What you can do for your country

Dr. Chu Comes to Congress

Congressman: Dr. Chu, Do you believe the Global Climate Change is a critical threat to our country and the human race?

Dr. Chu: Yes Congressman.  We need to employ our resources to curtail global climate change.  Global climate change is a result of mankind, industrialization and wasteful activities.

Congressman: Have we invested enough in the past to address the issue

Dr. Chu: No sir, but under the Presidents leadership we are moving in the right direction

Congressman: Do we need to invest more?

Dr. Chu: Yes

Congressman: You and other scientists have worked hard at building the models and conducting analysis, proving the threat of global warming and man's role

Dr. Chu: Yes sir.  We have very detailed models that guide us to the conclusion that man is the cause of global warming.

Congressman: Specific to Solyndra, this was a big investment to address the threat of global warming?

Dr. Chu: Yes

Congressman: And it was the best example, though risky as you have said to others, of an investment we should make to save us from global warming?

Dr. Chu: Yes

Congressman: After a lot of careful analysis from experts, in the end Solyndra failed in the market place.

Dr. Chu: Well yes, but its more complex than that, there were other unexpected variables.  Things we could not account for like the Chinese dropping price.  And of course other innovations

Congressman: Yes, its good of you to point out those other unknowns.

Dr. Chu: Thank you 

Congressman: So given that global climate change is so important and the market changed in unpredictable ways, didn't it seem like people might question your credibility in doubling down on Solyndra, if Solyndra failed.  Its fine if its succeeded, but....

Dr. Chu: Well sir, hind sight is 20-20

Congressman: Oh, yes, I have heard that.  Very good point.  But I am wondering.... You are responsible for effectively spending $70B.  Do you think your decision to double down, and then failing, might make the american people worry about your other decisions.  I mean the other investments you might be making.

Dr. Chu: Put that way Congressman, I can see them worrying, but we have a very good team now and the mistakes will be minimized.

Congressman: Yes, of course.  But, I have 10 grandchildren as you may know.  And your studies say if we don't fix the greenhouse problem a lot of bad things may happen to them 60 years from now.  So it is critical that we make sure we invest now to fix the problem before its to late.  Shouldn't my Grandchildren expect more from us.  Shouldn't they expect more from you?  I mean we really don't have much room for failure here, but appear to have a ever increasing list of questionable investments?  Its ironic that in your critical efforts to deal with greenhouse gases that we are now faced questioning the integrity of the Department of Energy, your processes, and your ability to protect us from this threat.

Dr. Chu: Well congressman......

Congressman: Just one more Question.  Your team did deep and complete due diligence on the Solyndra investment.  And in the end, all that analysis was wrong.  If you are wrong on Solyndra, should the American people be worried that you are wrong about Climate Change?  You can model the global climate but not investment risk?

Jack Abramoff: How to get a politician in your pocket....

Noted lobbyist and criminal Jack Abramoff has written a book (Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist) on how to get a politician in your pocket.  He provides a practitioners insight on the power of political donations, high paying jobs for congressional staff and ex-members of congress, and a range of other tools he used to wield power.  It makes sense to listen to the way a criminal like Abramoff wields power.  

Though, the very best way to limit the power of a lobbyist is to limit the influence of those they lobby - the federal government.  If the future of your business or life depends on act of Congress then groups will organize to influence the outcome.  If GE can snuff out emergining competitors through influence of various government policies, they will do so.  DC is now one of the most expensive towns in the country and has the lowest unemployment, because DC dominates the trajectory of our life.  Make the federal government smaller and force those that seek political favor to travel to the state houses.  At least it might improve local economies.

Jim Rockford Educates OWS

Paul Ryan Speaks Truth

"We should lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive. The true sources of inequity in this country, is corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless. The real class warfare that threatens us is a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society."

"Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy and resentment."

Paul Ryan at Heritage Foundation

 

Romney, RINOs and Perry....

I like strong principled leaders.  They have a certain clarity that creates new and better options and ideas.  They make things better.  Our current President is fixated on the worst of human nature, demagoging the right as pro rape, pro crime, and pro dirty environment.  I really have nothing positive to say about our current President.  He makes us want to blame someone else.

Just about anyone of the Republican candidates would be a better president than President Obama.  I fear that if President Obama has another term, his 8 years in office will do 20 years of damage to the psyche of our nation.  First and foremost, we need to get a new President.  We can't hope for a perfect replacement.

In the Las Vegas debate I was frankly unimpressed with Perry's attack of Romney about illegal immigrants working in Romney's garden.  I was unimpressed because it is Obama politics's.  We need people that can drive us together, not win by driving us apart.  We need people that can bring opposing camps together to drive an agreeable solution.  Forcing left, then forcing right, just to force left again is terribly unproductive.

I would like a more principle conservative than Romney, but the person is not on the stage yet.  We know a lot more about candidates today than we did just a few years ago, or even 20 years ago.  In our desire for information and our will to tear down the opposition, we destroy good candidates that are human.  Our government is comprised of people that collectively provide leadership.  Trying to make one person, our president, into an impossible character in our past vision of a president is an insatiable pursuit.

In the grand scheme of elections, new is not good.  Every candidate has warts.  We know most of Romney's.  At the end of the day he is an honorable person.  He may have implemented policies I do not agree on, but no one is saying he is disagreeable.  He would not accuse his opponents of being pro rape.  He would not make his attack personal.  New candidates are bringing great character to the election. But, the Chicago gang has not attacked them yet (and they will).  Cain would be a very good president, but his lack of government service will make him vulnerable to the politics and systems of Washington.  Gingrich has great ideas, but his leadership is polarizing.  Santorium has great principle, but he needs more time to mature.  I love Perry's aggressiveness, but once the Obama team digs insiders tell me they are going to find some dirt on Perry that will kill him as a candidate. 

This election is probably more about getting rid of Obama than finding the new Ronald Reagan.  It could also be an election about getting Washington back a bit to normal where rationale people on either side of the isle collaborate to help the country move forward.  Romney is well positioned to be a leader in that situation, RINO or otherwise.

 

Jimmy Hoffa Act II

The media is quickly covering for Jimmy Hoffa's speech this weekend in which he made various attacks on the right, finishing his diatribe with the phrase "Let's take these sons of bitches out".  If you literally read his speech, which Media Matters was quick to cover, it suggests he was talking about using the elections to remove the tea party influence.  Media Matters and MSM seem to ignore some other context:

• This was a White House event, not a political rally 
• The White house chose to have Hoffa at the event, an event held on labor day to celebrate all workers.  Union labor represents only 11.9% of the US labor force.  
• Labor day was created a peaceful acknowledgement of labor after the violence of the Pullman Strike, which was the first time Labor showed that it could bring the national economy to a standstill.  The effect of the ensuing violence that precipitated from the presence of federal troops, was a dramatic capitulation by business, elevating the power of Unions in an attempt to mitigate future violence.  But Labor learned that violence pays, as long as you publicly support the democratic process
• Jimmy Hoffa's father life story *Hoffa" chronicled his use of a range of violent and non-violent tools to gain power.

Jimmy Hoffa lives in the shadow of past actions by Unions, the Teamsters, and his father.  Though his speech may have included all the words needed to suggest non violence, his rhetoric motivates his supporters to take action.  It is not clear why the teamsters have permanently hitched their wagon to a President that has delivered higher unemployment for union members, but its best to evaluate Hoffa's speech in a broader context.  Just as the Pullman strike accelerated the growth of unions and the progressive movement, I suspect political strategists understand the historical power of violence and its benefit in increasing minority power.  Unions and progressives know how to use this power effectively, even if it means temporarily they need to take some losses through violence.

 

 

We the People: President Obama's Suggestion Box Leadership

If you are a student of quality systems, you know employee suggestion systems help.  If you are improving quality, detecting problems on a production line, fixing customer service, etc., getting feedback from customers and employees with direct insight makes a great deal sense.

It seems the President of the United States thinks that the way to fix the economy is to have the equivalent of a suggestion box.  He first tried something called Idea storm to have people propose and rank new ideas for his administration.  He keeps going to town halls (cover for campaign stops) to "Listen to the people" but spends most of the time talking.  His newest tool is "We the People", to have citizens develop petitions for government action.

Suggestion systems are fine if you want to improve service or quality.  Open Innovation and ideation are ok tools if you actually have a team that can implement successfully in your market.  Open Innovation, often associated with ideation, is not really about "Ideas" but about working with partners in novel ways to  resolve problems in the market place.  Open Innovation is not a random process of gathering suggestions.  The President's team should read books by Henry Chesbrough and Clay Christensen.  Or maybe go take some classes at MIT.

Ideas are a dime a dozens.  Solutions are the result of leadership and vision.  The President is mistaken to think that leadership comes from a suggestion box.  Success in leadership and innovation comes from setting an objective, advocating a position, convincing people that your ideas are valuable, and securing their support.  The best leaders do with even with their opposition.

It really does not matter if the President does or does not get along with Congress.  If he wants to practice "Open Innovation" he needs to engage business and investors.  He should not listen to GE.  GE knows how to run a multi billion dollar established entity.  GE innovates buy buying companies, not creating new markets.  Young firms find new markets, create new value propositions, and drive economic growth.  Economic growth creates jobs.  The President should engage with these innovators, Congress, regulators, et. al. in the following way:

1. Ask innovators "What can we do to make your job easier" - this should include eliminating regulations, changing programs, etc
2. Listen
3. Ask innovators "How do our current programs and policies help/hurt your efforts"
4. Listen
5. Then discuss why its hard for government to do what these innovators want, discuss alternatives, and construct an alternative approach that best meets the needs of the innovators and government.

I call this process NOT (A vs. B) BUT C.  The notion is that its easier for opposing parties to agree on a common but different solution.  In which version C contains that which can be resolved from option A and B. 

That aside, the best idea is to just decrease the size of government so that entrepreneurs don't have to come up with ideas to help the government make our lives more difficult.  After all we are a country based on the concept of personal liberty, not central control.