Hillary Clinton’s $500 billion infrastructure proposal announced on Sunday, November 29, includes a commitment to “cut red tape and enhance accountability,” citing Common Good’s report “Two Years, Not Ten Years.”
William Galston’s column today in the Wall Street Journal, discussing the Clinton plan, specifically endorses Common Good’s “landmark report,” noting that “[o]ther democracies can plan, fund and execute projects in less time than it takes in the U.S. to complete the required environmental-impact statements.”
In September Jeb Bush in his regulatory proposal also specifically called for infrastructure approvals to be completed “within two years instead of 10,” citing the Common Good report.
We hope other candidates will also address the high cost and environmental harm caused by infrastructure red tape. Radically simplifying the process is essential to modernizing America’s infrastructure.
We ask all Common Good supporters who meet with presidential and congressional candidates to ask them about reforming red tape infrastructure. This is an important, nonpartisan issue that needs public discussion and candidate focus.
On November 9, Common Good’s Philip Howard chaired a panel at Columbia University’s Center on Capitalism and Society’s 13th Annual Conference. The panel, titled “How Evolving Social Values Suppress Individual Initiative,” also featured NYU’s Jonathan Haidt, Swarthmore College’s Barry Schwartz, and Lapham’s Quarterly Lewis Lapham. Click the picture below to watch the panel in full.
At the end of September, Philip was named an Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at the Center – you can read about that here. Click here to watch more video from the annual conference, including a luncheon presentation by entrepreneur Peter Thiel.Comment ›
On October 22, Common Good Chair Philip Howard presented at the Municipal Art Society of New York’s 2015 summit. Click the image below to watch his six-minute talk, titled “Two Years, Not Ten Years.”
Click here to access Common Good’s recent “Two Years, Not Ten Years” report on infrastructure permitting.Comment ›
In a recent essay for the Stamford Advocate, Dr. Edward Volpintesta of Connecticut makes the case for health courts:
[H]ealth courts presided over by judges with special training in malpractice have great potential to lessen the adversarial instincts that characterize the medical liability system.
Health courts can 1) eliminate the adversarial attitude that has poisoned the current system, 2) settle cases fairly in weeks or months not the three or four years that they take now, 3) cut down on the legal wrangling that often goes on as cases wind their way through the system, 4) limit the incentives that lawyers have to make the suits as expensive as possible in order to increase their fees, 5) control unfair multimillion dollar verdicts, 6) reduce the court costs, and 7) reduce the hostilities between injured parties and physicians. …
Health courts are an idea whose time has come. The benefits for the public good are immense. It would be senseless and unreasonable if all parties concerned did not give it their wholehearted support.
He relates that the Connecticut State Medical Society recently decided to advocate for legislation that would establish health courts.
The health court concept was developed by Common Good in conjunction with the Harvard School of Public Health and with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It is the only reform proposal that can bring reliability to medical justice, the absence of which causes doctors to engage in the costly practice of defensive medicine. Health courts have been endorsed by medical societies, patient safety advocates, editorial boards, leading government officials—including President Obama—and the American public.Comment ›
*** Click here to access proposed legislative language to implement the report's proposals. ***
Today Common Good released Two Years, Not Ten Years: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals, our new report on the costs of delaying infrastructure permits. The report concludes that a permitting delay of six years on public projects costs the nation over $3.7 trillion, more than double the $1.7 trillion needed through the end of this decade to modernize America’s decrepit infrastructure.
Read the press release here.
Read the report here.
This report came out of the May 2015 forum Common Good co-hosted with the National Association of Manufacturers, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and Covington & Burling LLP.
Common Good is pushing for a radically simplified approach, with all reviews and approvals completed within two years. “Two Years, Not Ten Years” is our rallying cry.
We would welcome your comments and suggestions on this crucial national issue. You can e-mail them to email@example.com.Comment ›
The Cato Institute released Reviving Economic Growth this week, an e-book with 51 essays from experts answering this question: “If you could wave a magic wand and make one or two policy or institutional changes to brighten the U.S. economy’s long-term growth prospects, what would you change and why?”
Here is an excerpt from Philip Howard’s contribution, “Radically Simplify Law”:
America’s can-do culture has a few necessary conditions, including the rule of law. Economic energy dissipates in a state of anarchy or corruption. A vigorous economy requires a legal platform which enforces contracts, protects against crime and allows people to go through the day focusing forward, not looking over their shoulders.
Too much law, however, can have similar effects as too little law. People slow down, they become defensive, they don’t initiate projects because they are surrounded by legal risks and bureaucratic hurdles. They tiptoe through the day looking over their shoulders rather than driving forward on the power of their instincts. Instead of trial and error, they focus on avoiding error.
Modern America is the land of too much law. Like sediment in a harbor, law has steadily accumulated, mainly since the 1960s, until most productive activity requires slogging through a legal swamp. It’s degenerative. Law is denser now than it was 10 years ago, and will be denser still in the next decade.
CONTACT: Chelsey Saatkamp – Goodman Media International
STATEMENT BY COMMON GOOD CHAIR PHILIP K. HOWARD IN RESPONSE TO WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT ON INFRASTRUCTURE REFORMS
New York, NY – September 22, 2015 – Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard released the following statement in response to the White House’s announcement today of procedural improvements in the environmental review process for infrastructure projects:
“The reforms announced by the White House today are a step in the right direction but do not address sufficiently the extraordinary cost to the nation of delays in approving infrastructure projects. Common Good has estimated that cost at $3.7 trillion – more than twice the cost of fixing the infrastructure.
Having parallel reviews rather than sequential ones, as the White House proposes, is clearly a valuable step. But it will not change a regulatory culture, with no accountable decision-maker, that has led the approval process to last, in many cases, a decade or longer. Environmental review statements should be no more than 300 pages as current regulations provide – not, often, 10,000 pages.
I look forward to hearing more about additional steps that the White House intends to take to address this issue, which is costing the nation dearly in wasted resources, preventable pollution, and millions of lost jobs.”
Earlier this month Common Good issued a report revealing that a six-year delay in starting construction on public projects costs the nation over $3.7 trillion, including the costs of prolonged inefficiencies and unnecessary pollution. That’s more than double the $1.7 trillion needed through the end of this decade to modernize America’s decrepit infrastructure. Titled Two Years, Not Ten Years: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals, the report proposes a dramatic reduction of red tape so that infrastructure can be approved in two years or less. This can be accomplished by consolidating decisions within a simplified framework with deadlines and clear lines of accountability.
The report comes as the federal government considers funding for infrastructure projects, but funding alone is not sufficient. Even fully-funded projects have trouble moving forward. In 2009, America had the money (over $800 billion in the economic stimulus package) but few permits. In its five-year report on the stimulus, released in February 2014, the White House revealed that a grand total of $30 billion (3.6 percent of the stimulus) had been spent on transportation infrastructure. In the current legal quagmire, not even the President has authority to approve needed projects.
The report also comes as Americans are increasingly frustrated with the federal government’s inability to improve the nation’s infrastructure. A nationwide poll of U.S. voters conducted for Common Good in June by Clarus Research Group found that 74 percent of voters would be more inclined to vote for a candidate for President who promised to take charge of federal infrastructure reviews to speed up the process; 79 percent of voters think there are no good reasons for infrastructure delays, which are mostly viewed as an example of wasteful and inefficient government.
The full report is available at www.commongood.org.
For more information or to talk with Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard, please contact Chelsey Saatkamp at 212-576-2700 x259 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Common Good (www.commongood.org) is a nonpartisan government reform coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America. The Chair of Common Good is Philip K. Howard, a lawyer and author of most recently The Rule of Nobody. He is also author of The Death of Common Sense.Comment ›
Following the release of “Two Years, Not Ten Years,” Common Good Chair Philip Howard took to the Huffington Post this week to further explain how environmental review, as currently conducted, actually hurts the environment:
Environmental review, when mandated by Congress in 1970, was supposed to foster better decisions. No one expected it to delay projects by more than a few months. Current regulations by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, created by Congress to oversee environmental review, state that environment impact statements should not be longer than 300 ages even in the most complex projects.
Environmental review has instead evolved into an agonizing crawl through years of meetings and mind-numbing detail. A project to raise the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge has almost no environmental impact -- it uses the same foundations and right of way -- but nonetheless required a 10,000 page environmental assessment. In another project, to expand a dock on the west coast, the initial "scoping meetings" took two years; only then could consultants even begin their review. The Savannah River dredging project consumed 14 years in environmental reviews. Such is the slow trudge through environmental review. …
The dynamic of delay is easy to understand. Every project has some harmful side effects. A desalination plant produces a briny byproduct. A wind farm mars nature views. A third rail tunnel under the Hudson will require huge digging and will dislocate people on the approach routes. Any group that doesn't like a project, or prefers it to be redesigned, can raise numerous issues, and threaten litigate if not satisfied. Years go by as participants tiptoe through a legal minefield. Meanwhile, bottlenecks and obsolete plants spew pollution into our air and water.
The solution, he explains, is to give an official authority to decide how much environmental review is necessary. You can read Philip’s full op-ed here.Comment ›
The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about Common Good’s “Two Years, Not Ten Years” report this past weekend, stating that it “offers a road map” to overhauling infrastructure permitting in the U.S.:
Common Good suggests building a process that shuttles projects through in a prompt two years. Environmental reviews should be handled by one designated official and kept to 300 pages; litigation should be restricted to the first 90 days after the permit is issued; the White House should be granted authority to appoint an agency as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for interstate projects.
Congress could address the permitting morass this fall as part of the transportation bill, and the presidential candidates could include the issue and a horror story or two in their agendas for faster economic growth. It’s hard to imagine a more sensible and politically achievable idea—and one better suited to restoring public confidence that government can carry out its basic duties.
Philip Howard recently sat down for an extensive conversation with Arthur Levitt on his Bloomberg Radio program “A Closer Look with Arthur Levitt.” Topics of discussion with the former SEC chairman included the civil service system, environmental review, education, and presidential authority.
Click here to listen to the interview.Comment ›