Why everything DC tries does not work...

How much does your hand raise the level of a full bath tub? This question is used to show the minimal impact many of our actions can have on a system. What if instead of a human hand in the bathtub it is an 9,000 ton gorilla jumping in the bathtub?

And this is basically where DC goes wrong. In trying to address appropriate issues of the day the government mindset does not recognize that its focus needs to be a small first steps towards an issue not comprehensive overhauls.

Much like the act of measuring an experiment can change the results for that experiment (quantum physics people swear by it)government cannot fully engage with a problem without fundamentally changing the problem in unpredictable ways. Which leaves us with two outcomes possible; either a solution that no longer addresses the problem as it lives or trying to fix the problem to a stationary point which then institutionalized the problems and prevents innovation towards solutions.

Instead of jumping in the bath tub the government should be extra careful to always try to put in a baby toe and disturb the system as little as possible.

Lets look at how even small decisions can have huge impact.

1) a weak dollar policy - started by Bush and being continued. Has caused a huge spike in commodities pricing. Including oil which has fueled the nation states of Venezuela and Iran etc...

2) changing the leverage and capital reserve ratios from a fixed number to one based on a complex financial model (Basel II) - this allowed financial institutions to massively increase their leverage which made their implosions that much more damaging

3) Changing the rules on cloture voting in the senate. In 1975 the senate changed the rules for cloture from 67% to a flat number of 60 votes effectively changing it to 60% to shut down debate, discussion or filibuster. This allowed the party in power to have significant more control and is one of the key accelerators in both the partisan nature of the debate and the extreme legislative agendas that have been continually pushed upon the american people.

None of these were done with massive debate or large votes being tracked by news alerts and C-SPAN and yet these have had huge impact on our economy and world. And note that this is an ailment that both parties tend to suffer from.


Instead of debating massive overhauls of policy, regulation or the economy our leaders need to deal with the reality of the damage they can cause with their decisions. The bigger the decisions the bigger the waves. Our policy focus should be on simple first steps.

For example, health care should not be looking at massive reform but instead should focus on a few small first steps. Steps like selling across state lines, focusing on fraud enforcement, individual benefits having the same tax treatment as company benefits and pooling of associations and individuals are all low cost and small first steps that we should look at before we even consider the larger options that are already being designed.

The more big program we look at the more perilous our economy will become. As you look at the structures put in place and policies being proposed you should ask yourself does this policy show the smart approach of small steps before big ones? Or is it making the same mistake DC always make?