakota motorcycle rally he wants Cindy to enter their beauty contest.
"I told her [that] with a little luck, she could be the only woman to serve as both the First Lady and Miss Buffalo Chip," McCain told the crowd on Monday.
Sounds like a nice thing to say, right? Trouble is, that particular beauty pageant features mostly topless contestants.
McCain obviously didn't know how risque the contest can get, but the crowd he was speaking to sure did, as they met McCain's statement with hoots and whistles.
I highly suggest watching the clip of him making a fool of himself...it sure gave me a good laugh.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Loose Ends... Vol. II
This week, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the rest of the Democrats voted to adjourn and take five weeks of vacation from the House of Representatives; the McCain campaign "went negative"; Indianapolis mayor, Greg Ballard, announced that the city was going to have to borrow $154 million to cover revenue (tax) shortfalls; and Ron Paul (R-TX) voted solo two times.
Despite strong opposition from the GOP, the House went home. Roy Blunt (R-MO), minority whip, and several other Republicans continued their debate on energy policy with the "lights off" and "no cameras" only to emerge on C-SPAN to ensure everyone knew what they were doing. While this was clearly a bunch of silly politics, they have a bit of a point here. I'm not sure how much of the year the House is in session (and I'm too lazy to look that up now), but with all the rhetoric spewed from both sides of the aisle, doing some real work would be nice. Of course, we're probably better off with the House not voting on anything at all. It was a treat to see George Stephanopolous make Pelosi look like a fool this morning on "This Week".
The talk of the presidential race this week was McCain's negative ads, the debate of who played the "race card" first, and the continuing drama regarding the so-called Veepstakes. Frankly, it was a slow week. Sure, McCain's ads were a bit silly, but are we surprised? He likes to be a bit silly and negative ads are the staple of any campaign in a two candidate race.
In local (Indianapolis) politics, rookie mayor Greg Ballard realized that they don't have enough money. There has been a lot talk about property taxes, public safety, former mayor Bart Peterson, and other issues which have all culminated in this announcement. Ballard positioned himself as a bit of a white knight arriving to save the city. This adds to his pile of challenges. We'll stay tuned to see if he can balance the budget while fighting crime and cutting taxes.
Finally, Ron Paul reinforced his nickname of "Dr. No" this week by being the lone dissenting voice on two pieces of legislation. First, he voted against telling the Chinese government how they should behave. Second, he voted against increasing the size and scope of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ron is a lonely and frustrated man, I think. He did find a few friends to join him against popular legislation on these four other votes.
Despite strong opposition from the GOP, the House went home. Roy Blunt (R-MO), minority whip, and several other Republicans continued their debate on energy policy with the "lights off" and "no cameras" only to emerge on C-SPAN to ensure everyone knew what they were doing. While this was clearly a bunch of silly politics, they have a bit of a point here. I'm not sure how much of the year the House is in session (and I'm too lazy to look that up now), but with all the rhetoric spewed from both sides of the aisle, doing some real work would be nice. Of course, we're probably better off with the House not voting on anything at all. It was a treat to see George Stephanopolous make Pelosi look like a fool this morning on "This Week".
The talk of the presidential race this week was McCain's negative ads, the debate of who played the "race card" first, and the continuing drama regarding the so-called Veepstakes. Frankly, it was a slow week. Sure, McCain's ads were a bit silly, but are we surprised? He likes to be a bit silly and negative ads are the staple of any campaign in a two candidate race.
In local (Indianapolis) politics, rookie mayor Greg Ballard realized that they don't have enough money. There has been a lot talk about property taxes, public safety, former mayor Bart Peterson, and other issues which have all culminated in this announcement. Ballard positioned himself as a bit of a white knight arriving to save the city. This adds to his pile of challenges. We'll stay tuned to see if he can balance the budget while fighting crime and cutting taxes.
Finally, Ron Paul reinforced his nickname of "Dr. No" this week by being the lone dissenting voice on two pieces of legislation. First, he voted against telling the Chinese government how they should behave. Second, he voted against increasing the size and scope of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Ron is a lonely and frustrated man, I think. He did find a few friends to join him against popular legislation on these four other votes.
American Idol Elections
Just two months ago, which seems to be an eternity at this point, as Barack Obama was wrapping up the Democratic Primary season, presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, challenged Obama to a series of ten town-hall debates this fall. Obama was initially receptive with some sort of "we'll look into this" rhetoric; however, yesterday Obama backed away from the challenge. The Obama camp sent a letter to the Commission on Presidential Debates stating his intention to participate in the three debates put on by the commission.
Now, who is this Commission on Presidential Debates? According to their website, they are a non-profit, non-partisan commission established to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" leading up to the elections in November. There is a slight difference in the opening description on the Wikipedia entry for the CPD referring to them as bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. This is a fair assessment. The co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul Kirk, Jr., who have served since its inception in 1987. These two just happened to also be the respective head of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee at the time. That's not exactly non-partisan - it's the precise embodiment of partisanship. Just as our elected leaders have fought tirelessly (together) to prevent third-party candidates from breaking the duopoly the Dems and GOP enjoy, the CPD has made it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to have the voice heard in the "official" debates.
The criteria set forth by the CPD this year are as follows: the candidate must be constitutionally eligible, the candidate must have ballot access in enough states to represent an electoral college majority, and the candidate must have indicators of electoral support. What qualifies as an indicator of electoral support? The candidate must poll at a level of at least 15% across an average of five national presidential polls. This is a clear and obvious attempt to maintain the stranglehold of American politics by the established duopoly. These are the debates in which Obama has agreed to participate (technically, as any good politician would do, he hasn't ruled out other debates). Google/YouTube has planned a debate for September requiring "only" 10% polling levels in three national polls. It's not clear that Obama or McCain will be willing to participate in this event where Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each might have a snowball's chance of being invited.
The real problem that I see here is that the electorate does not even receive a reasonable chance of understanding the platform or issues that the third-party candidates represent. Even worse, we may be treated to only three head-to-head debates between the "major" party candidates in the run-up to the election. That's what brings me to American Idol. This past season ended with David Cook triumphant over David Archuleta. This was after the David's sparred for 14 weeks after the final 24 candidates were decided. The American Idol electorate had the benefit of choosing from many talented and qualified individuals and were treated to performances week after week as the field narrowed.
All too often, we hear both talking heads and everyday citizens offer that politics is becoming too much like American Idol. If not that, we hear that more people care about Idol than presidential politics. Let's check out a few comparisons... The 2004 presidential debates peaked with 62.5 million viewers for the first debate; the finale for Idol this year drew just over 31.5 million viewers. In terms of getting out the vote, the 2004 presidential election had just over 122 million voters; Idol's 2008 finale reportedly had over 97 million votes. Now, the good news is that there is a little more engagement for the presidential election than there is for Idol. But, it's not that far off (note: voting restrictions for Idol are not as stringent!) when you think about it. And frankly, I think the fact that the finalists have to stand up and perform for the public week after week might be a better model than we will be treated to this election season. Instead of actually hearing the candidates tell us what they think, we'll be subjected the constant spin from the mainstream media. Further, unless you really care, you'll probably only hear about the two finalists rather than being treated to the diverse and legitimate opinions of the many minor parties in American politics today.
Now, who is this Commission on Presidential Debates? According to their website, they are a non-profit, non-partisan commission established to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners" leading up to the elections in November. There is a slight difference in the opening description on the Wikipedia entry for the CPD referring to them as bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. This is a fair assessment. The co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul Kirk, Jr., who have served since its inception in 1987. These two just happened to also be the respective head of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee at the time. That's not exactly non-partisan - it's the precise embodiment of partisanship. Just as our elected leaders have fought tirelessly (together) to prevent third-party candidates from breaking the duopoly the Dems and GOP enjoy, the CPD has made it nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to have the voice heard in the "official" debates.
The criteria set forth by the CPD this year are as follows: the candidate must be constitutionally eligible, the candidate must have ballot access in enough states to represent an electoral college majority, and the candidate must have indicators of electoral support. What qualifies as an indicator of electoral support? The candidate must poll at a level of at least 15% across an average of five national presidential polls. This is a clear and obvious attempt to maintain the stranglehold of American politics by the established duopoly. These are the debates in which Obama has agreed to participate (technically, as any good politician would do, he hasn't ruled out other debates). Google/YouTube has planned a debate for September requiring "only" 10% polling levels in three national polls. It's not clear that Obama or McCain will be willing to participate in this event where Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each might have a snowball's chance of being invited.
The real problem that I see here is that the electorate does not even receive a reasonable chance of understanding the platform or issues that the third-party candidates represent. Even worse, we may be treated to only three head-to-head debates between the "major" party candidates in the run-up to the election. That's what brings me to American Idol. This past season ended with David Cook triumphant over David Archuleta. This was after the David's sparred for 14 weeks after the final 24 candidates were decided. The American Idol electorate had the benefit of choosing from many talented and qualified individuals and were treated to performances week after week as the field narrowed.
All too often, we hear both talking heads and everyday citizens offer that politics is becoming too much like American Idol. If not that, we hear that more people care about Idol than presidential politics. Let's check out a few comparisons... The 2004 presidential debates peaked with 62.5 million viewers for the first debate; the finale for Idol this year drew just over 31.5 million viewers. In terms of getting out the vote, the 2004 presidential election had just over 122 million voters; Idol's 2008 finale reportedly had over 97 million votes. Now, the good news is that there is a little more engagement for the presidential election than there is for Idol. But, it's not that far off (note: voting restrictions for Idol are not as stringent!) when you think about it. And frankly, I think the fact that the finalists have to stand up and perform for the public week after week might be a better model than we will be treated to this election season. Instead of actually hearing the candidates tell us what they think, we'll be subjected the constant spin from the mainstream media. Further, unless you really care, you'll probably only hear about the two finalists rather than being treated to the diverse and legitimate opinions of the many minor parties in American politics today.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Strategic Management in Government
I've spent most of this week on the road and away from my usual dose of C-SPAN and talk radio. Despite this lower level of attention, there hasn't been anything that's struck me to hop on the keyboard and write something up thus far this week. So, tonight, I want to write a little about my developing political theory. I'd like to use this blog, comments by readers, contributions by other authors, and research to fuel my thought process in this development. Perhaps a long manifesto of sorts will evolve someday.
At this point, I still find the U.S. Constitution to be a brilliant document. The system of government and laws therein have a delicate composition that exemplify the balance between the States and the federal government, the branches of the federal government with delegated powers and checks and balances, and the rights of liberty to free people. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there were arguably flaws in the original design such as counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but the process to amend the document were prescribed and fair. Now, I'm a hardliner in terms of interpretation, but that's not the point of this little essay tonight. So, I'd like to skip ahead to what I believe may be a critical gap in the design.
There is a large body of work in literature and research in the field of strategic management. This is evidenced by the length (I haven't read the whole thing) of the Wikipedia entry on this subject. Why? It's about making money! Executives, capitalists, "big business"... they all like to make lots of money, right? So, that drives a lot of research and literature. No surprise. But, to me, it's more than making money. It's about doing the job right. I'm also a big believer in the free market. The more free and pure the market (read: no monopolies, worker's rights, lack of government interference, and unbridled capitalism... NO! these things don't contradict each other) the better! In a free market, the corporation and the individual are both out to make things better for themselves. Now, I'm not here to write about economic theory either tonight, so what's my point?
My point is this: shouldn't we expect the government to be run like we'd expect a business to be run? The answer is yes. I think of strategic management as the tools and processes used to effectively reach objectives. I think this is a critical gap in government today. In fact, the biggest problem is that the objectives are not consistent with the stewardship outlined in the Constitution. Our elected leaders today seem to have one simple objective: get re-elected; or in the case of an elected official not seeking re-election: make sure your legacy is protected and your fellow party members get elected. Now, with these objectives in mind, our politicians certainly employ tactics of strategic management. They hire campaign staff, political advisers, spin doctors, and all other sorts of handlers and supporters to ensure success in re-election. Scott McClellan spoke about the permanent campaign that exists in Washington today. Sadly, I don't blame them. We do not hold our politicians to be accountable for anything but re-election.
This is the topic that I want to explore more in future discussion. It begins with the role of government and defining the success criteria for the objectives of the government. This can be aligned to constitutional principles leading to a set of metrics by which we should hold our elected officials accountable. There's a lot of talk today about the economy, the war in Iraq, unemployment, health care coverage, and a multitude of other measurements... are these the right things to be looking at? Who should be responsible for what? They really only care about one thing today. Everything else is illusory and used to trick us into voting for them.
At this point, I still find the U.S. Constitution to be a brilliant document. The system of government and laws therein have a delicate composition that exemplify the balance between the States and the federal government, the branches of the federal government with delegated powers and checks and balances, and the rights of liberty to free people. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there were arguably flaws in the original design such as counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, but the process to amend the document were prescribed and fair. Now, I'm a hardliner in terms of interpretation, but that's not the point of this little essay tonight. So, I'd like to skip ahead to what I believe may be a critical gap in the design.
There is a large body of work in literature and research in the field of strategic management. This is evidenced by the length (I haven't read the whole thing) of the Wikipedia entry on this subject. Why? It's about making money! Executives, capitalists, "big business"... they all like to make lots of money, right? So, that drives a lot of research and literature. No surprise. But, to me, it's more than making money. It's about doing the job right. I'm also a big believer in the free market. The more free and pure the market (read: no monopolies, worker's rights, lack of government interference, and unbridled capitalism... NO! these things don't contradict each other) the better! In a free market, the corporation and the individual are both out to make things better for themselves. Now, I'm not here to write about economic theory either tonight, so what's my point?
My point is this: shouldn't we expect the government to be run like we'd expect a business to be run? The answer is yes. I think of strategic management as the tools and processes used to effectively reach objectives. I think this is a critical gap in government today. In fact, the biggest problem is that the objectives are not consistent with the stewardship outlined in the Constitution. Our elected leaders today seem to have one simple objective: get re-elected; or in the case of an elected official not seeking re-election: make sure your legacy is protected and your fellow party members get elected. Now, with these objectives in mind, our politicians certainly employ tactics of strategic management. They hire campaign staff, political advisers, spin doctors, and all other sorts of handlers and supporters to ensure success in re-election. Scott McClellan spoke about the permanent campaign that exists in Washington today. Sadly, I don't blame them. We do not hold our politicians to be accountable for anything but re-election.
This is the topic that I want to explore more in future discussion. It begins with the role of government and defining the success criteria for the objectives of the government. This can be aligned to constitutional principles leading to a set of metrics by which we should hold our elected officials accountable. There's a lot of talk today about the economy, the war in Iraq, unemployment, health care coverage, and a multitude of other measurements... are these the right things to be looking at? Who should be responsible for what? They really only care about one thing today. Everything else is illusory and used to trick us into voting for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)