THE ENTERPRISE--MIND YOUR P'S AND Q'S
WHERE DID THAT SAYING COME FROM?
Jolly old England where the ale was consumed in Pints and Quarts. Thus when someone was drinking a bit much, he was often reminded to "mind your P's and Q's." I want to use it in another couple of ways.
TEN P'S AND A COUPLE OF Q'S, ON THE WAY TO SUCCESS IN BUSINESS (AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS)
While you are doing this, always remember Levitt's Rule: "The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer," and add Mariotti's corollary: ...happy. If you can find a customer who wants/needs what you have, and if you will consistently create and deliver the best value, you will win. Now go back there and mind your P's and Q's.
THE 11TH P--PRAGMATISM: AFGHANISTAN--IN THE NEWS FOR GOOD REASON
The McChrystal incident simply reinforces the doubts that exist in many minds--military and politicians alike--whether the US should be devoting the resources it is to Afghanistan. The politicians don't have a clue. The military shouldn't have aired their complaints and contempt in public, but I'll bet they were simply so frustrated, they "lost it." No excuse, but a reasonable explanation. The politicians guiding these far-away wars are foolish, often poorly informed, inexperienced, misguided, etc. etc. and etc. This has been called an "unwinnable war." That may be right, simply because the definition of "win" no longer means what it used to mean. Obama was lucky to have a man like Petraeus in the wings and ready to take over. But even he will struggle to "win" unless the definition is changed.
PRAGMATISM: WHAT CAN YOU REALLY EXPECT?
The central question remains: what is the goal. If it is "defeating the Taliban," forget it. The Taliban live there. It is their native country. The Taliban may be and have been an evil force, and a supporter of terrorism al Qaeda style. No matter how evil they are, these facts remain. The Taliban may be driven out of certain areas "for a while," and even defeated militarily in certain "battles," but the Taliban will be like crabgrass or cockroaches. It will survive and given the smallest openings it will spring forth and spread again. stronger than ever. That we (Americans) believe we need our military to teach Afghanis to fight is preposterous. Who taught the Taliban, who kicks our ass regularly?
ED. NOTE: [Petraeus already has begun to act, since he knows that to follow those absurd "rules of engagement" (where medals were given for non-confrontation) and to employ "practices developed for different wars in vastly different theaters"—is a large part of the military problem. But it ignores the cultural problem in Afghanistan. What happened favorably in Iraq was not because we wanted it. It was because the Iraqi people (whether Sunni or Shiite or Kurd) wanted it. What Petraeus did (brilliantly) was make it possible for them to have what they wanted (independence and local autonomy) at the same time as we got what we wanted —(out!).]
BE PRAGMATIC: VICTORY IS AN ORDERLY EXIT WITH A STRONG REMINDER OF CONSEQUENCES
The way we can win in Afghanistan is to leave, and to leave behind the certainly that IF whoever "rules" the various parts of it decides to harbor our enemies, we will come back with a vengeance, not on the mountainous ground fighting on the Taliban's terms, but from the air, with the "wrath of God" raining down on wherever those terrorists are being harbored. If civilians are there, they must get out, or they will be collateral damage. We don't relish harming civilians. We also cannot stop enemies from using them as shields. We also don't need to, and shouldn't want to occupy and manage Afghanistan with its warring tribes and corrupt politicians. We have no right to do that unless or until they are helping our enemies to harm us.
Here's a proposal President Obama: Invite all of our "Allies" to match our troop strength and spending in Afghanistan, and if they don't (can't, won't, etc.) then we withdraw too and let the Afghani people live, fight and control their own country. Nobody named us to be the one to control other countries destinies, until or unless we must do so, to protect ourselves and our interests.
THE ULTIMATE PRAGMATISM: THE USA CANNOT & SHOULD NOT BE THE MILITARY POLICE &/or NATION BUILDER FOR THE WORLD
Bush went into Iraq for entirely different reasons than were stated. WMDs may have existed--or may not. Saddam was a really bad man, as were his sons. Dictators have ruled in that area of the world for centuries. It is the only way the people knew to live. The USA went in there hoping to stabilize the Middle East and keep Saudi Arabia from going over the al Qaeda's side (al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia). A more stable and different Iraq between the Iranian mullahs and madmen and the Saudi princes and royalty, did help. Bush & Petraeus surge worked, so to speak. Obama is now trapped in fighting a war he cannot win. His surge will not work, because it is crippled by his proclaimed desire to leave ASAP...and (back to the first section)...the Afghani people will not make it work.
Don't Quit per se, but re-Prioritize where and how we choose to "fight" and for what end. We must get out, as "gracefully as possible," but also as safely and efficiently as possible. At the first sign of "regression," we must make frightening strikes to send the message that we meant what we said--no terrorist safe havens-ever. Meanwhile we can re-task, re-build and rejuvenate our military, and spend on with tools (weapons systems) to fight 21st century conflicts and enemies, and not those of the mid-20th century.
THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS MAY BE SHOCKING TO SOME, BUT THEY ARE AS PRAGMATIC AS I CAN BE.
A FEW MORE P'S COME TO MIND--ON OUR POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE DAY
PREVENT SCREW UPS: CAN GOP CANDIDATES KEEP FEET OUT OF MOUTH?--CAN THE TEA-PARTIERS HELP, NOT HURT!
It seems that a few of the latest GOP candidates and a few other incumbents are suffering from "hoof in mouth" disease. When the Democrats are making a mess of things, can't these folks be satisfied to stay away from "hot button issues" and let the Dems stew in their own messes? The Constitution is a theoretically good common ground, but there are land mines buried there due to the past abuses and neglect of its principles forced by vocal special interests. Rand Paul about learned this one.
PARTNER: THE GOP & TEA PARTY NEED TO FIND COMMON GROUND TO BEAT THE DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL INCUMBENTS.
If ever there was a time for a "marriage of convenience" it seems that the traditional GOP leaders and the Tea Parties' leaders (there are multiple of them) should get together and stake out some common ground for future campaign themes. I'd propose "fiscal sanity/responsibility and reducing big government while curtailing the growth and cost of government". Time has proven that "throwing taxpayer money at them" has not solved any of the nagging problems in the USA--Energy, Health Care, Immigration, Education, etc. etc., even Defense/Homeland Security, and especially "entitlements" (SS & Medicare). The goal must be to take back control of Congress from the left/liberal Democrats--in 2010! THAT WILL REQUIRE UNITY OF EFFORT, NOT FACTIONS FIGHTING INTERNALLY.
DO NOT PREVARICATE: KIRK (R, IL, Gov. candidate) JOINS BLUMENTHAL (D. CT, Senate candidate) IN "MISSPEAKING" ABOUT SERVICE RECORDS
Do they think nobody will notice a few little lies? Just because other elected officials have done it, and survived, doesn't mean they can. In these days of cell phone video cameras and millions of bloggers, nobody is immune to being caught. So why do it? Stupid.
STOP THE EXCESSIVE PATRONAGE: OHIO IS A MICROCOSM OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR POLITICAL PATRONAGE SYSTEM
If you are incredulous when you read this, join the club. I fear that I can put something like this in every edition of THE ENTERPRISE, and only occasionally have to go outside Ohio for my examples. (Actually Illinois and California are the champions of waste, but then that's no big surprise, is it?)
THAT'S ENOUGH P'S FOR ONE WEEK.
I hope I gave you some things to think about. I don't know if I'm right, because these are just (two more P's) my Ponderings & Pontification.
Prego, JOHN
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
WHERE DID THAT SAYING COME FROM?
Jolly old England where the ale was consumed in Pints and Quarts. Thus when someone was drinking a bit much, he was often reminded to "mind your P's and Q's." I want to use it in another couple of ways.
TEN P'S AND A COUPLE OF Q'S, ON THE WAY TO SUCCESS IN BUSINESS (AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS)
- The most important thing in business (and life) is People (P1)—not Profit (P10), which is an outcome of a bunch of other P's.
- Find the best people. Too few good ones is better than too many not-so-good ones. Choose Quality (Q1) over Quantity (Q2)
- Figure out what the Purpose (P2) of your business is, or what it intends to be. Lacking a purpose is like being lost without a compass.
- You must have a well thought out Plan (P3). No plan means no clear direction, and that is bad because you can't set Priorities (P4). Priorities determine how you will spend your scarce resources--of which there are only three: Time, Money and Talent.
- Your plan should prioritize what need/want you will fulfill with your Product (P5). Don't develop a product and then go looking for the need/want it fits. Solutions looking for problems is backward.
- Pursue (P6) your purpose and plan with Passion (P7) and Perseverance (P8), because these will set you apart from the crowd, especially when the going gets tough--which it will.
- If you do this, you will make Progress (P9)--assuming you chose some metrics against which to measure how you are doing. Be sure you did, and if you didn't, do it now--ASAP. It will be tempting to take short cuts, cut corners, and make easy or expedient, but not wise decisions. Don't do this. Use Q1 as your primary guide: Quality has to come first--in all its connotations.
- Apply some hard work, stick to it and finally, success in the form of Profit (P10), will result.
While you are doing this, always remember Levitt's Rule: "The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer," and add Mariotti's corollary: ...happy. If you can find a customer who wants/needs what you have, and if you will consistently create and deliver the best value, you will win. Now go back there and mind your P's and Q's.
THE 11TH P--PRAGMATISM: AFGHANISTAN--IN THE NEWS FOR GOOD REASON
The McChrystal incident simply reinforces the doubts that exist in many minds--military and politicians alike--whether the US should be devoting the resources it is to Afghanistan. The politicians don't have a clue. The military shouldn't have aired their complaints and contempt in public, but I'll bet they were simply so frustrated, they "lost it." No excuse, but a reasonable explanation. The politicians guiding these far-away wars are foolish, often poorly informed, inexperienced, misguided, etc. etc. and etc. This has been called an "unwinnable war." That may be right, simply because the definition of "win" no longer means what it used to mean. Obama was lucky to have a man like Petraeus in the wings and ready to take over. But even he will struggle to "win" unless the definition is changed.
PRAGMATISM: WHAT CAN YOU REALLY EXPECT?
The central question remains: what is the goal. If it is "defeating the Taliban," forget it. The Taliban live there. It is their native country. The Taliban may be and have been an evil force, and a supporter of terrorism al Qaeda style. No matter how evil they are, these facts remain. The Taliban may be driven out of certain areas "for a while," and even defeated militarily in certain "battles," but the Taliban will be like crabgrass or cockroaches. It will survive and given the smallest openings it will spring forth and spread again. stronger than ever. That we (Americans) believe we need our military to teach Afghanis to fight is preposterous. Who taught the Taliban, who kicks our ass regularly?
ED. NOTE: [Petraeus already has begun to act, since he knows that to follow those absurd "rules of engagement" (where medals were given for non-confrontation) and to employ "practices developed for different wars in vastly different theaters"—is a large part of the military problem. But it ignores the cultural problem in Afghanistan. What happened favorably in Iraq was not because we wanted it. It was because the Iraqi people (whether Sunni or Shiite or Kurd) wanted it. What Petraeus did (brilliantly) was make it possible for them to have what they wanted (independence and local autonomy) at the same time as we got what we wanted —(out!).]
BE PRAGMATIC: VICTORY IS AN ORDERLY EXIT WITH A STRONG REMINDER OF CONSEQUENCES
The way we can win in Afghanistan is to leave, and to leave behind the certainly that IF whoever "rules" the various parts of it decides to harbor our enemies, we will come back with a vengeance, not on the mountainous ground fighting on the Taliban's terms, but from the air, with the "wrath of God" raining down on wherever those terrorists are being harbored. If civilians are there, they must get out, or they will be collateral damage. We don't relish harming civilians. We also cannot stop enemies from using them as shields. We also don't need to, and shouldn't want to occupy and manage Afghanistan with its warring tribes and corrupt politicians. We have no right to do that unless or until they are helping our enemies to harm us.
Here's a proposal President Obama: Invite all of our "Allies" to match our troop strength and spending in Afghanistan, and if they don't (can't, won't, etc.) then we withdraw too and let the Afghani people live, fight and control their own country. Nobody named us to be the one to control other countries destinies, until or unless we must do so, to protect ourselves and our interests.
THE ULTIMATE PRAGMATISM: THE USA CANNOT & SHOULD NOT BE THE MILITARY POLICE &/or NATION BUILDER FOR THE WORLD
Bush went into Iraq for entirely different reasons than were stated. WMDs may have existed--or may not. Saddam was a really bad man, as were his sons. Dictators have ruled in that area of the world for centuries. It is the only way the people knew to live. The USA went in there hoping to stabilize the Middle East and keep Saudi Arabia from going over the al Qaeda's side (al Qaeda came from Saudi Arabia). A more stable and different Iraq between the Iranian mullahs and madmen and the Saudi princes and royalty, did help. Bush & Petraeus surge worked, so to speak. Obama is now trapped in fighting a war he cannot win. His surge will not work, because it is crippled by his proclaimed desire to leave ASAP...and (back to the first section)...the Afghani people will not make it work.
Don't Quit per se, but re-Prioritize where and how we choose to "fight" and for what end. We must get out, as "gracefully as possible," but also as safely and efficiently as possible. At the first sign of "regression," we must make frightening strikes to send the message that we meant what we said--no terrorist safe havens-ever. Meanwhile we can re-task, re-build and rejuvenate our military, and spend on with tools (weapons systems) to fight 21st century conflicts and enemies, and not those of the mid-20th century.
THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS MAY BE SHOCKING TO SOME, BUT THEY ARE AS PRAGMATIC AS I CAN BE.
A FEW MORE P'S COME TO MIND--ON OUR POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE DAY
PREVENT SCREW UPS: CAN GOP CANDIDATES KEEP FEET OUT OF MOUTH?--CAN THE TEA-PARTIERS HELP, NOT HURT!
It seems that a few of the latest GOP candidates and a few other incumbents are suffering from "hoof in mouth" disease. When the Democrats are making a mess of things, can't these folks be satisfied to stay away from "hot button issues" and let the Dems stew in their own messes? The Constitution is a theoretically good common ground, but there are land mines buried there due to the past abuses and neglect of its principles forced by vocal special interests. Rand Paul about learned this one.
PARTNER: THE GOP & TEA PARTY NEED TO FIND COMMON GROUND TO BEAT THE DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL INCUMBENTS.
If ever there was a time for a "marriage of convenience" it seems that the traditional GOP leaders and the Tea Parties' leaders (there are multiple of them) should get together and stake out some common ground for future campaign themes. I'd propose "fiscal sanity/responsibility and reducing big government while curtailing the growth and cost of government". Time has proven that "throwing taxpayer money at them" has not solved any of the nagging problems in the USA--Energy, Health Care, Immigration, Education, etc. etc., even Defense/Homeland Security, and especially "entitlements" (SS & Medicare). The goal must be to take back control of Congress from the left/liberal Democrats--in 2010! THAT WILL REQUIRE UNITY OF EFFORT, NOT FACTIONS FIGHTING INTERNALLY.
DO NOT PREVARICATE: KIRK (R, IL, Gov. candidate) JOINS BLUMENTHAL (D. CT, Senate candidate) IN "MISSPEAKING" ABOUT SERVICE RECORDS
Do they think nobody will notice a few little lies? Just because other elected officials have done it, and survived, doesn't mean they can. In these days of cell phone video cameras and millions of bloggers, nobody is immune to being caught. So why do it? Stupid.
STOP THE EXCESSIVE PATRONAGE: OHIO IS A MICROCOSM OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR POLITICAL PATRONAGE SYSTEM
If you are incredulous when you read this, join the club. I fear that I can put something like this in every edition of THE ENTERPRISE, and only occasionally have to go outside Ohio for my examples. (Actually Illinois and California are the champions of waste, but then that's no big surprise, is it?)
Ohio Sheriff's Auditors: Another Example of Government Excess
By Mary McCleary
Policy Analyst
[email protected]
As the saying goes, "It's not what you know. It's who you know." This statement especially rings true when it comes the Franklin County Sheriff's auditors. Only two of nine auditors are actually licensed appraisers, but all, surprisingly enough, are political supporters of the sheriff. Although the sheriff looks for real-estate experts, he can appoint whomever he wants. For example, when two auditors on the staff died, the sheriff filled their spots with the deceased's family members. While one of the appointees was licensed, the other was not. The point is that employees are not hired based on merit, but instead through a system all too similar to that of the corrupt Tammany Hall.
Even more ridiculous than the hiring process is the compensation the sheriff's appraisers receive. Appraisers "earn" $101 for each property they assess. The highest paid auditor averaged 14 appraisals per workday and made $442,410 in 2009. In the same year, the lowest paid auditor only averaged 3.2 appraisals per work day, yet still made $108,155. Including driving time, the highest paid auditor only spent a little over half an hour on each property. How can each property appraisal be worth $101 when the appraisal only takes a matter of minutes?
Contrast the Franklin County Sheriff's appraisers to the Franklin County Auditor's appraisers. The auditor's appraisers earn between $45,000 and $55,000 annually, with each appraisal costing only $24. Assuming an eight-hour workday, the auditor's appraisers average between 7.21 and 8.81 appraisals per day. Including driving time, they spend between 55 and 67 minutes per appraisal. How does the county manage to keep costs so low? According to former Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa, Franklin County keeps costs in check by allowing private companies to bid on jobs. Costs are kept down by allowing market forces to work through private sector competition.
In other words, the auditor's appraisers earn less than a quarter of what the sheriff's auditors earn per parcel. Not only are all of the county auditor's appraisers certified, unlike the sheriff's appraisers, but they also spend nearly twice as long on each property as the sheriff's appraisers. The county auditor's appraisers are more qualified, produce more thorough appraisals, and are significantly less expensive.
Are the sheriff's appraisals even necessary? According to a 2001 study by the Franklin County Auditor's Office, probably not. The sheriff's appraisers only appraise homes that have gone into foreclosure and need to be sold. The law requires that all foreclosed homes sell for at least two thirds of the appraised value. The 2001 study found that 85% of all foreclosed properties sold for two thirds or more of the county auditor's appraised price. Thus, for 85% of properties, the sheriff's auditors' appraisals were redundant and unnecessary.
Regarding the other 15% of properties, the county auditor's office could have reappraised each parcel for a fraction of the sheriff's auditor's cost. If a property could not be sold for two thirds of the appraised value at the sheriff's sale, the county auditor's office could reassess the parcel for a mere $24, as opposed to the sheriff's price of $101. The savings are enormous!
Assume that 85% of the 2009 appraisals were unnecessary and that the county auditor's office could have handled the other 15% of the appraisals. If this were indeed the case, eliminating the sheriff's appraisers would have saved $2,653,596 in Franklin County alone. The Franklin County Auditor's office could have performed the exact same task as the sheriff's auditors for only $65,254, as opposed to the $2,718,850 spent in 2009. The sheriff's system costs 41.67 times more than the amount required to fund the same work through the county auditor's office
Some might argue that there is nothing wrong with the sheriffs' auditors appraisal system since the taxpayers do not directly pay for the appraisals, as they are funded by the mortgage companies. While mortgage companies do foot the bill, they do not bear the full impact of the expense. Instead they pass along a portion of the appraisal costs to their other clients in the form of fees. In essence, the appraisal fee is really a tax on mortgage companies and their clients. The $101 per parcel must come from somewhere, and that somewhere is still the private sector.
Even though the sheriff's auditors are technically contractors and not public employees, the end result is still the same: taxpayer dollars are wasted through frivolous government spending. The sheriff's auditor positions should be eliminated, and all government appraisals should be done through the county auditor's office.
THAT'S ENOUGH P'S FOR ONE WEEK.
I hope I gave you some things to think about. I don't know if I'm right, because these are just (two more P's) my Ponderings & Pontification.
Prego, JOHN
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
Comments