reengineering government

[focusonz]

Engineers apply established principles drawn from mathematics and science in order to develop economical solutions to technical problems.

The founding fathers of our country were engineers, scientists, and technologists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States.

Of the 55 delegates only 9 received substantial income from public service..The remainder had legal education but not all of them received there livelihood from this profession. Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government. 46 of them had professions and means outside government and politics and public service.


Barack Obama attended Occidental College, but received his undergraduate degree in political science from Columbia University, an Ivy League member currently ranked 9th in the country by U.S. News and World Report. Obama also graduated Magna Cum Laude from the Harvard Law School, where he also served as President of the Harvard Law Review.

As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[20] He was also a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, holding the professor-level title of Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[21][22]


Hilary Clinton has a bachelors degree in political science from Wellesley College, and a law degree from Yale University Law School.

Attorney with Rose Law Firm (1979-1993)
First Lady of Arkansas (1979-1981, 1983-1992)
First Lady of the United States (1993-2001)
U.S. Junior Senator from New York sworn in January 3, 2001

John McCain graduated U.S. Naval Academy, B.S., 1958; graduate work, National War College, 1973-1974 He went on to serve as a naval aviator, attaining the rank of Captain during his 22 years of service. In 1976, he became the Navy's liaison to the Senate. McCain retired from the Navy in 1981, after receiving honors including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
U.S. Representative from 1983 to 1987
U.S. Senator from 1987-present


The economy of the United States has been the world's largest national economy since the early 1870s;[1] its gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated as $13.8 trillion in 2007

The Gross Domestic Product of all the colonies combined at that time was around $500 million. Mostly agrarian and subsistence farming

1700-1800 U.S.’s GDP a nice 800% boost up to $4 billion. Due to immigration and the creation of the centralized hands on government.

1800-1900 The Gross Domestic Product of the nation expanded seventy-three-fold during the 1800s bringing it up to $292 billion due to increased freedoms, free land and rail transportation infrastructure and manufacturing all relying on plentiful raw materials.

1900-2000 The economy absolutely skyrocketed, bringing the GDP up 3,424% to ten trillion dollars due to continued increase in population and intensity of land usage but mostly by the integration of oil into everything used by consumers and the efficient development of other natural resources.

The per capita GDP went from $500, $800, $3900, and $35,000.

Have the challenges of governing grown to the point that in it's current embodiment of a centralized representative federalism that the technical problems cannot be economically solved?

Is the American political system suffering from the “Peter Principal”? (In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.)

Are we willing to standby and turn over to representative,s including the three candidates for president above, the power to negatively affect our per capita GDP in the 21st century?

Can we or should we even try to enlist Internet , on line, blogsphere, engineering, and software talent, to apply established principles, drawn from mathematics and science, to re engineer the government and its policies.

Should we stop debating issues and act to develop and propose new laws?

The author is of the opinion that America is unraveling!!!!!!

[ralph124c]

I agree, we would be better off electing scientists and engineers-instead of lawyers. But the main problem is: relaying on government-government wants to protect itself, which is why the US Senate has less turnover than the UK House of Lords. We simply can't afford people like Ted Kennedy, Harry Byrd (senile old fool), and Joe Biden-these people have proven their incompetence, and need to be gotten rid of.

[the PC apeman]

We simply can't afford people like Ted Kennedy, Harry Byrd (senile old fool), and Joe Biden-these people have proven their incompetence, and need to be gotten rid of.Good news! Harry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Byrd,_Jr.)'s gone. But Bobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd) (senile almost-as-old fool) is still there. ;)

[BrainGlutton]

Engineers apply established principles drawn from mathematics and science in order to develop economical solutions to technical problems.

Governing a human society is just a little bit more complicated than designing a machine, and there is (as yet) no science of society corresponding to physics or chemistry.

Though you're not the first to think along such lines. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement)

[Derleth]

focusonz: You'd be amazed at how bad engineers are at interpersonal disputes.

It isn't a matter of more or less complex, it's a matter of different mindsets: Engineers want to solve things, whereas politicians want to manage things. This locks engineers out of politics, because political problems tend to come down to matters of human nature that cannot be solved, only managed over time. Engineers find this frustrating, like continuously fixing a rotting plumbing system instead of ripping it out and doing it right. Human psychology, unlike the Internet, isn't a series of tubes.

The most arrogant engineers think they can solve things like the Mideast Problem (yes, all of it) and produce intricate documents to that effect. They're harmless unless they get a substantial following, at which time it's probably best for everyone that they be shot quickly.

[BobLibDem]

As an engineer, I can attest that engineers lack the mindset to be effective politicians. For one thing, as a rule we lack people skills. I personally go out of my way to use the U-Scan checkout- the less human contact the better. Our training is such that we examine problems critically and dispassionately, politics requires the abandonment of objectivity. I think we all have our niches, by and large the political world is not friendly environment for the engineer.

[focusonz]

This thread has not gotten any traction..

Allow me to restate:

Reference to On line BLOG's is made by the radio and TV media every day.

And was it an engineer who looked at that fake letter and posted the result of his analysis on line which resulted in the exiting of Dan Blather?

What I am saying is it feasible to take that influence to the next level and actually create solutions to real problems?

I know the need is there.

I am horrified by that Hilary health plan of 1999 because it is a way to payback all her cronies and not solve the problem. And there has just got to be a better solution.

I say regulate the hospitals now! Don't involve the insurance companies or the private practice doctors or malpractice lawyers.

The hospital regulations could use the airline regulations of the 70's as a template.

The United States Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a dramatic event in the history of economic policy. It was the first thorough dismantling of a comprehensive system of government control after it had served a valuable purpose of allocating limited resources to a commodity having a highly fluctuating demand but serving a nation in dire need of fast transportation over long distances.

Affordable Health care is not available. The dumb f..k candidates think that lack of health insurance is the problem. No, the problem is the duplication of services, excess of beds, malpractice awards, insurance overhead and patients to scared to deal with their own mortality and too lazy to read the PDR. Too many of the wrong fingers are in the health care pie.

Re engineer the system with a few controls to reduce costs.

[Northern Piper]

The founding fathers of our country were engineers, scientists, and technologists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States.Where do you find that in the article that you cite?

Here's what it says about them:

The signers of the Constitution had extensive political experience. By 1787, four-fifths, or 41 individuals, were or had been members of the Continental Congress. Practically all of the 55 delegates had experience in colonial and state government, and the majority had held county and local offices.[4]
...
The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were younger and less senior in their professions.[5] Thirty-five were lawyers or had benefited from legal education, though not all of them relied on the profession for a livelihood. Some had also become judges.[6]

At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
Six were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, and Wilson.
Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and became an abolitionist.
Broom and Few were small farmers.
Nine of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Jenifer, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.
Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.
McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.
...
The Founding Fathers had strong educational backgrounds.[8] Some, like Franklin, were largely self-taught or learned through apprenticeship. Others had obtained instruction from private tutors or at academies. About half of the men had attended or graduated from college in the colonies or Britain. Some men held medical degrees or advanced training in theology. For the most part, the delegates were a well-educated group. A few lawyers had been trained at the Inns of Court in London, but most had apprenticed to an American lawyer.
Doesn't say anything about engineers, scientists or technologists, although that may be implied by some of the professions (e.g. medicine). Rather, the most common background that they all shared was that of politician, at the colonial, state or local office level, as the bolding I've added indicates.

[BrainGlutton]

Reference to On line BLOG's is made by the radio and TV media every day.

Yes . . . what has that to do with your thesis?

And was it an engineer who looked at that fake letter and posted the result of his analysis on line which resulted in the exiting of Dan Blather?

No, it was a lawyer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents#Internet_skepticism_spreads)

I am horrified by that Hilary health plan of 1999 because it is a way to payback all her cronies and not solve the problem.

You mean the 1993 plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Clinton_health_care_plan)?

Affordable Health care is not available. The dumb f..k candidates think that lack of health insurance is the problem. No, the problem is the duplication of services, excess of beds, malpractice awards, insurance overhead and patients to scared to deal with their own mortality and too lazy to read the PDR.

Cite?

[focusonz]

Where do you find that in the article that you cite?

Here's what it says about them:


Doesn't say anything about engineers, scientists or technologists, although that may be implied by some of the professions (e.g. medicine). Rather, the most common background that they all shared was that of politician, at the colonial, state or local office level, as the bolding I've added indicates.

Is not implied . Is there listed..

Scientists - scientists, economists, and physician
technologist - farmers, merchants, land speculators, security traders
engineers – Practically all of them as they had to design most of the infrastructure themselves.

Virtually none of them were politicians, they were more like company presidents.
They were leaders in their communities who were deferred to on most issues as they had the most experience and knowledge and education. The only group decision was to form a more perfect union and politics did not arise because those that did not support Independence were turn coats and were the enemy.

They did not seek power and authority as todays politicians do. They actually wrote a constitution which gave their power and authority away 'to the people'!.

Thanks for sharing!

[BrainGlutton]

I believe Buckminster Fuller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller) also believed things would go better if engineers and techs, instead of politicians, ran everything.

But, then, Fuller had a lot (http://davidszondy.com/future/city/fuller.htm) of ideas (http://davidszondy.com/future/Living/dymaxionhome.htm) that look kind of silly in hindsight.

[ITR champion]

Scientists - scientists, economists, and physician
technologist - farmers, merchants, land speculators, security traders
engineers – Practically all of them as they had to design most of the infrastructure themselves.
You're expanding the definition of those three words until they include almost any profession. Farmers were technologists? In the seventeenth century? Give me a break.

Virtually none of them were politicians, they were more like company presidents.
Actually almost all were politicians at some point in their lives, even if not at the date it was written. Shrinking the definition of "politician" is just as absurd as expanding that of "engineer".

Affordable Health care is not available. The dumb f..k candidates think that lack of health insurance is the problem. No, the problem is the duplication of services, excess of beds, malpractice awards, insurance overhead and patients to scared to deal with their own mortality and too lazy to read the PDR.
Actually insurance overhead and malpractice account for only three percent (http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-is-health-care-so-expensive-in-us.html) of total medical costs. Also most hospitals have a shortage (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/40) of capacity in at least some areas.

I apologize for intruding with actual facts. You may now return to your rant.

[ralph124c]

..is hampered by the insane system of lobbying we have.tHe tactic of the lobbyists is: delay!
That is why, despite years of experience, we still have NO effective identity theft laws-the lobbyists keep deflecting the issue. The same with energy-we NEED solar, wind, hydroelectric, and new sources of petroleum. Congress has effectvely killed all of these-like Ted Kennedy (senile senator from MA). Ted has worked against the Cape windpower project-because he doesn't want his view spoiled. Does he give a crap about his constituents? Not at all!
We need immigration reform-but the big agribusiness interests DON'T want it-so it won't happen.
Really, we need to throw out about 90% of the US Senate, and about 80% of the house. As for the lobbyists: my reform would be: you can give unlimited amounts of money to any rep or senator you choose-but the money transfer must be shown on nationwide TV!

[focusonz]

You're expanding the definition of those three words until they include almost any profession. Farmers were technologists? In the seventeenth century? Give me a break. .

No you give me a break!
You are one of those guys with low self esteem and think it is politically correct to demean that which you don't understand. You must live in the city where the only natural thing is the bird shit on your car window. Well that bird gave you just what you deserve.

Farmers have relied upon, invented, adapted, and discarded more technology than you will see in a lifetime. And they have been using technology long before Stone Hinge.

See http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/17_18.htm

In the US today most every State university has a Extension service to introduce and educate farmers on new technology. You could obtain a BSAE (Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Engineering) or may just familiarize yourself with the curriculum to see what technology is in use today.

By the way 1776 was in the 18th century.

Actually almost all were politicians at some point in their lives, even if not at the date it was written. Shrinking the definition of "politician" is just as absurd as expanding that of "engineer".


The truths were self evident, politicians were not required.

Actually insurance overhead and malpractice account for only three percent (http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-is-health-care-so-expensive-in-us.html) of total medical costs. Also most hospitals have a shortage (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/40) of capacity in at least some areas.


Thank you for these cites. I will look to see if they have been doctored in anyway.

[Aquila Be]

focusonz: Human psychology, unlike the Internet, isn't a series of tubes.

You refer, of course, to fibre optic cables.

Don't forget that many of us still have to rely on copper wires.

[glee]

Farmers have relied upon, invented, adapted, and discarded more technology than you will see in a lifetime. And they have been using technology long before Stone Hinge.


Well let's see.
In my lifetime I've seen bicycles, scooters, motor scooters, motor bikes, cars, buses, trams, monorails, trains, planes, rocket backpacks, rockets, space shuttles, dial-phones, push-button phones, mobile phones, radios, faxes, mainframe computers, desktop computers, laptop computers....

....

...vinyl records, tapes, CDs, DVDs, memory sticks, microfiche, microwaves, cookers, washing machines, tumble driers, hoovers, dysons, hedge trimmers, chain saws, bladed lawnmowers

....

and farmers have done as much as this and more?
Wow. :rolleyes:


By the way 1776 was in the 18th century.


By 'Stone Hinge', do you mean Stonehenge? ;)

[tomndebb]

No you give me a break!
You are one of those guys with low self esteem and think it is politically correct to demean that which you don't understand. You must live in the city where the only natural thing is the bird shit on your car window. Well that bird gave you just what you deserve.You have two problems with this statement.

The first (and lesser) problem is that you are factually in error and are warping the language to try to make your point.

The second and greater problem is that you are launching a personal attack on another poster.

That is not appropriate in this Forum and you will not repeat this error if you wish to continue posting.

[ /Moderating ]

[smiling bandit]

Actually, the OP isn't totally without a point. I think every politician should have a good engineer, mathematician, statician, etc around for advice. Even if said invididual isn't very understanding of the human aspects of governance, having someone available to to look at a situation from various angles is always good. Even if their advice isn't something you want to accept out of hand, it might lead to some new ideas, or clarifications and evolutions and alterations of things.

[focusonz]

You have two problems with this statement.

The first (and lesser) problem is that you are factually in error and are warping the language to try to make your point.

The second and greater problem is that you are launching a personal attack on another poster.

That is not appropriate in this Forum and you will not repeat this error if you wish to continue posting.

[ /Moderating ]

TRUELY SORRY ABOUT THAT. MY APOLOGIES TO ITR champion.

Re Warping
I presume you refer to definition of politician. I cannot visualize how any of the politicians running for president today could hold a candle to any of the forefathers. Todays politician then would more then likley be called a lot worse names than politician. And most importantly I am trying to seperate the forefathers from the todays often time derogatory meaning of the word politician.

Thank You.
focusonz

[Northern Piper]

The truths were self evident, politicians were not required.

Now you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm). The phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is nowhere found in the Constitution, produced by the Constitutional Convention, which is how you began your thread. Rather, the phrase is in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

The next problem with your statement is that the Declaration didn't just somehow appear overnight, descending from Heaven on a cloud of gold. It was the product of an intensely political process, starting with the basic question of who was to draft it. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were appointed to the drafting committee, and here's Adams's account (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm) of why he insisted that Jefferson, his junior, should draft it:
The subcommittee met. Jefferson proposed to me to make the draft. I said, 'I will not,' 'You should do it.' 'Oh! no.' 'Why will you not? You ought to do it.' 'I will not.' 'Why?' 'Reasons enough.' 'What can be your reasons?' 'Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.' 'Well,' said Jefferson, 'if you are decided, I will do as well as I can.' 'Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting.'

So right from the start there was political manoeuvring going on. Jefferson was chosen because he was a good writer, but also because of the political importance of having someone from Virginia, the most important of the colonies, at the head of the draft. As well, Adams was aware of the political enemies that he had made over the years, and that if he would be seen at the head of the draft, opposition would arise because of the political baggage that he carried.

Adams's comments reveal the intensely political backroom manoeuvring that he was good at - doing what he could to increase the chance of support from the biggest and most influential colony, and simultaneously decreasing his own involvement, to minimise backlash from his own political reputation.

And of course it didn't end there: the draft that Jefferson produced went through further revisions by Congress itself, as Adams records:
We reported it to the committee of five. It was read, and I do not remember that Franklin or Sherman criticized anything. We were all in haste. Congress was impatient, and the instrument was reported, as I believe, in Jefferson's handwriting, as he first drew it. Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery.
Again, you see politics at work - the final version was a compromise, put together in some haste, with parts dropped out that were too objectionable to some, for the sake of getting Congress as a whole to agree to it.

Adams also gave a bit of the back-history for the ideas set out in the Declaration, showing that those ideas had developed over the past two years of political debate:As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights and the violation of those rights in the Journals of Congress in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and polished by Samuel Adams.

Note as well Adams's snarky little bite at James Otis, which helps to disabuse the notion that the drafters were all unemotional gentlemen who thought only of the common good at all times (and it also helps to explain why Adam had political enemies!)

And as for the suggestion that these people were somehow not politicians, so well-respected that no-one would criticise them and would just accept their leadership implicitly, you only have to read the accounts of the ratification struggle for the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were written to persuade the voters in New York, a key state, to support the ratification of the Constitution. That was part of an intense political debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers#Influence_on_the_ratification_debates) , in New York and elsewhere.

Or start earlier, when Patrick Henry, such a notable patriot, explained why he turned down the invitation to attend the Constitutional Convention: "I began to smell a rat!" But Washington went from Virginia; did that mean he was a rat? And Mason, one of Washington's friends, broke with Washington over the final draft of the Constitution, in part because of the lack of guarantees of individual rights, and in part because of what he saw as a too-centralised federal government. What is that if not politics?

And if you want to be disabused of the notion that all politics back then was carried on with gentleman-like civility, read about the election of 1800, when John Adams and Tom Jefferson ruined their friendship over their competition to be President. Jefferson won and Adams went home to Boston in a huff, not even attending the inauguration.

The 18th century knew about politics, and the founders of the United States were politicians. "Not that there's anything wrong with that" - to me, politician isn't a dirty word.

[Ravenman]

As for the lobbyists: my reform would be: you can give unlimited amounts of money to any rep or senator you choose-but the money transfer must be shown on nationwide TV!So if a lobbyist wanted to buy lunch for a senator -- let's say a 4 oz steak on a tiny lump of mashed potatoes, and the whole thing cost $85 -- they'd have to show the entree on tv?

[Captain Amazing]

Note as well Adams's snarky little bite at James Otis

While I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said in your post, just as a point of reference, Otis had, since the 1760s, suffered from some sort of mental instability. Some people think it was either schizophrenia or manic-depression, but whatever it was, it was made worse when, in 1769, a custom house official he had written a nasty attack against beat him severely over the head with a cane, fracturing his skull. A year later, the courts judged him mentally incompetant after he went on a rampage in the State House in Boston, smashing windows, setting his papers on fire, and firing a rifle at the ceiling.

So, when Adams (who was friends with Otis) talked about Otis's "lucid intervals", he was being serious and not snarky.

[Northern Piper]

Did not know that - ignorance fought, thanks! I withdraw the "snark" comment.

[Roog]

There is a country that is run almost exclusively by engineers and scientists.
From the Nov. 7, 2007 issue of New Scientist:

CONTEMPORARY China is a nation led by technocrats. The current generation of leaders is made up mostly of graduates from some of China's leading universities, typically trained in science and engineering. Until this year's 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which closed on 22 October, every member of the central bastion of power - the Standing Committee of the Politburo - was an engineer by training. President Hu Jintao is a graduate of Beijing's Tsinghua University, often referred to as China's MIT, while the premier, Wen Jiabao, trained as a geologist.

[Captain Carrot]

So, when Adams (who was friends with Otis) talked about Otis's "lucid intervals", he was being serious and not snarky.
No reason he couldn't have been both. It seems pretty rude to refer to that when there was no apparent reason why it was at all relevant.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, Krypton was run by scientists and look what happened to them. Why, their economy doesn't even register any more!

[msmith537]

What is the point of engineers, scientists and technologists going into politics or government? That isn't their training, background or experience. The entire premise of the OP seems to be based on the idea that somehow career politicians or lawyers are someone inferior to people in other fields.

[focusonz]

What is the point of engineers, scientists and technologists going into politics or government? That isn't their training, background or experience. The entire premise of the OP seems to be based on the idea that somehow career politicians or lawyers are someone inferior to people in other fields.

Aren't they? I would not say inferior but rather superfluous. If we of straight dope, who seem to represent a cross section of America, arrive at consensus on the issues discussed then we would not need to delegate that responsibility to govern because after all we are the ones in authority.

As complex as our society is today the politicians and lawyers must have training and background to take on the responsibility that we have delegated. But having none of our career training and background then they can only guess about what we need or don't need in the way of governance. In the current embodiment only those that talk the loudest are considered as being in authority.

I am suggesting that engineers, scientists and technologists (everyone not a politician and lawyer) are not being put to good use in our government. As a perfect example, if we are convinced that the computerized climate models are correct, then we should be equally convinced that modeling an economy and a society would reveal the future effect of new government policies.