Planning Sense

Environmental Madness

2010-07-05T08:21:00.002-04:00

If one needed any further evidence of Federal government incompetence and the death grip environmental radicals have on every aspect of our life today, reading this story should supply it. Notice the utter inability of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to establish priorities. They worry not about the oil hitting the beaches, but rather the environmental impact of removing the dikes meant to stop the oil and the quality of the clean water going back into the sea. All government devolves into absurdity at some point and the higher the level of the government, the greater the degree of absurdity.

Radical Power

2010-04-20T06:38:00.007-04:00

I submitted the following piece to the Urgent Agenda website subscriber forum and it was published there in 2009:

Obama - The Pragmatic Radical

Does no one understand Barack Obama? Too many are making excuses for his behavior. Some say he’s taking on too much at once. Others suggest he is arrogant, incompetent or surrounded by incompetents. Still others believe he has somehow got off track or is tone-deaf or manipulative. Yet, none of these explanations satisfy. Barack Obama is a very uncomplicated individual, not difficult at all to grasp if one examines his history. It’s what he believes, stupid!

Obama is a “community organizer” by trade, a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Obama taught Alinsk’s organizing methods to the staff of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for several years. Alinsky’s philosophy, one of gaining power over others to remedy perceived wrongs, appealed to a young Obama abandoned by both his parents for their own interests and raised under the tutelage of radical grandparents and communist activist Frank Davis. Alinsky offered Obama a rationalization and a road map for striking back in anger and simultaneously achieving the acceptance denied him in youth. Anyone wanting to understand Obama need only read Alinsky, in particular Rules For Radicals.

Written in 1971, Rules For Radicals is subtitled “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” Obama trained in Alinsky's methods, later taught them to other students (see picture) and is, himself, the epitome of the pragmatic or realistic radical. His entire life history, his campaign and his Presidency to date are all easily explained by any reader of Rules For Radicals, which, almost too incredible to be true, is dedicated in part to Lucifer, “the first radical know to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” Alinsky is a marvelously smooth writer and the book is captivating to anyone who fails to ponder its implications. It is, simply put, an appeal to power over truth. It is an epistle to moral relativism, envy and pride. Finally, it is guide for “a pragmatic attack on the system.”

Consider the following from Rules For Radicals:

“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing t let go go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to revolution.”

“...man’s hope lies in the acceptance of the great law of change.”

“...the failure to use power for a more equitable distribution of the means of life for all people signals the end of the revolution and the start of the counterrevolution.”

“One man’s positive is another man’s negative. The description of any procedure as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ is the mark of a political illiterate.”

“(Man) is beginning to learn that he will either share part of his wealth or lose all all of it.”

“He who fears corruption fears life.”

“Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”

“In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”

“Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or use of ends or means.”

“Ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego.”

“The organizer has a personal identity of his on that cannt be lost by absorption or acceptance of any kind of group discipline or organization … the organizer to be part of all can be part of none.”

“The organizer should know and accept that the right reason is only introduced as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved, although it may have been achieved for the wrong reasons – therefore he should search for and use the wrong reasons to achieve the right goals.”

“Before men can act and issue must be polarized.”

“It is only when the other party is concerned or feels threatened that he will listen – in the arena of action, a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.”

“He (the organizer) will not ever seem to tell the community what to do; instead he will use loaded questions...while the organizer proceeds on the basis of questions, the community leaders always regard his judgment above their own. They believe that he knows his job, he knows the right tactics, that’s why he is their organizer.”

“Power means strength, whereas love is a human frailty the people mistrust. It is a sad fact of life that power and fear are the fountainheads of faith.”

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy’,”

“The organizer’s job is to inseminate an invitation for himself, to agitate, introduce ideas, get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.”

“The first step in community organization is community disorganization...An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations.”

“No one can negotiate with the power to compel negotiation.”

“...our concern is with the tactic of taking, how the “Have-nots can take power from the Haves.”

“Power is not static; it cannot be frozen and preserved like food; it must grow or die.”

“Once the battle is joined and a tactic is employed, it is important that the conflict not be carried on over too long a time...a conflict that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

“Large parts of the middle class , the ‘silent majority,’ must be activated; action and articulation are as one, as are silence and surrender...our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. All rebels must attack the power states in their society. Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values of and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized, and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the big middle-class majority...He (the organizer) will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hangups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class...they are a fearful people, who feel threatened from all sides…their bitterness is compounded by their also paying taxes...insecure in this fast-changing world, they cling to illusory fixed points – which are very real to them...if you cannot win over the lower middle class, at least parts of them must be persuaded to where there is at least communication, then to a series of partial agreements and a willngness to abstain from hard opposition as changes take place...Start with them easy, don’t scare them off. The opposition’s reactions will provide the ‘education’ or radicalization of the middle class.”

“We must believe that it is the darkness before the dawn of a beautiful world; we will see it when we believe it.”

One is easily moved to add, to this last quote, Obama’s own words that “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.” The discerning reader, however, needs no further explanation to understand why Rules For Radicals is Obama’s life manual. It defines everything about the man and why behaves as he does, talking moderately while acting radically, pulling down while he argues for lifting up, even-tempered while he seethes with contempt. Sadly, he is a shallow man, though able to deliver good lines when equipped with a teleprompter. He adopts Alinsky’s philosophy because it is tailor-made for the shallow, appealing to higher values (“better angels”) while simultaneously denying there are any. advancing power as the elixir for every ill, while rejecting all truth.

The remedy, the way to fight back, as several have noted is with truth. We must speak it, however alone we may be in doing so, as Churchill did during the 1930’s. We are reliving the 1930’s today and we must identify Obama as the chameleon and pragmatic radical he is. It’s not what he does at any given moment that is dangerous – it’s what he believes.

Turning Around

2010-03-22T07:57:00.005-04:00

Yesterday, March 21, 2010, was a very dark day in the history of this nation, as socialism made another tremendous advance. Nevertheless, the war must continue. There are several things that can be done to turn this defeat into victory. American is, as often said, the last best hope for mankind. Moreover, our human experience tells us great nations can disappear quickly when apathetic citizens take their freedom and their status as givens. Therefore, the stakes are high. If we cannot turn around this nation's direction toward ever more government, our descendants will know a tyranny we dare not imagine.

Yet, the desire for freedom as compared to the false security government offers still stirs the human heart and always will. Movies such Brave Heart and books such as the Gulag Archipelago never cease to move us, liberty being one of the foundations of natural law and our God given lives. We must not wallow in self-pity but, rather, rise to the opportunity presented. This means fighting back in several ways. We must take the offensive to call for a broad-based real reduction in the size and reach of government at all levels. More to the point, we must advocate a replacement of government with individual responsibility. We cannot win by only calling for repeal or rollback. We must also propose a different way, one history has repeatedly told us works, that of self-governance.

This means taking several courses simultaneously. We must, first of all, take the initiative away from our opponents and put them on the defensive. The best way to do this is to go to the states and get 38 or more of them to follow the examples of Texas and Virginia, both of whom have passed laws to challenge the Federal government's authority with respect to health care mandates and assert their own under the 10th Amendment. This requires challenging our existing and would-be state officeholders to tell us where they stand. We must demand they assert our rights through the states to stop the ever encroaching Federal takeover of every aspect of human life, from light bulbs to toilets to the health care insurance we must purchase. This will force a reckoning that is long overdue.

We must also find a way to bring back citizen legislatures. There are several ways to do this but none of them have worked well to date because they haven't caught the popular imagination. They have also have been too easily obstructed by the self-perpetuating political class. The best approach may be to call for the end of all pensions for elected public employees. Politicians as a class are reviled and this kind of measure would largely avoid the pro and con arguments over term limits and the worthiness of the "my representative versus the rest of them." A prohibition of pensions for elected officials would be challenged by politicians arguing it prevented public service by less wealthy individuals, but that argument will not resonate when the facts show most are already wealthy and enjoy absurdly generous pensions. Also, there is no way for an individual politician to make the argument for his pension without sounding whiney. A campaign for this kind of measure would have popular appeal and force the politicians to the wall regardless of the final outcome. It is a classic offensive battle strategy and should be pursued.

Thirdly, we must engage in the kind of guerilla warfare our opponents have used by becoming active in every way we can with the goal of undermining the left at every turn. This means we must, as citizens, write letters to the editor, hold demonstrations and otherwise expose the sinister nature of leftist philosophies whenever we have the opportunity to do so. We cannot stand back and say nothing or merely grumble to friends. It is not enough. We must demand those elected representatives who are supposedly on our side demonstrate it. We must demand they do nothing less than fight every appointment to every new position in the health care bureaucracy, fight every appropriation of money to fund the new programs and fight every new regulation that comes from this initiative. We need, in other words, to fight this exactly the way our opponents have fought us. We cannot allow our friends to play ball with the enemy or give respect to our enemies when they give none in return. Unfortunately, far too many on our side have done that for far too long under the banner of civility. It has brought us only defeat. We are now in the trenches and hand to hand battle is required, not giving so much as an inch.

Finally, of course, we need to win in November and win so conclusively our opponents are scared to death and vote to preserve themselves for a battle another day by voting for repeal of this legislation in numbers sufficient to override a veto. This is unlikely, to be sure, but a combination of a big win, with many states challenging the authority of the Feds at the same time and a few seniors beating a few Congressman with their canes like they did many years ago could easily be enough to get the job done. Even if it doesn't work exactly as intended it will send a strong message to the Supreme Court, which is more political than it would like to admit, and yield a victory there. This is what me must seek and we must do it with every ounce of energy we can spare and every dollar we can muster.

Keep Out the Keepers

2010-03-09T13:26:00.006-05:00

There has, in recent years, been an explosion in the number of "Riverkeepers," "Mountainkeepers" and sundry other self-appointed demagogues who have arrogated to themselves a supposed responsibility to protect the playgrounds of the rich and famous from the people who actually live in those places. This article is a perfect illustration of how they gather untoward influence. Several "keepers," none of whom have any official authority are quoted as if they exuded it and their opinions were sacrosanct, while the one party with authority, the MDE, is reduced to having to defend "putting science first." The "keepers," by contrast, suggest MDE seeks to "strike a balance between the polluter and protection," as if these were the only two choices and nothing other than environmental protection were important. To do so, of course, is to say no balancing at all is needed. While this is, of course, the view of all absolutists, it is hardly fair and surely not the basis of sound policy. Rather, it is the language of totalitarians. We need to keep the keepers out of our public policy debates.

Fishing for Power

2010-03-09T09:09:00.004-05:00

Power hungry utopians are now focusing their attention on fishing. This article provides the latest evidence of just how far-reaching the environmental special interest agenda extends. They aim to control every aspect of our lives and exclude any considerations but their own from all decision making. Worse, their own considerations are based not on science or facts but, rather, feelings, prejudices and, especially, a complete confidence in the superiority of their own consciences, which they seek to forcefully substitute for those of everyone else through the power of government coercion. This is anything but sound planning or responsible governing. It is, instead, simply more evidence of a soft despotism into which we are rapidly descending until we grab back the reins and limit government, once again, to its essential functions.

Government Taxies Out of Control

2009-10-03T06:31:00.007-04:00

One of the realities of dealing with government is that laws designed to regulate one activity or another in the public interest are invariably twisted at some point to protect the regulated, typically at the expense of the those who counted on the regulation to protect them.

No better example is provided than that of Quincy, Illinois, detailed in this story. The story speaks for itself, but illustrates what happens when politicians and bureaucrats decide their election or appointment invests them with the superior wisdom to regulate all aspects of life and not merely those to which a regulation is directed. The law loses all sight of itself and becomes the tool of those it was intended to control.

It is an all too common problem. Once we gain the reigns of any power we are inclined to use it to impose our own visions of fairness and justice. The intent of the law goes out the window and we become obsessed with arbitrating the activities and needs of others. This is why I always advise my local government clients who are writing zoning laws to ask themselves, for every provision they draft, why are they doing this and what is their public purpose. It is amazing how often that leads them to conclude they don't need it. If only...

Health Care Reform or Government Reform? The Answer Is Obvious!

2009-09-12T10:10:00.002-04:00

America is in deep trouble. We have an out-of-control Federal government that is broke, yet arrogantly proposes to take over, in the name of reform, the most successful health care system in the world, on the preposterous theory that more government will solve the problems government has created.

Every single major problem with our health care is attributable to governmental interference, but we are asked to believe the unbelievable, that government can make it all better with reforms of industry, more bureaucracy and public options.

Reform cannot be imposed on others. It is a change of heart, a self-correction. We don’t need health care reform or insurance reform imposed by government. We desperately need government reform. We have a glorious opportunity before us to achieve it, if we but put forth the ideas.

That is what we must do to preserve our freedoms. Let us turn the tables on Leviathan and strike a sword for liberty, under law, by taking the initiative, by demanding reforms of government that reduce its interference in health care and open the doors to competition and innovation.

It is government that has made health insurance expensive. Legislators in many states have insidiously enriched their own political fortunes by imposing mandates on insurance companies to cover every conceivable item regardless of needs or demands. A few Northeast States have also required community rating and guaranteed issuance of policies, raising costs by 500-700% in some instances.

Each of these mandates effectively enslaves one individual to pay for the health care of another, eliminating all incentives to live healthier lifestyles or control costs. Our legislators have pretended to be giving us something for nothing, while dramatically escalating costs of insurance and driving out competition.

A 5th grader can understand why this is a dumb idea. It is only our own failure to demand accountability from politicians that has allowed it to happen. The result, unsurprisingly, is that policies in some states cost 3-4 times what they cost in others.

Moreover, many insurance companies, including my own, have left places like New Jersey and New York, depriving their consumers of choices. But, the politicians don’t care. They just want the power to dispense favors to us at our cost.

We must end this. We can do it by applying the legitimate power of the Federal government to promote interstate commerce and allow every American to buy their insurance from whatever state or company they’d like.

If its reform the Federal government wants, then use it to reduce the costs of government. Allow Americans to buy health insurance from anywhere the same way they buy car insurance.

It’s not hard. End the death grip of government on the insurance market and let freedom ring. Empower consumers to lower their health care costs by their own free choices. It’s the American way. Just imagine what could be achieved if we reformed government. It’s time we demanded it!

And, while we’re at, it let’s demand tort reform, which has lowered costs and attracted doctors everywhere it has been tried. Let’s tell Congress to create incentives to increase the use of Medical Savings Accounts that encourage Americans to take more responsibility for their own health care and receive the rewards of doing so. The legislation currently proposed would attempt to destroy both them and Medicare Advantage when it should be doing exactly the opposite.

Let’s help people with pre-existing conditions by targeting our Federal help to reinsuring of insurance companies that take on these high-risk cases.

Let’s allow individuals to take their insurance with them from job to job and state to state so they don’t lose it. Let’s end the cost shifting by privatizing more of Medicaid and Medicare for future recipients.

Let’s allow insurance pooling for small businesses, the self-employed and others so all individuals can benefit from the economies of scale currently available through employer coverage.

Every American should be free to purchase the health coverage of their choice without tax penalty. We should offer refundable tax credits for insurance so every American can participate in the market, not just those covered by employers.

If we make it easier for Americans to buy individual health insurance of their choice without tax penalty we will, overnight, introduce personal responsibility into the health care system and lower the costs for everyone, while preserving quality of care and the innovation that only our system delivers, and on which the rest of the world depends.

This what we must demand of our government, to get out of the way and let the free market work under laws that ensure competition.

Unfortunately, the plans being proposed in Washington are headed in the other direction. They propose a public option akin to taking over Coke and letting it write the rules and set the prices for Pepsi.

Only a fool would think this will do anything other than reduce competition, increase mandates and drive everyone into government health care. Indeed, that is the stated goal of honest proponents of the legislation now before Congress. It is merely one step toward a single-payer health care system … except that it won’t quite be single-payer.

No, Congress would have its own system because it immorally exempts itself from this legislation. That is precisely why we know its bad for us and should be opposed with every fiber of our being. Instead, let us proceed under the banner of freedom. The solution to health care is less government. Let’s slay Leviathan.

Get Your Hands Off My Health Care

2009-08-18T14:10:00.002-04:00

I’m tired of hearing “health care has to be fixed.” This endlessly repeated line encompasses two falsehoods; first, that our health care system is broken and, secondly, that government can fix it.

The system is flawed and can be improved, but the Canadians who regularly come here to get what they cannot get at home, the best health care in the world, prove our system is far from broken. Indeed, 89% of Americans say they satisfied with their own personal medical care as do the majority of even those without insurance.

Moreover, when every problem this system faces can be attributed to government distortion of the market, it’s a safe bet more government will only make it worse. The problem is not health care but government health care. The reform we need is less government and more private market competition.

I have read the House health care bill, all 1,018 pages of it. I have also reviewed the Senate bill. They are a disaster; two massive attempts at fanatic social planning with no redeemable value. Both should be discarded so we can start over with real solutions.

The President would have us believe he wants respectful debate and then proceeds to assert doctors would downplay diabetes treatment to generate fees for amputations. He claims fears of rationing are unwarranted while he tells us some older people would be better off taking a pain pill than getting surgery. He relentlessly pursues the takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy while the economy itself is reeling from other problems. He seeks more and more personal power to pursue what can only be described as a radical agenda. His actions are those of a juvenile and Congress needs to reign him in.

There are innumerable problems with the House bill. They begin with the mockery the 5-year limit on the life of existing plans makes of the President’s claim we can keep health insurance we like. There are also the 40 pages of the bill devoted to promoting advanced directives for end of life care and associated research, clear signals of future rationing. Moreover, doctors and hospitals are reimbursed by the degree to which they promote these programs and avoid re-admissions of patients.

The bill creates an economic squeeze on providers to encourage acceptance of death over life. The Orwellian “Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research” is an exercise in utilitarianism, where our right to health care will ultimately be decided on a cost/benefit analysis that measures how many years of useful life we have left. It’s happening now in Europe and in states like Oregon that push assisted suicide in place of treatment for terminally ill patients. The bill also would fund abortions through the back door. That’s why proponents refuse to amend to say it will not.

Nevertheless, these issues, critical though they may be, are not the fundamental problem with this legislation. What is really at stake is my right to decide my own health care. Nothing could be more personal or foundational as a matter of civil liberties.

Yet, this bill would ultimately give the government to decide, based on nationalized electronic records, whether I am “eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility.” The word “shall” appears 1,683 times in this legislation. Over and over again it identifies “stakeholders” in my health care, code for letting others have something to say about my health care. Why are we even considering such a massive intrusion into the lives of Americans? Where is the Constitutional authority for my government to mandate how I provide for my health care? There is none.

The political class is simply asserting power it doesn’t have. It is coercing Americans out of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the name of cost control. Yet, it is government and two Federal programs in particular that have made costs an issue.

Medicare’s unfunded liabilities now exceed $50 trillion and Medicaid obligations are overwhelming our states. Medicare spending per patient has risen one-third faster than other health care spending, while also forcing the shifting of costs to the privately insured.

This distortion of the marketplace is entirely the fault of a government that knows no bounds in its lust for power. Trusting it to solve the problem it created would be insanity. Letting it indulge its appetite in a mad rush to claim every scrap of liberty left on the table, at a time when we face such serious economic and security issues, would be stark raving lunacy.

This is why Americans are upset. We’ve had more than enough government overreaching in the last year with takeovers of banks and auto companies, out of control spending and massive regulation in a quest to control non-existent global warming.

If Congress wants to help, then start backing government out of health care by ending state mandates that needlessly drive up the cost of health insurance and keep people from buying what they need. Introduce more competition by privatizing elements of the Federal system. Promote Medical Savings Accounts, which have allowed me to reduce my premiums by two-thirds. We must put more personal responsibility for health care back into the system.

Instead, this legislation goes in precisely the opposite direction. It will magnify our government health care problems. Americans instinctively know this from experience. This is why they have risen up in opposition. They know a bill that doesn’t mention “tort reform” even once isn’t serious about controlling costs.

Rather, it’s about growing government and enhancing the power of the political class, those elites who like to think we are misinformed because we don’t accept their philosophy or want their help. Americans also know any legislation Congress exempts itself from can’t be good for them.

Living French

2009-07-10T08:12:00.005-04:00

... the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations - complicated, minute, and uniform - through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting on one's own; it does not destroy; it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way, it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

These are the words of Tocqueville, a Frenchman who became America's most famous chronicler. He offered these words as a description of French society both before and after its revolution, describing America as a different type of country where he hoped this fate might be avoided; where the spirit of liberty, individualism and self-reliance would keep the authoritarian streak in man at bay. Unfortunately, we have softened and now we face the kind of soft tyranny that must be turned back if we are to avoid the hard kind.

We have obsessed on regulating everything, thereby slowly curtailing, enervating and extinguishing the entrepreneurial culture that has made us great. We pretend we can compensate and correct for this self-destructive behavior by promoting affordable housing, while simultaneously raising the cost of it by requiring absurdly large minimum lot sizes. We subsidize economic development while smothering it with environmental mandates that know no bounds and are subject to no tests of reasonableness. We promote smart growth while throwing up every obstacle to any growth. We admonish the landowner to exercise care of his land and the species that inhabit it while depriving him of every right to use it, thereby encouraging the destruction of that which seek to protect. We promote the saving of farmland while restricting the farmer with what he can do to raise the capital and produce the income needed to sustain it.

We have, in short, lost all sense of balance. We have become stupified, as Tocqueville predicted; ourselves no more than "herds of timid and industrious animals" on the same order as those we regulate. It's time for a new direction. We need to throw off unnecessary regulations and restore the power of regulation to the lowest levels of government where it can be done with the modesty, reasonableness and balance demanded of all law. We need to change our focus from expanding the scope of land use regulation to streamlining it and stripping it down to the essentials; from what the gentry desires, to what the common man requires to protect his rights and his liberty under the law. We have the tools of science and information to equip the least of governments, the ones closest to the people with the power to regulate themselves. Let's stop building up higher and higher levels of regulation and go precisely in the opposite way; toward self-government and individual liberty. It's the American way and it's superior to anything the French have ever done, with the possible exception of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

Wayne County Flag Day Rally

2009-06-13T09:51:00.001-04:00

“Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.” Ronald Reagan said it in 1981, but 28 years later this wisdom is lost on us. We have instead bought into the oldest and most elegant of lies, that letting some men decide everything improves on every man deciding for himself.

While some might call it new or reform, it’s the same tired old idea of substituting politics for capitalism, privileges for rights, tyranny for liberty and serfdom for self-reliance. It’s never worked, but the idea men can create a perfect world, if we just put the right men in charge, is a powerful lure.

This awful idea raises its head every few generations as memories of collectivism and its enticing falsehoods fade. We have already largely forgotten the totalitarian nightmares of the 20th Century – all built on the principle of the “common good before individual good.”

Someone says “save the planet” and, without thinking, we reply “why not,” implicitly buying into schemes to control where we work, how we live and what we can buy.

We ignore the utter incompetency of government and all the previous schemes that collapsed of their own weight, taking for granted the free market that has created a quality of life unmatched in the history of the world.

We imagine it’s possible to control anything and everything, even the sun, to improve on the heavens.

We let ourselves be lured by the promise of free health care without bothering to ask why Canadians, who have it, come here for health care when their lives are at stake. We blind ourselves to the implications of Oregon’s refusal to fund end-of-life care combined with its offer of free help with assisted suicide.

We are oblivious to the price of free health care, the loss of the greatest of our civil liberties, the right to make one’s own health care decisions and to keep private the most private of all personal information, one’s medical records.

And, so we are confronted with a government determined to control every aspect of our lives even though it’s made a mess of everything it’s tried. What are we do?

The answer will not be found in more efficient government, nor from some new leader or different brand of leadership. It will only come from us saying “NO MORE.”

If we don’t want politicians coercing money from us to throw back at us as programs for which they take credit, we must stop rewarding them with thanks them for bringing home the grants. We want nothing to do with their self-serving redistribution of the fruits of our labor. We want them to leave our money with us. We can spend it better than any bureaucracy. Imagine what would happen if, the next time a politician came here to hand over a check we simply spoke up and said “Do you think I don’t what you’re doing?”

We must also stop playing defense. We’re not interested in making government work better. We want less of it. Less government IS better government. We want politicians to slash public employment, stop regulating our light bulbs, get out of the mortgage business and obliterate every other non-essential program.

We don’t want them to restrain the cost of government. We want them to cut it back as we must do. We want them to lay off staff, reduce services and repeal codes, letting freedom ring.

We believe in individual choice, not policy. We want rationing of government, not health care. We’re tired of politicians pretending they’re helping us by imposing insurance mandates that raise the cost of health care and create the excuse for more of their meddling.

We’ll decide what we need and what we’ll buy. We want politicians to get their hands off our health care, out of our pockets and away from our children.

We don’t want guaranteed services – we want the individual liberties our Constitution guarantees – guarantees that have made America the best place on Earth.

We must tell our leaders government isn’t a public good, it’s a necessary evil and their job is to do as little of it as possible. If they say they can’t do it, they’ve been there too long, which brings me to my final point.

What makes a politician think they’re a public servant when they’ve made government their career? Let’s end that charade. Public service is my neighbor giving his time to his church or fire company or serving on a volunteer board. It’s not the self-aggrandizement of some Congressman or Senator.

We must put the governing class genie back in the bottle and return to the ideal of the citizen legislator. Term limits are essential. But, we’re only going to get them if we demand them individually from our friends and foes alike.

We must, from time to time, tell every elected State and Federal official; “your time is up, now go.” Given what’s been happening over the last year, the time is now up for a lot of them.

If we cannot do this, we deserve the government we get. This is our challenge and what it will take to restore power to the common man. So go forth, speak up and say “NO MORE!” Tell everyone you meet, especially your elected officials; “government isn’t the solution to the problem, it IS the problem.”

The Anthropovore

2009-05-14T08:45:00.004-04:00

The San Joaquin Valley is an area of California where I have done work. It is one of the breadbaskets of the world and quite beautiful but suffers from a number of economic problems, including high unemployment and low incomes. The people who occupy this region are hard-working and community spirited in every way. It's sad to see how out-of-control enviro-marxists are now destroying them and their region, putting smelt (a non-indigenous species no less) before people. See this link. But, then again, isn't that exactly what today's absurdly high stream anti-degradation standards do? And, what about those mindless Indiana Bat and Bog Turtle study requirements on land only suspected of being potential habitat for these species? Unfortunately, we have created a new species – the anthropovore, a green monster with an insatiable appetite for power and natural antipathy to man. We have fed it with the power to sue on behalf of us and it now wants to consume us. One might say it's a process of natural selection, but that would be wrong. It's really a pathological and unnatural self-hatred that we must squelch before the anthropovore consigns us all to oblivion.

Parking in Your Driveway, No Laughing Matter

2009-04-25T17:23:00.003-04:00

A few years ago Candid Camera or one its imitators did a segment where, for laughs, individuals were ticketed for parking in ther own driveways. But, it's no longer a laughing matter as this story makes clear. This tale indicates how easily we can be led into the false presumption we own what we regulate. Then again, all regulation is, indeed, a taking of value. This illustrates why it so essential all regulation be limited to what is necessary and not simply what is desired. The failure to appreciate this fundamental principle leads to more and more intrusion into the lives of the regulated and finally the false conclusion by regulators that it's our property and we can do what we damn well please with it, precisely the opposite of the truth, turning the law on its head and making what was laughable a cruel reality.

Wayne County Tax Day Tea Party

2009-04-15T14:17:00.000-04:00

Today, we reclaim America. The strength of this nation is its reliance on the common man and his consent to be governed under known rules applicable to all. Unfortunately, this consent is rapidly being gutted by governing elites at the Federal level who view the common man with condescension. This new aristocracy isn’t much interested in how we, the fly-over people, think. It speaks for us. Today, we rise to speak for ourselves.

The economist Milton Friedman said “the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem” and “if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.” He understood the importance of freedom and how easily it could be lost when man’s conceit took over, when some men assumed they could improve on freedom by imposing their own designer solutions. The history of man is one of repeated attempts by some to organize society around themselves at the expense of liberty. Each has ended in disaster. This time will be no different if we do not step forward, as the governed, to say “enough.”

Many suggest we are victims of financial greed, but such greed has always been with us. The solution is capitalism, which punishes greed with failure. The greed to fear is the greed for power. We have thrown out our Constitution and given unprecedented power to unelected officials to spend not only everything we have, but everything our children and grandchildren can ever hope to have, on winners picked by Washington elites.

The U.S. government and Federal Reserve have, without authority, spent $12.8 trillion dollars we don’t have. We can’t even hope to borrow it if the Chinese won’t buy our bonds. That’s $103,000 per household. It’s over 90% of the entire value of every single thing this country will produce this year. We don’t know how they’re spending the money, but we’re assured it’s necessary by those doing it in our name. Worse, we’ll never know just where the money went because the Federal Reserve, the mother of all banks, is not even subject to an audit. But, of course, that’s the way Washington works - accountability for us, power for them.

We are also dealing with a national debt of $9 trillion or $72,000 per household before we started bailouts. And, this is not all. We have $46 trillion of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Federal pension liabilities, some $371,000 of additional debt. And, they now want to take over health care and fund control of non-existent global warming at a minimum cost of another $1.3 trillion or $10,000 per household annually. Add it up. We now owe $556,000 per household. Soon we’ll all be millionaire debtors. It’s one gigantic pyramid scheme, like Bernie Madoff’s, except he talked people out of their money - the government just takes it.

Unfortunately, Federal greed isn’t limited to taking our money and spending it on someone’s else’s priorities. It’s already telling us what light bulbs to use, who gets a mortgage, how much we can earn and what we can say before an election. It plans to tell us where to live, how much we can travel, where to set the thermostat, what car we can buy, what we can do for a living, what radio we can listen to and what we can teach. It hopes to control our medicine and, when we’re seriously ill, decide whether we live or die. All this is in our name. No one’s asking our permission – they know we won’t approve. We are treated like someone’s flock of nameless, hapless hens.

We face an ever-growing Federal government knowing no bounds. Our Constitution has been turned inside out, from a guarantee of individual liberties into a mandate to control our every activity. We must take it back. We must go on offense. We’re told not to complain unless we offer a better program. I don’t want better programs, I want fewer of them. I want the government to be backed off, forced down and shrunk to its proper size. Let’s get back to Jefferson’s principle - the government that governs least governs best.

We need a balanced budget amendment, limits on taxation, rights of recall, audit of the Federal Reserve, 10th Amendment sovereignty, sunset legislation for all Federal programs and an end to these hideous bailouts. Most of all, we need to squelch the idea public service is getting yourself a lifetime job as a politician. We need to revoke our consent and restore a citizen legislature by forcing term limits on Congress and judges. Let’s issue pink slips in Washington, cut the pay of those we keep and send them home to work. Let us say to our governing elites - you have failed, now go. If we have not the will to do so, we will lose this country. We’re too great a nation for that. If America is lost, all is lost. Let’s not lose her.

The Absurdity of Sustainability

2009-03-28T09:48:00.003-04:00

Two recent articles in the international press demonstrate the absurdity of the entire "sustainable development" theory. One is an article in the UK's Sunday Times suggesting the United Kingdom

"must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society."

The advocate in this case is a science advisor to Prime Minster Gordon Brown's administration who also thinks

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

The second article, published in USA Today, notes

... birthrates (are) falling below the levels needed to avoid long-term, and in many instances, short-term, population loss ... Fertility remains high in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is falling there, too, even as infants and children die by the millions. In Sierra Leone, for example, the average woman bears more than five children, but nearly one in six die before reaching age 5 and fewer yet make it to reproductive age. Remaining increases in world population depend critically on reduced mortality in sub-Saharan Africa ... The U.N. projects that world population could begin declining as early 2040.

Those worried about global warming and other environmental threats might view this prospect as an unmitigated good. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates ... Under what the U.N. considers the most likely scenario, more than half of all remaining growth comes from a 1.2 billion increase in the number of old people, while the worldwide supply of children will begin falling within 15 years. With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall. In the USA, where nearly one-fifth of Baby Boomers never had children, the hardship of vanishing retirement savings will be compounded by the strains on both formal and informal care-giving networks caused by the spread of childlessness ... China, with its one-family-one-child policy, is on a similar course, becoming a 4-2-1 society in which each child supports two parents and four grandparents

Where does it end? Demographers once believed that only as countries grew rich would their birthrates decline. And few imagined until recently that birthrates would ever remain below replacement levels indefinitely. To suppose the opposite is to presuppose extinction. Yet we see sub-replacement fertility remaining entrenched among rich countries for more than two generations and now spreading throughout the developing world as well ... As the number of women of reproductive age falls in country after country, world population is acquiring negative momentum and thus could decline even if birthrates eventually turn up. Societies around the globe need to ask why they are engaging in what biologists would surely recognize in any other species as maladaptive behavior leading either to extinction, or dramatic mutation.

Environmental extremists suggest the plants and animals should have dominion over man. They define sustainability as the ability of the Earth to survive, as opposed to man. They view man as the threat and suppose less development, less labor and less wealth would somehow make it all better. Like Malthus they live in a world of supposedly limited resources where fewer people means less sharing and, therefore, more for all. They operate from a profoundly myopic and selfish perspective where sustainability is merely a form of hoarding.

Malthus lived along enough to see the error of his ways but extreme environmentalists never get it. Still, as the USA Today article demonstrates, truth has a way of always outing itself. The reality of a world without growth and without children will slowly descend upon us all whether we accept it or not. There will be no one to work to pay the bills, no one to preserve the endangered species and no one to hear the cries of the old as they are abandoned by a shrinking younger stock unable to care for them all. There will, in short, be no one to sustain mankind, but the Earth, of course, will go on. That will be just fine by the extremists, who worship the physical and deny both the human and the spiritual.

For the rest of us, sustainability is a foolish concept. Man not only has enormous capabilities but has also enriched the Earth by his existence on it. His labor has transformed it and made it habitable. His labor has also created the wealth that is slowly but surely eliminating poverty. He has done so with the only true resource that exists - human labor. An iron rock is only a rock until a man comes along and makes it into steel that becomes a million different products. It is the same labor that learns how to grow more and more food from less and less land and finds cures for diseases. It is the same labor that is now able to reduce storm water flows (and, therefore, pollution) from development to levels below even nature. Man is the resource and his well-being must be the objective. Growth and the further division of labor is what makes everything good possible. Sustainability is a false choice. Man must advance and mankind must grow, not shrink, if we are to enjoy anything resembling the quality of life we now enjoy. Standing still is not an option.

Fire or Ice

2009-03-21T08:27:00.004-04:00

It is said education is what teaches a man to listen to eloquence and discern what he has just heard is, nonetheless, wrong. Al Gore has been preaching global warming now for decades even as temperatures have begun to decline. He makes an eloquent case indeed, but it is all for naught to anyone willing to look at the facts and think for himself. This excellent video (a little over 8 minutes in length) gives Gore his opportunity and then presents the other side, simply and neatly. I encourage everyone to watch.

Stop the World - We Need A Plan!

2009-02-28T14:07:00.001-05:00

There is a madness that has descended upon planning in this country and it goes by the name of moratorium. Community after community has been torn asunder by the notion it can stop the world to write a plan that, well, stops the world. Though usually well-intended by local officials who adopt them, moratoriums are the latest tool of those who would have no change, the defenders of the status quo who want the world for themselves. Moratoriums, indeed, are no more than reactionary measures that can only be described as anti-planning. They are a dragon that will consume all planning and destroy it as a rational process if we don’t put a moratorium on moratoriums.

One might ask why it is moratoriums are almost always employed in communities with long histories of planning and zoning. This pre-supposes a failure of planning that raises other questions. If planning failed before, why should we expect different results now? Is it really a failure of planning or simply a change in the goals of those in charge? If it’s the latter, then what assurance is there the plan won’t change with every election? If plans change with every election, how is planning any different than politics? Is the price of poor planning to be paid by landowners who propose to comply with it? How do landowners comply if the goals keep changing and the plans are no more than the latest land use platform of some politician? Moratoriums, once ventured upon, quickly become a slippery slope down into a world where planning is no more than slick imagery used to portray the exercise of raw political power.

Moratoriums Are Reactionary Attempts to Close the Gates of Paradise

Moratoriums are, in a word, reactionary. Planning is thoughtful. Planning is a process intended to involve, as much as possible, the entire community, with a prerequisite being no predetermined ends. Moratoriums, by contrast, are entirely driven by predetermined ends, their very enactment always being in response to perceived threats from some form of development that would actually implement the current plan, a plan a majority of the community has suddenly decided it no longer likes and wants to stop. If there be any doubt, consider that moratoriums never lead to higher density or make it easier to grow. Rather, they are specifically designed to do the opposite. They are tools of anti-growth forces determined to forestall change.

The constituency for change is always tiny compared to the power and economic interests of those who like things as they are. After all, who benefits more than me if my neighbor is unable to develop his land? There are always more neighbors than proponents. Sincere local officials all too often succumb, for this reason, to the temptation to first stop everything when what they should be doing is planning. The winners are the “haves” who want things as they are. The losers are the few voters who own land and those faceless, nameless, voteless future residents who might want to move to the community - the “have nots.” Planning becomes the excuse for what is anything but planning. It becomes the facade for a raw power grab by those wanting to close the gates to their new found Paradise behind them. Hence, the language of “preservation” that always accompanies these efforts.

Planning Emergency or Simply An Excuse for War?

None of this to suggest improper motives on the part of local officials. No community should have to throw itself open to any form of development. Conserving what is good about a community while it grows is a worthy objective and arguably necessary to maintaining culture and values. Many, perhaps even most, local officials are driven by such considerations. Unfortunately, moratoriums eliminate any possibility of achieving the balance so essential to this planning. They instead exacerbate the conflicts by creating two camps - one of those landowners severely impacted and one of those existing residents tremendously benefiting by the sudden halt of development. The result is a pressure cooker environment where rational decision making is next to impossible given the special interests now involved and the very large stake each has in the outcome of the moratorium. Well meaning local leaders are dragged against their will into a hot cauldron of controversy where only the votes count, compromise having become impossible.

Yet, it’s all so completely unnecessary. The very concept of a “planning emergency” that undergirds the law allowing for moratoriums is silly. Emergencies don’t require two years of planning. Rather, they demand action. A zoning amendment can be done almost as rapidly as a moratorium but communities determined to slow growth seldom choose this option for one very important reason – moratoriums avoid the burden of proof and the environmental analysis that must go into zoning changes. They are a quick and dirty way to kill projects that, although they comply with existing zoning, don’t enjoy popular support. Time is money and the ability to simply say no for two years ends many a project with no tests required on the part of the community doing the dirty work. Some communities have done repeat moratoriums less than a year apart – a complete abuse of the system.

There is simply no such thing as a planning emergency if one is honest about it. State law imposes so many additional planning requirements above and beyond zoning that any project can be slowed or stopped if there is good cause using environmental statutes. Additionally, planning statutes in some states, New York being a prime example, offer virtually no vested rights in development approvals unless an applicant has expended significant sums of money in construction. Planning and engineering don’t count and only a very foolish applicant will rely upon such approvals when new laws are pending. Moratoriums are, therefore, completely superfluous from the standpoint of legitimate planning. Their only value is to an illicit form of planning intended to stop projects cold while permanent measures to kill projects are put in place. They are the tools of demagogic NIMBY’s and special interests who do not want to be burdened with the need to prove their case.

Stealing Savings and Retirements

Moratoriums are also unfair on another level. Equity in land can only be effectively recovered with a fair return on investment when markets are at their peak. Peaks don’t last. Landowners who may have owned their properties for decades and now need to cash in the equity for retirement have a limited window of opportunity every real estate cycle to do. This window, unfortunately for them, is exactly the time when communities are most often tempted to slam it shut with moratoriums. Moratoriums, therefore, don’t just foreclose the ability to sell for two years – they take away the value at precisely the point where landowners can come out whole. For farmers and others whose savings are invested in the land they own, this clearly constitutes a taking. Worse, it is an unchallengeable form of taking, there being neither a condemnation process to assure fair value nor a zoning process to assure balance through a burden of proof. Moratoriums make it possible to literally steal the savings and retirement funds of those who worked the land so long to create the environment so appealing to those doing the stealing.

Moratoriums are, too, counterproductive. They are anti-planning. Planning is by nature long-term thinking and cannot be produced in a vacuum where all life is first sucked out of a community for a prescribed period. Moreover, one cannot be thoughtful in an environment where two camps of special interests have been sent to battle over your work. The very availability of moratoria also discourages planning ahead. No community thinking it can stop what it doesn’t like at any time with a simple moratorium has any incentive to plan ahead. Politics is the art of procrastination and risk avoidance. There is, to the politician who knows no better from experience, seemingly no easier way to punt zoning issues down the field than a moratorium. It gets an angry public of “last man in, close the door” types off his or her back and delays the day of reckoning. Why plan ahead and take the risks of a zoning process when such a tool is available when needed? But, again, this is anything but planning.

Ending the Madness - Slaying the Dragon

What can done? First, eliminate the moratorium madness by taking away the authority to enact them. They are completely unjustified and a disincentive to planning on every level. They have no place in a fair planning and zoning process. This demands legislative changes in the case of New York State or a court decision finally recognizing the great harm moratoriums are doing to planning. Some recent decisions suggest judicial patience with communities who are abusing their authority to routinely extend and repeat moratoriums is growing thin. One can hope, therefore, some court will soon finally do what so urgently needs to be done by slaying the moratorium dragon.

Secondly, communities ought to think about adopting “pending law” rules that eliminate threats from developers trying to beat the enactment of new zoning rules. Pennsylvania, for example, has long had a “pending ordinance doctrine” that effectively applies new zoning standards from the moment they are formally proposed and before they are adopted. New York State communities could conceivably do this under Municipal Home Rule Authority, much the same as they do with respect to advertising of new laws and ordinances that would otherwise require publication in full. Such a local law might, for example, simply provide “the standards of any local law or ordinance hereafter enacted to amend existing subdivision and zoning statutes of the Town of Anytown shall apply from the date of the first advertisement of a public hearing on the same.” This would provide an effective alternative to the blunt force moratorium device and while providing an incentive to get at the job of community planning sooner rather than later.

It’s the Law Stupid!

A longer term solution is to require local planning and put the burden on communities to keep up with change. Those who don’t plan must live with their failure and adapt - the best possible incentive for planning. Every community with zoning should be required to have a comprehensive plan that is updated no less than every 10 years. Combined with a requirement that all zoning be based upon a comprehensive plan, this would eliminate any need for a moratorium. It would be a self-enforcing mechanism. Communities who failed to plan ahead would find their zoning subject to successful challenges. There would be no excuse for not planning ahead. Fairness and deliberation would be restored to a process demeaned by the moratorium.

Finally, there must be a corollary system of vested rights that makes sense and creates a level playing field for landowners. New York State’s system is absurd and creates perverse incentives for landowners to avoid planning ahead, just as it does for communities. Unlike other states where preliminary approvals allow reasonable periods (e.g., five years in Pennsylvania) for a landowner to develop his or her own property, New York State only gives six months and accords almost no value even to a final approval if the landowner has not completed major portions of the project. Landowners are, therefore, encouraged to hold back from slowly developing their own properties and instead sell properties in bulk to developers who must then hurry up to get their projects completed, creating crisis conditions. A smart law would provide for five or more years of protection so planning and development could be done more slowly or properties resold with approvals and time to do it right. Now, the incentive is to go in for the quick kill - to sell properties to someone with the resources to make a quick buck. This is, once again, the opposite of good planning.

Will moratoriums finally be rejected in favor of planning ahead? One can only hope so. Mixing planning and democracy is, however, not easily done. It demands adherence first and foremost to the requirements of law and the obligation to protect the property rights of all, not just some. Unfortunately, democracy, while the best system of all, also embodies in itself the greatest threat to these rights. It is the “tyranny of the majority.” Jefferson said “the tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared.” Tocqueville, too, observed “if ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority.” When a legislature such as a Town Board enacts a moratorium that, by fiat, exerts the will of a majority desiring no change and casts aside property rights, rights to travel and the needs of future generations, it embarks on the course of tyranny. We must get back to the law and the principles of a Magna Carta that advanced the radical idea not even the King could arbitrarily take away the rights of landowners – they could only do themselves acting together, which is the very foundation of planning.

Meeting Management - Someone's Got To Do It

2009-02-28T13:44:00.003-05:00

It would be difficult, I suppose, to pick a poorer subject to grab a reader’s attention than an article on meeting management. Nevertheless, I’m going to plunge into this sea of boredom, this swamp (or should I, to be politically correct, say wetland) of tedium. Frankly, someone has to do it.

Who has not sat through a meeting that didn’t deserve the honor of such a description? We’ve all been there. We’ve all had to endure those interminable discussions that result in less than nothing because the chair had no idea how to direct the meeting and let it it be taken over by the participants. Those unable to be elected chairs themselves live for these opportunities. They finally get the stage and no one’s there to shut them down.

Let’s be honest - most meetings are a little that way. The bold dominate. If leadership doesn’t come from the chair, it arises from the crowd. If the crowd manages the meeting, there is no meeting, only a gathering that either disintegrates or turns into a mob. It is far better, under such circumstances, to have not met at all.

So what does one do to manage a meeting? It would be easy to say that meeting management, simply put, is leadership. If leaders but exercised it, we might have no need for this discussion. It’s not quite that simple though. The individuals chosen to chair meetings often end up there because no one else wanted the job. They may be natural born followers, but are selected to chair meetings because they’re available and have no particular enemies. Or, they may be merely the next person in line. Or, they may have been excellent participants who have no idea how to run a meeting. Or, perhaps they’re simply the hardest worker or largest contributor, but have no meeting management skills.

Given, the poor reasons why people with few, if any, meeting management skills so often end up chairing meetings, some practical advice is warranted. Unfortunately, little of it is to be found in professional circles. What I have learned I have gained by experiencing those deaths of a thousand cuts sitting through meetings that never really ended or dealing with hysterical audiences who viewed every exhibition of sound reasoning as a threat. You might, indeed, classify my advice, such as it is, as little more than street smarts. Nevertheless, I’ve learned some things along the way that you need to know. There are no excuses for bad meetings if you follow some simple rules.

Watch the clock and make sure others see you watching it.

The first thing I look for in a room where I’m expected to lead a meeting is the location of the clock. If your meeting place doesn’t have one, see if you can find one to use. Its important. A wristwatch may have to do but is a poor substitute for a wall clock that everyone can watch together. Put the clock somewhere where you can see it easily but have to turn your head a little to do so. Don’t worry if it’s a little fast - that’s a good thing.

A room without a clock is a home for endless discussion. All of us are our own favorite speakers, no matter how often, how forcefully or self-deceivingly we argue otherwise. Many meeting regulars are there for the entertainment and the social interaction. Others are actors. You can’t give them a stage without setting a time for intermission. They aren’t conscious of time. They’re having fun or are so emotionally involved they forget time and everything else.

You need to bring time back and restore it to its glory by watching the clock. Let meeting participants know you’re watching it. They need to understand time is very important to you. Those people who are attending the meeting out of necessity also need to know you recognize time is important to them. When you regularly turn your head to look at the clock you send a subtle but strong signal to all that the meeting will be timely.

You also provide yourself with an excuse to interrupt the chatter and remind everyone it is time to move along. They’ll all appreciate it, even those you rudely cut off. You will also establish yourself as the meeting manager, because nothing is more important to meeting management than good use of time.

Use an agenda and stay on it.

A piece of paper is a marvelous thing. A written meeting agenda serves to focus discussion. It provides a degree of formality that gives structure to an assembly. It serves as a distraction for the impatient meeting participants who are looking for something do while waiting to speak. They can be engaged in making notes, a harmless activity that, unlike some other things they might do, won’t disrupt your meeting. Most importantly, an agenda offers you the leverage you need to control events. “We need to resolve this item and move on, because there’s a lot on our agenda this evening. Would someone care to make a motion?”

Use the agenda to control the tempo of your meeting. Make sure it’s detailed enough to really guide discussion (6-8 items) but not so detailed that’s it’s overwhelming. Go over it at the beginning of the meeting and let everyone know what to expect out of the meeting. Establish a guaranteed adjournment time and put it on the agenda. Your attendees will smile cynically the first time you do it, but when they see you mean it, they’ll love you for it. That cynical smile will dissolve into an approving nod.

Herd those cats, but don’t be a dog.

Every meeting can take unexpected turns; hence the “herding cats” analogy we often here today. It is a rather accurate portrayal of what can happen, but responding in kind by chasing those cats all over the barn is more likely than not to lead to the dog’s unfortunate lesson of a painful scratch on the nose.

Somewhat better techniques are demanded if you want to avoid the pain. Let those cats meow a bit, but don’t be afraid to cut off extraneous discussion, summarize and move on. Use a gavel - it works! People respect the gavel, especially if you learn to use it sparingly and can really slam it when circumstances demand. No one expects it then. You can regain control of the meeting instantaneously. Simply having the gavel at hand to reach for is usually adequate to let a long-winded speaker know enough is enough, however. Learning when to reach, when to grab and when to slam is an art you’ll simply have to master with time. Just having a gavel on the table will help in the meantime. Try it!

You can also guide a meeting as chair, by calling on individuals who are holding back. Many do hold back, some out of meekness, others out of frustration and still others out of respect, but you need to bring them out into the discussion. You will learn, with experience, if you have not already, that intelligence is highly overrated by the intelligent. What’s really needed is wisdom. Every community and almost every group includes one or more sages who are hesitant to dominate discussion, but can always be called upon to offer such wisdom.

It’s not hard to identify the sages. They tend to sit in the middle of the room, usually try to encourage you with nods and facial expressions and often hold back speaking until they’ve heard others speak. Don’t confuse them with fence-riders, however. They are given to strong opinions, but are wise enough enough to wait for the right moment to express them. Call on these sages to get your meeting back on track. Defer to them when necessary. Most of all, remember the smartest person in the room is often the one who recognizes he’s not the most intelligent. He cleverly uses those who are more intelligent to make his points for him. If you can learn to recognize such sages and call on them judiciously, you’ll be the smartest person in the room and a good meeting manager.

Be fair, but don’t forget to lead.

A good meeting is fair to all who participate in it, but fairness doesn’t require consensus. Consensus can, indeed, be deceiving. It often confirms the lack of leadership. Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister known as the “Iron Lady” described consensus as “...abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies ... something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” Her point is well-taken. What is desired is not a consensus where everyone surrenders something to arrive a compromise straddling collective opinions, but agreement obtained after one side convinces the other of the rightness of their position. That some of this may occur on both sides of the argument is likely, but seeking the middle-ground as a goal in itself only frustrates the search for the truth. Far better it is that all opinions get aired and clear judgments made, than a group capitulate to the temptation to make everyone happy.

This can only work, however, if those whose opinions are not accepted realize they were heard. They must know that it was their own failure to convince that led to the defeat of their position. This is easier than it sounds. Being fair is not that difficult. Call on those who you know disagree with you. Acknowledge their points and even help articulate them if necessary. Treat everyone with the same respect. Avoid direct argument - it’s not your job as the meeting manager. Let others make the case while you clarify and illustrate where you can. Show your strength by admitting the weaknesses of your own arguments. Recognize the strengths of others where possible. But, never ever be afraid to express your own views in strong terms at the appropriate time, generally after others have first spoken. This is leadership - steady, strong and respectful of others.

Formality is necessary, but a laugh will often do as much good.

Some formality is required of any meeting. There must be respect for the process of the meeting if it is to be manageable and accomplish anything at all. It has nothing to do with respect for you as the meeting manager, as some might mistakenly believe. Rather, it’s all about maintaining the integrity of the institution. If no one believes in it, no one can be expected to accept the results. Therefore, some elemental rules are called for in running meetings where controversy and disagreement are expected.
Large public hearings and meetings can be particularly challenging, but I’ve found some simple guidelines accomplish wonders. First, let no one speak twice until everyone who wants to speak has spoken once. This will take the steam out of the impassioned actors and meeting dominators in the group.

Second, make participants come to the front of the room to speak. This tends to put manners on most (although not all) unruly people. No one wants to make a fool of themselves in front of an audience.

Third, get their name, where they are from and who they are representing. Many of the most cantankerous people at large meetings turn out to be “insurgents” from other areas who are merely there for the fun. Exposing them tends to unify those with legitimate interests.

Fourth, make everyone address the chair or the board - allow NO banter among participants. It is surprising how often otherwise good meeting managers let this happen, but it does happen. It can take place in a second unless quickly countered by an alert chairperson. Someone from the audience pops up with a question and the person speaking automatically wants to respond. Human beings have the innate bad habit of wanting to answer any question put to them. Good newspaper reporters understand this. You need to also, because it can lead to a heap of trouble in an instant. Audience banter is deadly. You must stop it immediately, from the very beginning, no matter how innocent. Tell your questioner that all questions go to the chair or board and don’t let your speaker answer until and unless you want her or him to do so. Stay in control and make heavy use of your gavel if required.

It’s useful, too, to summarize at the end of every major discussion to let everyone know they were heard. This encourages faith in your wisdom as the meeting manager. It discourages the temptation of others to jump in and take it over from you.
During the meeting use a modest amount of humor to keep the meeting enjoyable and deal with problem participants. A laugh will make everyone relax a bit. After all, a meeting is just a meeting and no more. It’s seldom a matter of life and death. Interjecting some humor reminds people of that and restores perspective.

This is why meeting management is the job of the chairperson and not advisors, staff or professionals. Those types will take over your meeting if you let them. I know because I am one. I also know, however, that it’s usually not a good idea, precisely because we approach these matters as a business or profession. We take ourselves way too seriously. Good meeting managers never do so. They recognize their limits, only call upon their advisors when necessary and aren’t afraid to laugh a little.

It is in that spirit I offer the view of G. K. Chesterton, another Englishman, who said "I've searched all the parks in all the cities and found no statues of committees.” Keep that observation in mind as you run every meeting. If you are smart enough to know the limits of a meeting, you will accomplish much. One might also bear in mind some of the best advice about dealing with others comes from still another Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, whose poem “If” says it all. You know it already. “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you...”

Population Poof

2008-12-25T20:44:00.005-05:00

Since the publication of Paul Erlich's Population Bomb in 1968, wherein he wrongly predicted all sorts of disasters from population growth, too many have come to view such growth as a negative. This has evolved into a distinctly anti-child attitude in many communities as residents have decried the supposed impacts on schools and taxes. The real story, however, is one of falling school-age population that is already resulting in school enrollment collapses. Moreover, it is the lack of population growth that is likely to produce tax increases as communities struggle to support existing school infrastructure.

Consider what's happening in one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. over the last two decades. Part of the Pocono Mountain region, Pike County, Pennsylvania was the nation's 36th fastest growing county in the 1990s, expanding its population by 65% over the decade. It had previously been described by American Demographics as a "suburb of the suburbs" based on its growth during the 1980's. Based on these growth patterns, the Census Bureau has now made it part of the New York City - Northern New Jersey Metropolitan Area. The Bureau's annual population estimates suggest population continued to grow through the 2000's and reached 58,600 persons as of 2007.

During the last three decades, as population growth seemed to overwhelm this small county, the impacts on schools were tremendous. All three school districts had to engage in major building programs as enrollments swelled. School taxes went up to pay the bills. School officials and the general public both became very fearful of growth and, as is customary in human nature, assumed what happened one day would also happen the next. They continue to proceed on that assumption today. The PoconoNews.Net reports "it is likely that school taxes will increase to accommodate new residential development." The new Pike County Comprehensive Plan documents school district enrollment increases of 25% to 41% between 1996 and 2006 for the County's three districts. The Plan also notes the Pennsylvania Department of Education projected average annual enrollment increases for these districts of 2.1% to 3.7% between 2005-2006 and 2014-2015. Everyone, in short, expects school enrollments to continue to shoot up, albeit at somewhat slower rates than previously.

The one certainty, however, is that no trend goes on forever. Indeed, it appears even rapidly growing Pike County may well be more threatened by school enrollment declines than explosions. The Census Bureau annual population estimates tell the story. The estimated Pike County population of persons aged 5-17 years has declined every year since 2000, dropping by 972 persons or 11% since 2000, an average of 1.6% per year. School enrollments have begun to reflect this reality. The Delaware Valley School District enrollment has declined by 196 children or an average 1.1% per year over the last three years. The other two districts have also experienced declines ranging from 0.1% to 0.8% per year average.

The facts are catching up with the myth. Pike County is not exposed to rampant school expansions if residential growth continues. Indeed, it is precisely the opposite – school enrollments will collapse without growth. The trends in slower growing counties are even more apparent. Enrollments are in free fall in many rural areas. Adjoining Sullivan County, New York, school districts are facing severe financial crises as a result of enrollment declines. A November, 2008 article in the River Reporter newspaper noted the following:

“We’re going to be faced with closing this school or Jeff in 10 years time if this trend keeps up.” Those were the words of Shaun Sensiba, a member of the board of the Sullivan West Central School District ... Over the past five years, Sullivan West has had a decline of 16.3 percent in student enrollment, but the district is not alone in shrinking student populations. All school districts in Sullivan County experienced declines of one degree or another, with the Liberty Central School District losing the most at 16.5 percent and Fallsburg Central School District losing the least at 2.9 percent. Eldred was near the middle with a loss of 6.7 percent.

Another article in the Middletown Times-Herald-Record reported the following:

Sullivan West has dropping enrollment and a glut of buildings that are going to cost taxpayers millions in the coming years, district officials told residents Wednesday night. Declining enrollment is "accelerating" and the district could lose hundreds of students in the next decade if trends continue, Superintendent Kenneth Hilton said during a community forum. Meanwhile, the district is spending nearly $400,000 annually to mothball the Delaware Valley and Narrowsburg buildings, which were renovated for millions and then closed in a financial crisis, all of which has left the district $60 million in debt, and paying $4 million annually in debt service ... Enrollment has dropped by 232 students since 2002, and by 11.2 percent in the five years since 2003. The district now has 1,385 students. By contrast, Sullivan West has space in four buildings for 3,244 students ... If trends continue, Sullivan West will have 1,190 students in 2012 ... Hilton said he will urge the board to form a new facilities-needs committee to begin planning ... "The community has to come to grips with these realities."

Sullivan West is hardly alone. The Pennsylvania Department of Education, which has overstated projected enrollment growth in the Poconos, nonetheless projects the number of students attending Pennsylvania public schools in 2012 will be 7% below 2002 levels. Rural school districts are expected to decline by 11%. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania notes the reason:

In both 1990 and 2000, the total fertility rate, or the average number of children a woman has during her lifetime, was 1.75 in rural Pennsylvania. This is below the replacement level of 2.11 births. Rural Pennsylvania, however, is not alone. Four New England states, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, and Massachusetts, each had total fertility rates in 2000 below the rural Pennsylvania rate. The Pennsylvania statewide rate went from 1.87 in 1990 to 1.82 in 2000. In the United States, however, the total fertility rate increased from 2.01 in 1990 to 2.13 in 2000.

We can make two major conclusions from this data. First, it is clear we are not having enough children. Pennsylvania and most of the Northeast will slowly disappear without more children or, alternatively, in-migration of new households. Even the U.S. as a whole is just barely sustaining itself, but in the Northeast we can expect what we now see in Western New York and Western Pennsylvania – dying communities without the resources to support their infrastructure and services – to spread east. Residential growth is absolutely essential, despite the contrary message of so many community costs-of-services studies. Residences may not pay their way theoretically but that's only because non-residential uses are available to help pay the bills. If those agricultural, commercial and industrial enterprises who supposedly subsidize residences have no one to whom to sell their products or no one to hire as employees, they will lead the evacuation of these communities, leaving residents as the only ones available to pay the bills.

Secondly, it's not any residential growth that's necessary, but families with children who are essential. This again cuts against that conventional wisdom which suggests seniors and childless couples are best because they don't generate school children. Nevertheless, consider this - who will pay the bills in a community composed increasingly of seniors? Pike County, even while losing almost 1,000 school-aged children over the last seven years, gained almost 1,600 seniors of age 65 years or older. This is a distinctly unhealthy trend that will burden the schools by a lack of students and social service providers by an increased demand for aging services, all the while relying upon a relatively smaller pool of working taxpayers. The experience of Sullivan West illustrates what awaits if we don't start attracting younger in-migrants or having more children.

Overall, Paul Erlich had it exactly backwards. Communities depend first and foremost upon the availability of human capital, which is why economic opportunities are generally greater in more heavily populated areas. More people means more opportunities for division of labor. This, in turn, creates the wealth to improve the quality of life. His population bomb was little more than a poof. What we face is, in reality, a much more serious threat of aging and shrinking communities with no one to pay for the infrastructure and services, including schools, that we take for granted. We need growth and we need children.

Warming to Change

2008-12-22T20:45:00.002-05:00

States are mindlessly jumping onto the global warming bandwagon, creating climate change offices and policies in a rush to be politically correct. Pennsylvania, for example, has enacted a Pennsylvania Climate Change Act and a special Climate Change Advisory Committee with responsibilities "including but not limited to, the development of a climate change action plan, annual greenhouse gas inventories, impacts assessment report, voluntary greenhouse gas emissions registry and such other climate change related activities that the DEP might request." Meanwhile the supposed science behind the global warming scare is crumbling, raising an obvious question; if the failure to warm forces us to call global warming by another name, shouldn't we be reexamining our hypothesis? A December 10, 2008 Washington Times article by geophysicist David Deming notes the following:

The last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

This year began with a severe spell of winter weather in China. Observers characterized it as the largest natural disaster to hit China in decades. By the end of January, blizzards and cold temperatures had killed 60 people and caused millions to lose electric service. Nearly a million buildings were damaged and airports had to close. Hong Kong had the second-longest cold spell since 1885. A temperature of 33.6 degrees Fahrenheit was barely higher than the record low of 32 degrees F set in 1893.

Other countries in Asia also experienced record cold. In February, cold in the northern half of Vietnam wiped out 40 percent of the rice crop and killed 33,000 head of livestock. In India, the city of Mumbai recorded the lowest temperatures of the last 40 years. Across India, there was more frost damage to crops than at any other time in the last 30 years.

In the United States, the weather also was frigid. The city of International Falls, Minn,, whose official nickname is the "icebox of the nation," set a new record low temperature of minus 40 degrees F, breaking the old record of minus 37 F established in 1967.

Alaska experienced an unusually cold and wet summer. For the first time since the 18th century, Alaskan glaciers grew instead of retreating. In Fairbanks, October was the fourth coldest in 104 years of record. Last month in Reading, Pa., the temperature stayed below 40 degrees F for six consecutive days - the longest November cold spell there since 1903.

These cold weather events were not abnormal or isolated incidents. Global measures of climatic conditions indicate significant cooling.

A preliminary estimate by the British Met Office says 2008 will be the coldest year of the last 10. The extent of global sea ice is at the same level it was in 1980. The mean planetary temperature, as monitored by satellite, also is the same as in 1980.

Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/global-warming-freeze/

These attempts by states to regulate the sun might better be spent making it easier to pursue energy development of all types, from geothermal, solar and wind to natural gas. The failure to do what is possible and necessary while attempting the impossible and the unnecessary is an unforgivable politicization of planning and science.