Jeff, I'm coming to you live from the shoulder of Interstate I-10 between Baton Rouge and New Orleans in the storm-damaged state of Louisiana. Zooming past me are relief convoys bringing needed solace to the inhabitants of this - and neighboring - states.
Now you've been hearing for many days about the usual relief supplies being brought in - the water, the food, the hygiene kits, and so forth. You've also heard about the struggles of authorities to maintain order, and the volunteer efforts to bring help in and move refugees out, and to get them resettled.
But nobody has yet chronicled what I am about to chronicle for you now - the vital role played by the Political Left in rushing their own unique assistance to this troubled region. The trucks behind me are loaded down with blame.
[JEFF: DID YOU SAY BLAME?]
Yes Jeff, blame. Even before the first Red Cross trucks were being denied entry into New Orleans by Governor Blanco, the Political Left knew that these distressed people didn't need water, power, or a unified country committed to helping them - these people needed someone to blame - and the Left mobilized their armies of bloggers, whiners and Deaniacs to give it to them.
Think about it Jeff - suppose you had lost your life's savings, your home, your job, maybe a family member. Suppose you hadn't eaten in two days or had a drink of water in 24 hours. What would you want?
[JEFF: I THINK I'D WANT FOOD, WATER, AND A SAFE PLACE TO REST.]
Well, Jeff, that just shows how ignorant YOU are. America's Angry Left are a whole lot smarter than you - they know what's really needed is to pour sand into the gears of the relief effort by demanding the apportionment of blame while the disaster is still unfolding.
Nobody has done more to rush big, steaming piles of blame into the stricken region. Nobody has done more to distract all levels of political leadership from coordinating the relief effort. Nobody has done more to split the nation along racial and ethnic lines. It's really time for the rest of us to take a moment, especially on a day like today, to reflect on the great contributions the Angry Left have made to our nation, and to express our gratitude.
Four years ago, our nation was attacked and we briefly rallied together under the mistaken notion that our nation needed unity. But it was the Angry Left who revealed that - well, we were attacked because America is evil and deserved to be attacked. It was the Angry Left who explained that, any time America is attacked, the attack itself is proof that we deserved it.
Now, in the aftermath of Katrina, it's the Angry Left who have revealed that this hurricane was under the direct control of the Bush Administration, who steered it towards black people, because Bush hates black people. If it weren't for the Angry Left, I wouldn't have known that.
Jeff, this Republican storm has all but destroyed one of the great success stories of Leftist policy - a city mired in poverty, riddled with corruption, and racked by a crime rate ten times above the national average - the crown jewel of Leftist social planning.
[JEFF: WHY IS THAT A SUCCESS STORY?]
Because everybody voted Democrat, Jeff.Why do you think the Left embraces these policies that drive up crime and mire people in intergenerational poverty?
But never fear, Jeff - the Left is on the job. You can be sure that, while others waste time bringing in water and food, or cleaning up, or maintaining order, the Angry Left is hard at work making sure America knows that we are a racist society and everything is George Bush's fault.
Can you hear those trucks rushing by? Stand by, grief stricken survivors! Blame is on the way!
Jeff?
[JEFF: THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT, TOM.]
Monday, September 19, 2005
Helping Katrina Victims
This is the text of a comedy radio sketch I wrote and performed recently:
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
More on Portland city council metrics
I am still thinking about the comments made by Portland city Council members at a recent City Club of Portland Friday Forum.
Sam Adams seemed to have the most mature presentation of metrics for his bureaus. Among other things, he seems to know what a metric is.
Dan Saltzman gave answers that were more activity or process based.
Randy Leonard, with whom I'm developing a deep love-scorn relationship, was the most intuitive and immature -- he will judge the performance of his bureau's by what people tell him at cocktail parties. The problem will be, getting him to attend the correct parties so that he can get well-rounded input and not the typical lefty liberal echo chamber.
On the one hand, Management by Walking Around can be very effective. On the other hand, must be augmented by meaningful metrics.
Sam Adams seemed to have the most mature presentation of metrics for his bureaus. Among other things, he seems to know what a metric is.
Dan Saltzman gave answers that were more activity or process based.
Randy Leonard, with whom I'm developing a deep love-scorn relationship, was the most intuitive and immature -- he will judge the performance of his bureau's by what people tell him at cocktail parties. The problem will be, getting him to attend the correct parties so that he can get well-rounded input and not the typical lefty liberal echo chamber.
On the one hand, Management by Walking Around can be very effective. On the other hand, must be augmented by meaningful metrics.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Benchmarking your Industry
Here's one way to benchmark yourself: get a third party to assemble an anonymous survey of your industry.
The Utility of Vengeance
I think this explains my campaign against Mary Gallegos in 2004.
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Vengeance Is Mine,
Sayeth the Lord --
But Scientists Differ
WSJ, October 15, 2004; Page B1
To a cynic, the good people of Florida who helped out their worse-off neighbors after last month's hurricanes were actually acting selfishly.
According to a leading theory of human behavior, they were merely polishing their reputations and collecting IOUs in case they themselves needed help one day. Altruism had nothing to do with it.
But this jaded view of human behavior hits a brick wall every time a Good Samaritan helps a stranger, waving off questions about his identity.
Such pure altruism has long defied scientific logic and puzzled evolutionary biologists, who seek explanations for how behaviors arose and persist. From a purely rational, cold-hearted, survival-of-the-fittest perspective, it makes no sense to do a good deed if it costs you time, money or your own safety, unless it enhances your reputation or helps a close relative survive and prosper. (In evolutionary theory, helping relatives is just as good as helping yourself, and the only reason that other animals do good deeds.)
"Human altruism is unique in the animal world," says Ernst Fehr, a behavioral economist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. "None of our current theories can explain altruism when there is anonymity and therefore no chance of reciprocity or enhancing your reputation."
But scientists think they have discovered a plausible explanation. There are just enough people in society who are willing to punish anyone who does not contribute to the common good, even when it costs them to do so. Scientists call it "altruistic punishment." But you can think of it as righteous vengeance.
To probe the prevalence of and motivation for keeping others in line even at a cost to themselves, behavioral economists have volunteers play a little game. Each player starts with $20, and each decides, without knowing the others' moves, how much to contribute to a common kitty. The kitty will be doubled and distributed among all four regardless of what -- or even whether -- each contributes. If everyone kicks in $20, for instance, the resulting $80 will be doubled to $160 and split four ways, $40 each. These cooperators will have doubled their stake.
But if only three players kick in $20 each, then the $120 distributed among all four players will give everyone $30. Those who contributed their entire $20 will be a little better off, but the person who kicked in nothing will make out best of all, keeping her $20 and getting $30 from the kitty.
The temptation to freeload while others contribute to the common good is therefore strong. But if everyone followed this selfish strategy, no one would contribute anything and no one would improve on their $20 stake. In experiments, people seem to grasp this, and contribute about half their stake. But after a while, people decrease their contribution, learning that selfishness pays.
Prof. Fehr and his colleagues then introduced a twist: They let players exact punishment. At the end of each round, if Player A thinks Player B has been freeloading, A can fine B, but only at a cost. If A wishes to fine B $1, say, A must also pay 30 cents to the person running the game.
From a purely selfish and even logical point of view, A would be an idiot to do this. A loses money and gains nothing tangible in return. Yet most players are eager to exact punishment anyway. In fact, they exact revenge even when they have no chance of reaping any rewards personally: Players are quite willing to engage in such altruistic punishment even if the game is arranged so that A never again plays in the same group as B and therefore has no chance of benefiting from more public-spirited behavior by a chastened B.
"The punishment pattern does not change," says Prof. Fehr. "It's astonishing. Even though B makes a larger public contribution in later rounds with other players, A never benefits from imposing the fine. People do not act simply to maximize their economic self-interest. They are ruled not only by cold economic logic but by emotion and a sense of fair play."
Lucky thing, too. Groups that include a number of altruistic punishers are better able to survive disasters such as war and famine. As a result, this strategy spreads, anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported in a paper earlier this year.
"Even when naturally selfish individuals are a majority, the presence of people willing to punish freeloaders can enforce social cooperation in much larger groups," says Prof. Fehr. Would-be freeloaders get the message that, if they fail to contribute to the common good, someone out there may nail them for it.
It isn't clear why some people are prone to playing avenging angel, but altruistic punishment seems to have deep neurological roots. A brain-imaging study led by Prof. Fehr this past summer found that people who have the highest activity in the cortex's reward circuit, which fires on all cylinders when we achieve something enjoyable, are also the most likely to punish freeloaders even at a high cost to themselves. Apparently, the economic cost is more than offset by the psychological reward: It feels good.
The Lord may sayeth that vengeance is His, but when it comes to keeping our fellow members of society in line, gleeful vengeance seems to be civilization's glue. [/quote]
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Vengeance Is Mine,
Sayeth the Lord --
But Scientists Differ
WSJ, October 15, 2004; Page B1
To a cynic, the good people of Florida who helped out their worse-off neighbors after last month's hurricanes were actually acting selfishly.
According to a leading theory of human behavior, they were merely polishing their reputations and collecting IOUs in case they themselves needed help one day. Altruism had nothing to do with it.
But this jaded view of human behavior hits a brick wall every time a Good Samaritan helps a stranger, waving off questions about his identity.
Such pure altruism has long defied scientific logic and puzzled evolutionary biologists, who seek explanations for how behaviors arose and persist. From a purely rational, cold-hearted, survival-of-the-fittest perspective, it makes no sense to do a good deed if it costs you time, money or your own safety, unless it enhances your reputation or helps a close relative survive and prosper. (In evolutionary theory, helping relatives is just as good as helping yourself, and the only reason that other animals do good deeds.)
"Human altruism is unique in the animal world," says Ernst Fehr, a behavioral economist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. "None of our current theories can explain altruism when there is anonymity and therefore no chance of reciprocity or enhancing your reputation."
But scientists think they have discovered a plausible explanation. There are just enough people in society who are willing to punish anyone who does not contribute to the common good, even when it costs them to do so. Scientists call it "altruistic punishment." But you can think of it as righteous vengeance.
To probe the prevalence of and motivation for keeping others in line even at a cost to themselves, behavioral economists have volunteers play a little game. Each player starts with $20, and each decides, without knowing the others' moves, how much to contribute to a common kitty. The kitty will be doubled and distributed among all four regardless of what -- or even whether -- each contributes. If everyone kicks in $20, for instance, the resulting $80 will be doubled to $160 and split four ways, $40 each. These cooperators will have doubled their stake.
But if only three players kick in $20 each, then the $120 distributed among all four players will give everyone $30. Those who contributed their entire $20 will be a little better off, but the person who kicked in nothing will make out best of all, keeping her $20 and getting $30 from the kitty.
The temptation to freeload while others contribute to the common good is therefore strong. But if everyone followed this selfish strategy, no one would contribute anything and no one would improve on their $20 stake. In experiments, people seem to grasp this, and contribute about half their stake. But after a while, people decrease their contribution, learning that selfishness pays.
Prof. Fehr and his colleagues then introduced a twist: They let players exact punishment. At the end of each round, if Player A thinks Player B has been freeloading, A can fine B, but only at a cost. If A wishes to fine B $1, say, A must also pay 30 cents to the person running the game.
From a purely selfish and even logical point of view, A would be an idiot to do this. A loses money and gains nothing tangible in return. Yet most players are eager to exact punishment anyway. In fact, they exact revenge even when they have no chance of reaping any rewards personally: Players are quite willing to engage in such altruistic punishment even if the game is arranged so that A never again plays in the same group as B and therefore has no chance of benefiting from more public-spirited behavior by a chastened B.
"The punishment pattern does not change," says Prof. Fehr. "It's astonishing. Even though B makes a larger public contribution in later rounds with other players, A never benefits from imposing the fine. People do not act simply to maximize their economic self-interest. They are ruled not only by cold economic logic but by emotion and a sense of fair play."
Lucky thing, too. Groups that include a number of altruistic punishers are better able to survive disasters such as war and famine. As a result, this strategy spreads, anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported in a paper earlier this year.
"Even when naturally selfish individuals are a majority, the presence of people willing to punish freeloaders can enforce social cooperation in much larger groups," says Prof. Fehr. Would-be freeloaders get the message that, if they fail to contribute to the common good, someone out there may nail them for it.
It isn't clear why some people are prone to playing avenging angel, but altruistic punishment seems to have deep neurological roots. A brain-imaging study led by Prof. Fehr this past summer found that people who have the highest activity in the cortex's reward circuit, which fires on all cylinders when we achieve something enjoyable, are also the most likely to punish freeloaders even at a high cost to themselves. Apparently, the economic cost is more than offset by the psychological reward: It feels good.
The Lord may sayeth that vengeance is His, but when it comes to keeping our fellow members of society in line, gleeful vengeance seems to be civilization's glue. [/quote]
Democrats Ascendant
(Text of a radio segment from Jeff Kropf's show on KXL today around 12:20 p.m.)
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
<>
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
<>
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
<>
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
<>
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
<>
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything? It's not like he's been governor or anything. Jeff?
<>
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
<>
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
<>
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
<>
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
<>
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
<>
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything?
<>
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Links to help Build an Economic Freedom Dashboard
There are a couple of good benchmarks of economic freedom. The best may be the Heritage/Wall Street Journal index:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/
Another, run by Canada's Fraser Institute, uses somewhat different criteria:
http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
And Freedom House (.org not .com) is here:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/methodology.htm
...though they are less narrowly focused on economic issues.
I hope that's a good start. And of course there's the classic site I like to refer everyone to when working on dashboards, the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative:
http://www.bscol.com/
And lastly, a new way of managing agencies that increases accountability and results, Charter Agencies:
http://charter.iowa.gov/01_ov_overview.html
I hope to help the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) become the first Charter Agency in Oregon.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/
Another, run by Canada's Fraser Institute, uses somewhat different criteria:
http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
And Freedom House (.org not .com) is here:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/methodology.htm
...though they are less narrowly focused on economic issues.
I hope that's a good start. And of course there's the classic site I like to refer everyone to when working on dashboards, the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative:
http://www.bscol.com/
And lastly, a new way of managing agencies that increases accountability and results, Charter Agencies:
http://charter.iowa.gov/01_ov_overview.html
I hope to help the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) become the first Charter Agency in Oregon.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Portland City Council: Immature
*Update: Sam Adams' office clarified that they are interested in luring the NRA convention and they and POVA are taking a professional approach, which I greatly appreciate.*
Say what you like about their politics, but three members of the Portland City Council today demonstrated that - from a management perspective - they are woefully immature.
To take but one example, when Sam Adams was asked in passing if one of his bureaus, the Visitors Bureau, would pursue the $60 million NRA (National Rifle Association) convention in 2007, he simply scoffed at the idea.
Under mature and professional leadership, any Visitors Bureau would seek out every convention of every lawful and peaceful organization, regardless of their politics. The NAMBLA convention might not fly, but the NRA convention certainly should.
But not in Portland. Rather than focus on the bureau's proper goal, of bringing visitors and conventions to the city to directly enrich the hospitality workers and thus indirectly enrich everybody, the City's leaders would much rather take a pass on $60 million of economic activity in order to soothe their fragile political egos.
Other examples come to mind, but await another posting.
Say what you like about their politics, but three members of the Portland City Council today demonstrated that - from a management perspective - they are woefully immature.
To take but one example, when Sam Adams was asked in passing if one of his bureaus, the Visitors Bureau, would pursue the $60 million NRA (National Rifle Association) convention in 2007, he simply scoffed at the idea.
Under mature and professional leadership, any Visitors Bureau would seek out every convention of every lawful and peaceful organization, regardless of their politics. The NAMBLA convention might not fly, but the NRA convention certainly should.
But not in Portland. Rather than focus on the bureau's proper goal, of bringing visitors and conventions to the city to directly enrich the hospitality workers and thus indirectly enrich everybody, the City's leaders would much rather take a pass on $60 million of economic activity in order to soothe their fragile political egos.
Other examples come to mind, but await another posting.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Making the Homeless Comfortable
Portland is planning to license beggars and build homes for homeless people who don't want to stop drinking or doing drugs.
Why is this a good idea?
Well, it's not, not really - but it serves the hidden agendas of Portland's liberal ruling elite.
Liberals need large numbers of homeless people close by, as a constant reminder that "society has failed these people and government must step in."
See, chronic drug-induced homelessness is caused by one of two things: personal moral failure, or a "societal" failure.
If the fault is personal, then the person who can fix it is the bum himself - he has to choose to stop drinking, stop doing drugs, and change his life.
But if "society is to blame" then that opens the door to empowering government to re-program society to make it perfect, find all the "root causes" of all social ills, and spend unlimited dollars hiring reliable Democrat voters to work for the government and "manage" the problem. The more homeless people you find, the more money and power you need to give the liberal ruling elite.
So, by building a series of taxpayer funded crack houses and flop houses, Portland will attract even more of these dysfunctional human beings, who will be used as human shields for an ever-growing government class. The bums will even be registered to vote, so that they too can become reliable Democrat votes.
Call it "Project Enablement." This has been done multiple times around the US, and it always fails to help the recipients.
The only thing that will NOT happen is - no people who actually need help and want help, will get help.
Why is this a good idea?
Well, it's not, not really - but it serves the hidden agendas of Portland's liberal ruling elite.
Liberals need large numbers of homeless people close by, as a constant reminder that "society has failed these people and government must step in."
See, chronic drug-induced homelessness is caused by one of two things: personal moral failure, or a "societal" failure.
If the fault is personal, then the person who can fix it is the bum himself - he has to choose to stop drinking, stop doing drugs, and change his life.
But if "society is to blame" then that opens the door to empowering government to re-program society to make it perfect, find all the "root causes" of all social ills, and spend unlimited dollars hiring reliable Democrat voters to work for the government and "manage" the problem. The more homeless people you find, the more money and power you need to give the liberal ruling elite.
So, by building a series of taxpayer funded crack houses and flop houses, Portland will attract even more of these dysfunctional human beings, who will be used as human shields for an ever-growing government class. The bums will even be registered to vote, so that they too can become reliable Democrat votes.
Call it "Project Enablement." This has been done multiple times around the US, and it always fails to help the recipients.
The only thing that will NOT happen is - no people who actually need help and want help, will get help.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Opening the Wapato Jail
My open letter to Lars Larson:
Lars, I promised to give you (and Dianne Linn) a way to open the Wapato Jail by finding $16 million in savings in the Multnomah County budget.
The bad news is, the county didn't do performance budgeting the correct way this year, which made their budget all but unreadable for my purposes. I've had to take another tack.
The good news is, I have found some ways to free up the $16 million.
The first step is to save money while IMPROVING the healthcare outcomes of Multnomah County's 4,470 workers: switch them to Healthcare Savings Accounts.
A friend and fellow consultant, Sil Pienovi, tells me he helped institute an HRA/HSA type plan at one of his client companies, and reduced total cash out by 20%. Where traditional third-party-payer insurance costs are rising at 12-15% a year, HSA costs are rising only 5% a year.
Seattle healthcare consultant Kathleen O'Connor says that fully 50 cents of every healthcare dollar spent does NOT go to patient care - so the HSA savings are NOT coming from the workers. They are coming from the insurers and from inefficiencies in the old system.
My plan is simple: Move county workers to a HSA plan, such that a portion of the saved money will go to the jail, and a portion will go into their own HSA cash account. If each one saves the taxpayer just $200 a month, that's $894,000 a month x 12 months = $10.728 million the first year.
Furthermore, healthcare costs are projected forward by the county several years - they are budgeting for that 15% increase in costs. By holding the increase to 5% we save a COMPOUNDING 10% a year.
Step two: have the police union (or some other voluntary private police organization) take over the Police Standards and Practices board, saving $1 million.
Step three: stop subsidizing tenants when leasing out county owned buildings, saving $500,000 a year.
Step four: sell off some of the unused county buildings and land, putting them back on the tax rolls and using the one-time cash to tide us over until the 10% compound growth from Step One brings us above $16 million a year.
I have a hatful of other fixes that can be used to extend the power of the county's spending on human services, but they take a lot longer to explain, and I think this does the trick.
What do you think?
Lars, I promised to give you (and Dianne Linn) a way to open the Wapato Jail by finding $16 million in savings in the Multnomah County budget.
The bad news is, the county didn't do performance budgeting the correct way this year, which made their budget all but unreadable for my purposes. I've had to take another tack.
The good news is, I have found some ways to free up the $16 million.
The first step is to save money while IMPROVING the healthcare outcomes of Multnomah County's 4,470 workers: switch them to Healthcare Savings Accounts.
A friend and fellow consultant, Sil Pienovi, tells me he helped institute an HRA/HSA type plan at one of his client companies, and reduced total cash out by 20%. Where traditional third-party-payer insurance costs are rising at 12-15% a year, HSA costs are rising only 5% a year.
Seattle healthcare consultant Kathleen O'Connor says that fully 50 cents of every healthcare dollar spent does NOT go to patient care - so the HSA savings are NOT coming from the workers. They are coming from the insurers and from inefficiencies in the old system.
My plan is simple: Move county workers to a HSA plan, such that a portion of the saved money will go to the jail, and a portion will go into their own HSA cash account. If each one saves the taxpayer just $200 a month, that's $894,000 a month x 12 months = $10.728 million the first year.
Furthermore, healthcare costs are projected forward by the county several years - they are budgeting for that 15% increase in costs. By holding the increase to 5% we save a COMPOUNDING 10% a year.
Step two: have the police union (or some other voluntary private police organization) take over the Police Standards and Practices board, saving $1 million.
Step three: stop subsidizing tenants when leasing out county owned buildings, saving $500,000 a year.
Step four: sell off some of the unused county buildings and land, putting them back on the tax rolls and using the one-time cash to tide us over until the 10% compound growth from Step One brings us above $16 million a year.
I have a hatful of other fixes that can be used to extend the power of the county's spending on human services, but they take a lot longer to explain, and I think this does the trick.
What do you think?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Schools maliciously displacing parents
The liberals running our schools want to hook as many kids on "free" lunches for many reasons:
1. Federal and state dollars - they make a profit
2. Nannyism - they like to take over parenting tasks to make themselves feel good
3. Social Engineering - by keeping dysfunctional families dysfunctional, they increase the number of "special needs" kids pumping up their budgets, they create a generation of kids who will fail their own children in the same way, and they ensure that both parents and kids become dependent on government largesse - a near guarantee of voting Democrat.
These so-and-sos are willing to harm kids and families in order to serve their own private agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
