Problem Solving For the Federal Government
There is an adage that says, "A Problem Defined is Half Solved".
What the government needs to do when addressing an issue is to define the problem.
After the problem is defined, start searching solutions listing all the pros and cons you can find.
Then refine the solutions to find the one most practical.
We do not want solutions to problems based solely on philosophy or ideology.
Remember, they should be real and make sense.
For instance, off-shore drilling.
There are those in favor of it and those against it.
When gas prices were raging at $4.
00 per gallon and higher, there were those that called for off-shore drilling and those that were still adamant against it.
When it was reinstated, gas prices dropped and with no apparent environmental catastrophe.
So, why can't off-shore drilling be reinstated, when necessary, as a tool to effect reasonable oil and gas prices? Whether or not you agree with this example, you get that idea that matters can be compromised in applicable circumstances, when the situation is serious, if people are temporarily willing to become "unglued" to ideology.
No, this does not apply to all circumstances, but it will apply to many.
The same goes with Health Care.
Can anyone really say the Government did a good job of defining the problem? If they did, then why were tort reform and the cost of prescription drug prices not part of the solution? Were not these two items certainly part of the problem? And why are millions of people still left out of the health coverage equation? With an entitlement as big as this, you would think it incumbent upon Congress to carefully research all the pros and cons before deciding on this bill.
What the government needs to do when addressing an issue is to define the problem.
After the problem is defined, start searching solutions listing all the pros and cons you can find.
Then refine the solutions to find the one most practical.
We do not want solutions to problems based solely on philosophy or ideology.
Remember, they should be real and make sense.
For instance, off-shore drilling.
There are those in favor of it and those against it.
When gas prices were raging at $4.
00 per gallon and higher, there were those that called for off-shore drilling and those that were still adamant against it.
When it was reinstated, gas prices dropped and with no apparent environmental catastrophe.
So, why can't off-shore drilling be reinstated, when necessary, as a tool to effect reasonable oil and gas prices? Whether or not you agree with this example, you get that idea that matters can be compromised in applicable circumstances, when the situation is serious, if people are temporarily willing to become "unglued" to ideology.
No, this does not apply to all circumstances, but it will apply to many.
The same goes with Health Care.
Can anyone really say the Government did a good job of defining the problem? If they did, then why were tort reform and the cost of prescription drug prices not part of the solution? Were not these two items certainly part of the problem? And why are millions of people still left out of the health coverage equation? With an entitlement as big as this, you would think it incumbent upon Congress to carefully research all the pros and cons before deciding on this bill.
Source...