Todd D. Lyle’s Post

Strongly agree with Fred’s comments. The review should extend to organizations funded by the Federal Government. Organizations become bureaucracies, living life forces which fight to survive regardless of whether or not they have completed (or failed to complete) their original purpose. They morph and adapt in the attemp to survive and often redirect funding and resources to fulfill their own desires. FFRDCs as an example should be included in the review. Sunset clauses need teeth, otherwise the last 5 years of an organization will be spent on lobbying and justifying their existence.

My new column: How can the world’s richest man, holding billions of dollars in federal-government relationships with America and other nations, objectively slash our federal agencies’ budgets and interactions?

This is a very thoughtful commentary (albeit from an admittedly partisan source) - nevertheless definitely worth a read. A few years back, after standing up the Space Development Agency (SDA), I was asked by Sandra Erwin from Space News what I would do if I were “king for a day” (specifically with respect to defense space acquisition and development) and I responded by saying that we ought to consider **sunset clauses** for all federal agencies. Organizations, private or public, experience lifecycles much like organisms - they exhibit rapid growth and energy in their youth, mature, accrete rules and norms of behavior, and then hit senescence. Unlike organisms, however, government agencies tend to be somewhat immortal, kept alive by various constituencies to struggle along in a zombie state long after their purpose has faded and their energy and innovation have gone by the wayside. The SDA was intended to eventually supplant - not eternally ride alongside - legacy space acquisition organizations that had become not much more than troughs at which defense contractors could feast. Older organizations need to be stood down, with all respect to their members, standing aside for the new. Failure to do this leaves us with a massive bureaucratic overhang that saps our energy and budgets. That’s not the way we’ll deter or conduct warfare in the future. Let’s start ID’ing organizations for review and retirement. And let’s recognize that the energy, enthusiasm, and innovation in space is now mostly a private sector phenomenon. Accept it, harness it. Seriously. 🚀

iCommentarius: Today, we will lead off with the uncertainty that surrounds Trump’s return to power as the circus ringmaster. Hail to the chief that beat the system, say my most Trumpian friends! But on a more serious note, this election outcome will affect us in many unanticipated ways. Those who voted for Trump wanted change. Well, hang on, you may not like what’s coming. Read more by clicking on this link:

I was briefly quoted in this story:

An Obvious Contrast and a More Obvious Choice:

https://lnkd.in/ehZpZ6Ts We all need a fresh Mission Future, a new Policy 4.0 based on the three pillars humanity – including freedom and tolerance – as well as creativity and effectiveness. The Trilogy of Golden Politics. Why? We need comprehensive reforms in all our fragile states with a ‘thinking heart and a loving mind’. Especially the fragile democracies. Because that’s where radicals are waiting for their chances. In the past, they have often destroyed democratic foundations from the inside, like Hitler in Germany 1933. Often slowly in steps, until the democrats capitulate, and it is too late. Radicals of every kind, from the right and left or otherwise, will always exist. Because totalitarianism (along with the noble love of humanity) is part of the DNA of us all, the imperfect humans. And many people like to believe in simple solutions or blame-games, instead of thinking themselves. Radicals of any kind are only strong because democrats are too weak. They are weak because democrats do not solve the burning problems of the voters. They lose trust and credibility. The failure of the democrats is the humus of the radicals, on which the death flower of the totalitarian seducers flourishes. Do not blame the radicals, but the democrats to fail. Only strong democracies are sound and safe. Inside and outside.

Biden vs. Trump: The First Debate that Marks the End and the Beginning of a New America The first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will not merely be a clash of ideas and personalities but a crucial moment in the history of the United States. This debate symbolizes the end of an era of deep divisions and the potential beginning of a new trajectory for America. On one side, we have Biden, with a message of fragile unity and reconstruction, and on the other, Trump, with the promise of transforming the country into a "strongBOX". Their contrasting approaches reflect the fragmentation of a nation that has ceased to embrace a unified vision, promoting a future where safeguarding individual opinions becomes more important than the common good. The impact of this debate goes far beyond the words exchanged on stage; it represents a battle for the soul of the nation. Regardless of our political convictions, this debate is a milestone that compels us to reflect on the type of America that will emerge. Will this clash of visions truly mark the beginning of a new era? For me, yes! But only time will tell. One thing is certain: America is at a crossroads, and the path chosen will shape its future for many generations. Furthermore, the European stance will need to learn to respond to the present and not remain tied to the history of America's past.

The MAGA scale of policy plausibility provides a handy five-part guide to understanding presidential authority https://econ.st/41iqF1g