Even amongst the chaos of the moment, the left must grapple with the challenge Marc Dunkelman describes in his important new book. In fact, because of it.
Please keep this conversation going. Because genuine progress on outcomes is so difficult, way too many people settle for rallying around “righteous positions” that might feel good in the moment but can impede the very outcomes they are hoping for.
I really wish California could figure out our "nothing works" problems. High speed rail, is that ever going to happen? The cost of housing in San Francisco, is it just going to become a city with rich people and homeless people and nothing in between? Wildfires, is it going to become impossible to get home insurance?
The Republicans here in California, well, they just have no power at the state level. We don't have to make that sort of political compromise. If the Democratic Party has a plan for how to make things work, here in California we should just be able to fully enact it. And we should have plenty of money to spend on things because our economy has so many strong sectors.
California should be a beacon proving to the rest of the country that we know the right way to do things, not a symbol of dysfunction.
I think in CA HSR case there's a legitimate stronger case for outright fraud that should be levied at many of these "community" organizations. Tens of billions to produce what? If not rail then an audit should be clear about what the groups were promising and what they were delivering.
From the trenches.. you have hit the nail on the head. CEQ folks seem to believe that disagreements would go away if agencies would only do public involvement correctly and analyze to the specificity required by random judges. The reality is that people disagree and often can't come to agreement, so someone's going to have to decide and take the heat.
I hate to say it because I love the book so much, but some blame lies with Robert Caro's The Power Broker. It exposed the world to the nasty side of Robert Moses's building spree and we overcorrected, determined not to displace or displease anyone. The book rightfully showed us the human cost of unchecked power, but its cultural impact has contributed to a paralysis where even worthy projects benefiting the many can be endlessly delayed by the concerns of the few. The pendulum has swung too far from Moses's bulldozer approach to a vetocracy where critical projects languish for decades. Is it possible to find a middle ground where we can build necessary infrastructure with compassion and fair compensation, not permanent gridlock disguised as process?
The way I've had some success talking about my honest feelings about the cuts without sounding churlish is to couch language in empathy. I think massive, painful, and widespread cuts to federal employment are needed AND that it's being done in the most foolish, cruel, and ineffective way. I also think the government should not be a jobs program for its own sake AND that a significant number of peoples lives will be much worse off for not having that employment. I feel that you're doing that in my mind if that counts for anything. The more we point out that trade-offs exist AND we can tackle those trade-offs via mitigations rather than avoiding the trade-off at all, the more we can get back to thinking productively.
I do not think it is possible to know if federal employment is too large or too small without analyzing activity by activity. Does THIS function produce more benefit than cost? Could the net benefit be greater if modified employing fewer people?
What to me is missing is at least a few samples of where in the world it is done better. No, I don't mean Chinese Communist Party Agenda. Do the Danes or Finns or Spaniards get transmission lines built through rural small towns? I'd have a lot more hope & faith with a couple of current free-world examples of a process that works instead of all hand-wavey "reform" ideas.
U.S. subway construction costs are often 4-5 times higher than those in peer countries. For example, New York City subway extensions cost around $1.5-2.5 billion per kilometer, while similar projects in Paris, Madrid, or Seoul might cost $250-500 million per kilometer.
In the United States it costs roughly $609 million to build a kilometer of rail. In Canada it costs only $295 million and in Portugal, $96 million.
Sweden adopted the building code changes we were supposed to:
The real answer is industry, and the lessons that pub sec could take from industry in process now well exceed simple tech solutions. More than a few companies are bigger than dozens of nation states these days, but the idea that public sector has anything to learn from them on process is sneered at
As a conceptual framework for regulation shouldn't the agency put forward its cost benefit analysis that yields a given decision and then invite comments on the analysis. In the example given why group X thinks that the cost the agency assumed for environmental damage to the Maine woods was too low or the fossil fuel companies think the damage assigned to CO2 emissions was too high and what the correct values should be. The agency then modifies the analysis (or does not) and goes forward (or not), possibly with a modified decision based on an analysis incorporating in the information from commentators. If commentators still think the cost benefit analysis is wrong, they sue.
I spent most of my working career in the biopharma industry and am no stranger to the difficulties in getting things done via regulation. We started what seemed to be a simple project of migrating all the prescription drug labels to the Internet and removing the regulatory requirement that a printed copy accompany each package/bottle as it leaves the filling line at the company. We did an RFP to show that this in fact could work and did a pilot project in a handful of pharmacies in the mid-Atlantic region. The pharmacists all liked the approach and we worked with FDA on this project from its inception. Many of those who worked on this project as well as myself had retired by the time the FDA finally changed the regulation (though it became optional, many companies were still providing the leaflets in packages). We were able to push for a website at the National Library of Medicine that has the most current prescribing information: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/index.cfm
Now this was as noted a rather simple project, yet about 16 years from inception to regulation change. I could write about a bunch of other interesting stories on other projects.
As an aside, I was also tangentially involved in the "Reinventing Government" initiative that Vice President Gore directed (our trade association was requested to submit suggested changes in regulation with documentation as to why they ought to be changed). This remains probably the most effective modernization in terms of reduction of Federal employees and reduced regulatory burden on a number of industries. It was hard work but thoughtful. There was no maniac running around with a chainsaw.
It must be very comforting to sit in judgment from above like this, secure in the knowledge that you're one of the elite who actually sees the entire playing field. Even more comforting if you never have to acknowledge the credulousness with which you treated Elon and DOGE. Part of being a brave truth-teller is raising your hand and admitting you completely misjudged the opposition's professionalism (and motives).
Please keep this conversation going. Because genuine progress on outcomes is so difficult, way too many people settle for rallying around “righteous positions” that might feel good in the moment but can impede the very outcomes they are hoping for.
I really wish California could figure out our "nothing works" problems. High speed rail, is that ever going to happen? The cost of housing in San Francisco, is it just going to become a city with rich people and homeless people and nothing in between? Wildfires, is it going to become impossible to get home insurance?
The Republicans here in California, well, they just have no power at the state level. We don't have to make that sort of political compromise. If the Democratic Party has a plan for how to make things work, here in California we should just be able to fully enact it. And we should have plenty of money to spend on things because our economy has so many strong sectors.
California should be a beacon proving to the rest of the country that we know the right way to do things, not a symbol of dysfunction.
Couldn't agree more.
I think in CA HSR case there's a legitimate stronger case for outright fraud that should be levied at many of these "community" organizations. Tens of billions to produce what? If not rail then an audit should be clear about what the groups were promising and what they were delivering.
Yes, of democrats want to be trusted with power.They should prove themselves in blue states like california and illinois
From the trenches.. you have hit the nail on the head. CEQ folks seem to believe that disagreements would go away if agencies would only do public involvement correctly and analyze to the specificity required by random judges. The reality is that people disagree and often can't come to agreement, so someone's going to have to decide and take the heat.
And then that someone should be held accountable executive branch and or voters
On point as usual Jen. Vetocracy is strangling this country.
I hate to say it because I love the book so much, but some blame lies with Robert Caro's The Power Broker. It exposed the world to the nasty side of Robert Moses's building spree and we overcorrected, determined not to displace or displease anyone. The book rightfully showed us the human cost of unchecked power, but its cultural impact has contributed to a paralysis where even worthy projects benefiting the many can be endlessly delayed by the concerns of the few. The pendulum has swung too far from Moses's bulldozer approach to a vetocracy where critical projects languish for decades. Is it possible to find a middle ground where we can build necessary infrastructure with compassion and fair compensation, not permanent gridlock disguised as process?
Agree. Love the book. And yes.
cost-benefit analysis is neither a bulldozer (cost = zero) or vetocracy (cost=infinity).
The way I've had some success talking about my honest feelings about the cuts without sounding churlish is to couch language in empathy. I think massive, painful, and widespread cuts to federal employment are needed AND that it's being done in the most foolish, cruel, and ineffective way. I also think the government should not be a jobs program for its own sake AND that a significant number of peoples lives will be much worse off for not having that employment. I feel that you're doing that in my mind if that counts for anything. The more we point out that trade-offs exist AND we can tackle those trade-offs via mitigations rather than avoiding the trade-off at all, the more we can get back to thinking productively.
I do not think it is possible to know if federal employment is too large or too small without analyzing activity by activity. Does THIS function produce more benefit than cost? Could the net benefit be greater if modified employing fewer people?
What to me is missing is at least a few samples of where in the world it is done better. No, I don't mean Chinese Communist Party Agenda. Do the Danes or Finns or Spaniards get transmission lines built through rural small towns? I'd have a lot more hope & faith with a couple of current free-world examples of a process that works instead of all hand-wavey "reform" ideas.
Some bits:
U.S. subway construction costs are often 4-5 times higher than those in peer countries. For example, New York City subway extensions cost around $1.5-2.5 billion per kilometer, while similar projects in Paris, Madrid, or Seoul might cost $250-500 million per kilometer.
In the United States it costs roughly $609 million to build a kilometer of rail. In Canada it costs only $295 million and in Portugal, $96 million.
Sweden adopted the building code changes we were supposed to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/headway/how-an-american-dream-of-housing-became-a-reality-in-sweden.html?searchResultPosition=1
The real answer is industry, and the lessons that pub sec could take from industry in process now well exceed simple tech solutions. More than a few companies are bigger than dozens of nation states these days, but the idea that public sector has anything to learn from them on process is sneered at
As a conceptual framework for regulation shouldn't the agency put forward its cost benefit analysis that yields a given decision and then invite comments on the analysis. In the example given why group X thinks that the cost the agency assumed for environmental damage to the Maine woods was too low or the fossil fuel companies think the damage assigned to CO2 emissions was too high and what the correct values should be. The agency then modifies the analysis (or does not) and goes forward (or not), possibly with a modified decision based on an analysis incorporating in the information from commentators. If commentators still think the cost benefit analysis is wrong, they sue.
I spent most of my working career in the biopharma industry and am no stranger to the difficulties in getting things done via regulation. We started what seemed to be a simple project of migrating all the prescription drug labels to the Internet and removing the regulatory requirement that a printed copy accompany each package/bottle as it leaves the filling line at the company. We did an RFP to show that this in fact could work and did a pilot project in a handful of pharmacies in the mid-Atlantic region. The pharmacists all liked the approach and we worked with FDA on this project from its inception. Many of those who worked on this project as well as myself had retired by the time the FDA finally changed the regulation (though it became optional, many companies were still providing the leaflets in packages). We were able to push for a website at the National Library of Medicine that has the most current prescribing information: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/index.cfm
Now this was as noted a rather simple project, yet about 16 years from inception to regulation change. I could write about a bunch of other interesting stories on other projects.
As an aside, I was also tangentially involved in the "Reinventing Government" initiative that Vice President Gore directed (our trade association was requested to submit suggested changes in regulation with documentation as to why they ought to be changed). This remains probably the most effective modernization in terms of reduction of Federal employees and reduced regulatory burden on a number of industries. It was hard work but thoughtful. There was no maniac running around with a chainsaw.
Somewhere Between the diktats of the Elite "Intelligentsia" that the Progressive Left favors - which are so susceptible to bureaucratic corruption and arrogance - and Viktor Orbanish totalitarianism - which is prone to theocracy and tyranny and self-serving corruption; all the evils which that form of government brings - Lies the Solution but, until we all get out of our silos and remember how to think, to discern, Nothing Works. PS For example: There is a huge amount of science suggesting that “There is really no threat from increasing CO2 or any of the other minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s all a made-up scare story.” Here is a lovely introduction to that mind-opening thought - and Dr. Happer is not the only one asserting this: https://www.freedom-research.org/p/exclusive-interview-with-prof-william?r=8oz6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwY2xjawIthHpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZO5tZlDS67NyYJqD1B7Sw3PlyrRayzc-oVKEmGRH9-BixyjF7TniGhblw_aem_8aKHGdpUiDCMxmbLKhWDkg&triedRedirect=true
It must be very comforting to sit in judgment from above like this, secure in the knowledge that you're one of the elite who actually sees the entire playing field. Even more comforting if you never have to acknowledge the credulousness with which you treated Elon and DOGE. Part of being a brave truth-teller is raising your hand and admitting you completely misjudged the opposition's professionalism (and motives).