Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column in the December 16, 2010, issue entitled “What are Taxes For?” This simple question triggered a thought in my mind about the broader purposes of government.

Most people would agree that government has certain roles as a provider of security, a deliverer of basic services, a regulator, an enforcer of societal norms through criminal and civil laws and the court systems that enforce them, and a provider or a creator of certain “safety net” services, such as unemployment compensation and welfare.

(more…)

Within the past week, I was asked to take on a more active executive role in Dossia, the combination of the for-profit service corporation and the not-for-profit foundation which has a mission of deploying and managing a patient-controlled, private, portable, personal health record system.  Dossia has been in place for four years, and I began serving as the Chairman of the Board in February, 2007.

In early 2009, the Obama Administration included significant funding in the ARRA stimulus legislation for the upgrading of medical records in physician offices, and directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations, which would implement a transition process over a multi-year period.  Those regulations are largely in place and the legislation and regulations have enabled Dossia and the other players in the market, including Microsoft and Google, to get anchored in a relatively stable, coherent regulatory environment.

(more…)

In the early 1980’s, shortly after George Harvey became the Chairman and CEO of Pitney Bowes, I asked a more senior colleague why he thought George was the best candidate among those who vied for the CEO position.  He talked about George’s wisdom and track record, but he also said: “Unlike many adults who collect a paycheck, he actually makes tough decisions.”  He went on to explain that many highly-paid, well-credentialed people are afraid to put themselves at risk by making difficult decisions, but that no leader of a major organization could afford to be afraid to take the risk of being wrong or pretend to be taking certain actions.

That comment has not only stuck, but seems more astute than ever.  I have been both more admiring of people who stick their neck out, and more frustrated with those who should, but do not, when tough situations occur.  In the last few years, we have moved into the most difficult economic environment since the 1930’s.  It has effectively “smoked out” whether people want to embrace tough decisions and engage others in constructive conflict, or whether they will develop even more elaborate ways to avoid those decisions.  I have seen more of both kinds of people in the last three years than ever before, especially the non-performers who have learned to survive by “pretending” to perform.

(more…)

Catherine Rampell of the New York Times wrote an article that, unfortunately, reports on an all-too-common problem, the increase in the long-term unemployed population, on December 2, in a story entitled “Dwindling Prospects.” I know people who fit her description. In fact, I have spoken to a local support group of individuals who are part of the long-term unemployed population, in one of the wealthiest communities in the world, Darien Connecticut.

I was effectively unemployed once in my life, for about a 4-month period  (January, 1979, through May, 1979) between my second law firm job and my hiring by Pitney Bowes.  I was told in October, 1978, that I would not be offered a partnership, was given a few months to look for a job while on the payroll, and then was put in an “of counsel” status, meaning that I would be hired only for hourly project work. I had a little work, but nowhere near enough to support my family.  It was initially scary, and I felt all the self-doubt that Ms. Rampell described in the people she profiled.  When I became unemployed, despite a Harvard Law degree, I did not know when I would be hired to work again.

(more…)

In the Thursday, September 9, 2010, New York Times, Matt Bai, a political columnist, in an article entitled “In Obama Economic Stance, Risk of Confusion,” points out that President Obama made a significant, and probably mistaken, decision to turn the crafting of the 2009 stimulus legislation over to Congress.  As Bai points out, the legislation could have achieved one or both of two goals: first, to create targeted, short-term economic stimulus; or second, to fund longer-term investments in infrastructure, technology, and human capital that would have provided the foundation for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

As Bai points out, while the legislation had some investments that accomplished each of the two goals, neither potential goal was adequately pursued with the stimulus legislation. Instead, as Bai stated, Congress essentially used the legislation to address the most vocal “demands of disparate constituencies.”  There is a political consequence to this conclusion, which is that the majority of Americans now consider the stimulus legislation to have been a failure. Bai quotes Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, “you should never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The crisis, which precipitated the passage of the legislation created an opportunity for fundamental societal change that was not taken.

(more…)

There is a relatively easy pair of solutions to the unemployment crisis.  The biggest issue for private sector employers which have provided retirement benefits for their employees is the burden of providing for future benefits for current and future retirees. (Government accounting is different. Government employers only have to provide for what they out in the current year.)  What many people do not understand is that when a private employer provides such benefits, it not only covers what it pays in the current year, but a share of what it will pay out in future years.  The exact allocation between current and future year benefit expenses varies from employer to employer, but there is no question that portion of current-year benefit expense allocable to future years is huge and it gets in the way of employers hiring new workers.

So how do we solve this problem?  It’s very simple, but the answer varies between pension and retiree medical expenses.

(more…)

I was pleasantly surprised and gratified to see the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sue the State of New Jersey for fraudulently misrepresenting its financial health because of its failure to report on the status of its pension funding.  According to the SEC, New Jersey had 79 separate bond offerings between 2001 and 2007, representing over $20 billion in tax-exempt bonds, on which it made false and misleading disclosures to investors and prospective investors.

I would hope this is a first step to getting government finances in order.  Like many people with discretionary assets, my wife and I own tax- exempt bonds.  We are deeply concerned about whether we are getting accurate and complete information about the state of finances in Connecticut, and in the few other states in which we have government bonds.

(more…)

As the son of a mother who, mercifully died suddenly as a result of an automobile accident when she was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease, and a father who deteriorated over an 15-month period, all of which was spent in a rehabilitation center and a nursing home after he broke his hip at age 82, I have thought a lot about end-of-life issues.

As a result, I was gratified to see an incredibly incisive and thoughtful article on this subject by Dr. Atul Guwande of Harvard Medical School in the August 2, 2010, issue of The New Yorker. The subject of end-of-life care for individuals with terminal illnesses or diseases is not a new one, but Guwande brings new insight to it.

(more…)

Daniel Henninger wrote a significant an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal on July 22 entitled “The Liberal’s Dilemma.” The “dilemma” of which Henninger speaks is the conflict between the broad agenda many liberals, virtually all Democrats, have in place to improve the well-being of broad swaths of the U.S. population and the narrow, but disproportionate demands of public sector employees’ unions, active and powerful private sector unions like SEIU and the narrow, but powerful and well-organized political classes that contribute a sizable chunk of campaign financing for the Democratic party.

The problem those who want to produce broad societal change face is that, to the extent they honor and defend the retirement benefit obligations and other huge financial benefits demanded by the unions and the political classes, the funds available for the much broader agenda drop well below critical mass.  In fact, it is fair to say that, absent a major pullback from these long-term retirement benefit obligations, almost no money will be available for the or below broader agenda.

(more…)

I was going to post another blog today until I saw the Van Jones Op-Ed piece in the Sunday, July 25, New York Times entitled “Shirley Sherrod and Me.” Not only do I agree with his conclusion that the Obama Administration decision to fire Ms. Sherrod was wrong and destructive, but it might have been one of the most harmful actions the Obama Administration has taken on any issue.

Government officials have become more risk-averse over time, and less effective as a result, precisely because, in varying degrees, they are judged by different standards from private sector employees.  Over a decade ago, I had dinner with an executive who had been fired by the U.S. Postal Service, after he had worked in the private sector for a good part of his career.

His observation about being a government executive was that the highest risk situations for a government employee were either unwanted media scrutiny, the threat of a government investigation, or the threat of a Congressional hearing.  There was another long-term Postal Service executive who was fired a few years later because of a relocation package he received, which received excessive media scrutiny, even though it had been approved by the Postal Service’s Office of the General Counsel, its chief ethics officer, and the Inspector General.  One thing I learned about the Postal Service is that, after a 1992 scandal involving vendor-related events at the Barcelona Olympics, it operated at the highest ethical standards.  The firing was unfortunate, but the Postal Service apparently felt that it had to eliminate even the appearance of ethical problems.

The trouble with the Sherrod firing, as well as other incidents like it, is that as Mr. Jones put it most eloquently:

“Life inside the Beltway has become a combination of speed chess and Mortal Kombat: one wrong move can mean political death. In the era of YouTube, Twitter and 24-hour cable news, nobody is safe. Even the lowliest staff member knows that an errant comment could wind up online, making her name synonymous with scandal.

The result is that people at all levels of government are becoming overly cautious, unwilling to venture new opinions or even live regular lives for fear of seeing even the most innocuous comment or photograph used against them, all while trying to protect and improve the country.”

Not only is he right, but, unfortunately, the Sherrod incident will be remembered for a long time, and will affect behaviors all over all levels of government.  Government officials and employees will attempt to figure out not only whether what they said or did could get them into trouble, but whether someone could misinterpret and distort words or actions to hurt them.  They will refrain from doing or saying something, rather than doing something that needed to be done.

I had that experience a few times while I served as CEO.  It was unnerving.  People literally heard something different from what I said, and, on two occasions, an otherwise competent and well-meaning attorney told me that the company could get into trouble not only for what I said, but for what people incorrectly thought I said.

Having people live in perpetual fear is a bad way to run government, business, a non-profit organization, or any other grouping of people.  It is a bad way to force people to live their lives.  The notion that people should be held accountable for distortions that other people might create or project on to a situation is dangerous.

The Obama Administration has to realize that it did severe and probably irreparable damage to the effectiveness of government at all levels, and needs to pull back from knee-jerk behaviors based on appearing to defend the highest standards of ethics and race relations.  It actually achieved the opposite effect: individuals will be scared to talk constructively about race issues in situations in which a dialogue could help race relations.  Moreover, the impact will be felt in a wide range of other situations and on a wide range of other issues.

The President should take the step of framing how he thinks about the level of initiative he wants from government employees, and have a concrete set of actions, which he should announce in a prime time nationally televised address.  He should then follow through on his commitments, and make it clear to government employees that a misinterpretation and distortion by someone else will never again subject an employee to disciplinary action.

I may come across as an alarmist, but I really think this situation has far more serious consequences than might first meet the eye.