HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030007.jpg

My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: ‘Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.' It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators [e]. For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs. Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I've also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life. Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening. Our Connecticut hotel, along with many others, went bankrupt for a variety of reasons, the general economy in the Northeast being a significant cause. But that reason masks the variety of other challenges we faced that drive operating costs and financing charges beyond what a small business can handle. It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. It is only competition or antitrust that tempers price increases. Consumers may delay purchases, but they have little choice when faced with higher prices. In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves--the people I've spent a lifetime trying to help. In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the market place. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels--e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales--takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics. The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don't have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often. So, there you have it, one of the more remarkable epiphanies in American politics: a paean to entrepreneurship and government restraint from one of its most progressive members. Public epiphanies like this are rare, but there have been others. Last year, Al Gore conceded that first-generation ethanol was “not good policy” given its low energy conversion ratios, and said he had supported ethanol out of ‘“‘a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president” [f]. In 2008, former Fed Chair Greenspan conceded that his Ayn Rand philosophies regarding regulations and shareholder self-interest were flawed. Perhaps the most famous epiphany was from Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense and one of the principal architects of the Vietnam War. In 1995, he conceded that he was “wrong, terribly wrong” about the war. George McGovern was one of the war’s fiercest opponents, saying on the floor of the Senate, “I'm tired of old men dreaming up wars for young men to fight”. There may be no magic elixir of policies to speed the adjustment the US faces. Look at it this way: the US is trying the mega-stimulus route, while the UK has accelerated its fiscal austerity program. Yet both countries are struggling with below-trend growth and employment. Perhaps after a debt binge, there are no easy answers, other than time. What to do next? McGovern’s article suggests that an overly interventionist public sector may be the wrong answer, given the unintended consequences. Michael Cembalest Chief Investment Officer HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030007