S786: A Tale of Entrepreneurs Grown Soft?

[donsutherland1]

Unfortunately, the proponents of this legislation appear to believe--or at least are acting in such fashion--that they are no longer able to compete effectively in the marketplace where innovation and continual improvement are keys to building and sustaining competitive advantages. In fact, they appear to fear competition.

Hence, they want to erect barriers to competition by restricting data to the extent that smaller concerns e.g., Weather Underground, would depend on the larger ones for data. That way, the larger concerns would gain a permanent advantage that they might not otherwise be able to achieve in marketplace competition. Moreover, they would do so without having to provide any added value in return for those legislatively-achieved competitive advantages.

It is very sad that a number of organizations that had really distinguished themselves as true pioneers in the industry have apparently decided to abandon their entrepreneurial roots and seek advantages, not through the marketplace but through the legislative process. That's anything but consistent with the principles of a free market economy. Anti-competitive protection via legislation/regulation is not what built the American economy (though to be sure some laws and regulation are necessary). Entrepreneurial risk-taking, often at huge financial risk, innovative thinking, and hard work did most to build the economy.

Those championing the legislation took that entrepreneurial route. But that was in the past. Now, long removed from their beginnings, they seem to have forgotten how they got started, much less built their success.

If this legislation is any indication, some of yesterday's pioneers in the industry have seemingly grown soft. They no longer want to pursue success through market opportunities. Instead, they demand legislative entitlements and protection from prospective competitors.

That is anything but fair. In doing so, they want to restrict data and deny others the opportunity to achieve success that they enjoyed 20-30 years ago. Imagine, for a second, if they never had access to NWS data at the onset. It's very difficult to make a case that they would be anywhere near as successful as they are today, if they were denied such data. In fact, some of those enterprises might never have been launched.

Not only is the pursuit of legislative entitlement inconsistent with spirit of a market economy, it's not in the public interest. That last reason is the most important argument S.786 should be defeated.

It's not too late for those organizations to recognize that they have made a mistake. They can still look back to their proud entrepreneurial heritage and draw strength from what they achieved. They earned every bit of that success. In doing so, they can still abandon the legislative route and quietly ask Senator Santorum to withdraw S.786 before it inflicts its harm on the American public, NWS, and the overall industry. Anyone can make a strategic error. It's not too late to fix that error. Doing so would be a courageous step.

They can re-dedicate themselves to marketplace excellence and to strengthening the public-private partnership so that everyone--the general public, private enterprises, and the NWS--all gain. Will they do so?

[dhweather]

Don, you have written some exceptional pieces on this nagging issue.
I applaud your efforts.

Isn't it funny (in a bad way) that these corporations don't want the
government around to "get in their way", but on another front,
United Air Lines is trying diligently to abandon paying their pension fund
and let the US taxpayers pick it up?

At least the House had the sense to block that today.


David

[donsutherland1]

Dhweather,

Thanks for the kind words. I've written a few pieces, as I'm aware of at least a few journalists having scanned the bulletin boards to feel the pulse of the weather community. The proponents of the legislation are making an all-out effort to regain the initiative (per letters to their elected representatives, op-ed pieces, e-mails, and press releases). Some have even engaged in leveling unfair and unsubstantiated allegations against the NWS/NHC. As Government entities, neither the NWS nor NHC can really offer much comment on what's going on. Hence, I believe it's very important that the facts of the bad legislation are known and the attempt to "spin" it as public interest legislation is thwarted.

I applaud the House for taking its stand on the UAL pension situation. The taxpayer resort is supposed to be a final resort. Transferring pension obligations to the taxpayer is not supposed to be easy nor an early resort for cutting expenses. Otherwise the idea that pensions are binding commitments would be greatly undermined. Just as contracts are binding, so are pensions, which are really part of the contractual arrangement between employers and employees. Hopefully, the House will not reverse itself on this issue.

[dhweather]

Don, while I don't want to spin off too much into a political chat
in this forum, I do totally agree that corporations should not be
able to pawn off their pensions to simply reduce costs.

In general, the public will raise a significant uproar, demanding
accountability from the government. I do, everyone should.
For some reason, however, most do not hold corporations to
the same level of accountability. With horrible scandals, such as
Enron and Worldcom, the private sector is actually looking
much less responsible, to a degree, than the government.

Is there really ANY CEO worth $10 million a year, particularly when
his company is in bankruptcy?

No government official makes anything close to that kind of money in
a career, much less one year.