About Me

I’m glad you clicked on this link to find out more about me. It’s important to know something about the source of the information you’re reading. Note that his web site is not sponsored by any special interest group. It was created and paid for by me, a private citizen with a passionate belief that the U.S. has the greatest political system in the world and that an informed public is critical for the effective functioning of that system.

My name is John Burnham. I am a political independent and vote for both Democrats and Republicans, depending upon the candidate and what issue(s) I think are most important and what is at stake in any particular election. At one point, in the middle 1980’s, I worked for the Republican Party of Texas in Austin, where I got my bachelors degree in economics from the University of Texas. More recently, I volunteered for Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential campaign and his transition team. I was undecided in the 2000 Presidential election until about a week before the election. Truthfully, I would’ve voted for John McCain over either candidate (and did vote for him in the Republican primary). I finally voted for Al Gore, but not enthusiastically, and I’m not sure if I would have rather had him in office than George Bush. I think John McCain would have done a better job than Gore or Bush.

I live in Arlington, Virginia, near Washington, DC (yes, I’m one of those “inside the Beltway” people). I got my masters degree in economics from George Washington University in Washington, DC in 1992. Starting in 1991, when I was in graduate school, I worked for a couple of trade associations for a total of six years, performing policy and economic analysis. I have been quoted a couple dozen times in national magazines and newspapers (most often in the Journal of Commerce and Financial Times), as well as several specialized and local publications.

In 1997 I went to work for a consulting firm that specialized in designing, conducting and analyzing surveys for membership organizations, such as trade associations and professional societies. These were NOT the kinds of surveys that interrupt your dinner with a telephone call. They involved surveying the client organization’s members about such issues as compensation, financial operating ratios, market segmentation, policy issues and satisfaction with the organization itself. I like this kind of work because I have been able to learn things about specific industries and professions that, otherwise, I would not have even thought to ask. It has also shown me how these organizations form communities and interact with the Federal and state governments and reach out to try to influence public opinion, for better or for worse.

About three years ago, I started my own consulting firm (web site: http://www.realmeasures.com), providing essentially the same services as my former employer (only better and less expensively, of course!). My experiences as a small business owner have opened my eyes to yet more dimensions of the implications of public policy, time management and other issues.

Lead with the Heart, Steer with the Head

One other thing you should probably know about me is that I am a truth-seeker. I don’t mean in a Don Quixote way. I mean that I think the truth is important, especially in forming effective public policy. It is fine to be emotional about public policy. I certainly am! However, it is, in my opinion, very important that this emotional direction be informed by a solid understanding of the facts, when they are available, and a rational expectation of the consequences of a particular policy or course of action. Otherwise, blindly following our emotions in public policy can actually lead to outcomes that contradict what our emotions are telling us to pursue. The following, real example that follows involves familiar, hot-button characters and issues: children, chemical manufacturers, food safety and the environment. The outcome may not be what you expect!

An Example

One example of this kind of “backfiring” has to do with protecting children from the potentially harmful effects of certain pesticides used in our food. During the Clinton administration, the government enacted the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The purpose of this act was to increase the safety of the food that children (and the rest of us) eat. It is my understanding that it is generally thought that children are susceptible to more harmful effects from chemicals because they have not fully developed their immune systems, which can be adversely affected by some of these chemicals, and children are still growing and developing into adults, and some of these chemicals may interfere with this development.

It’s kind of hard to be against protecting our children, isn’t it? However, the FQPA actually may have backfired because of the way that it was implemented. The way that it was implemented may have actually inadvertently encouraged more use of older, most likely more dangerous chemicals, as opposed to new, safer chemicals.

In implementing the FQPA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told agricultural chemical makers to each submit 5 chemicals for approval, and that the EPA would try more to review these five chemicals for approval. The number of chemicals reviewed and approved after the EPA adopted these FQPA-related policies dropped dramatically from what it had been before then.

While this may sound like a good thing at first glance, especially for people who consider themselves environmentalists, consider this:

	Many of the older chemicals that are currently in use (which the new chemicals would have replaced) were approved under older, less stringent and less informed approval processes.
	Chemical companies have invested substantial resources in developing new chemicals that are safer and more environmentally sound, because they know that these are marketable benefits and safer chemicals are more likely to be approved by the EPA.
	When chemicals are submitted to the EPA for approval, they are approved for use on specific “families” of crops that have similar properties with respect to chemical absorption and other factors relevant for EPA approval. Later, other crops may be added to the list of approved uses. These additions are called new label uses, because it permits the company producing the chemical to add to the approved crop uses on the product label. However, under the revised EPA processes, each of these new label uses counted as one of the five submissions each company was permitted. This creates a powerful incentive for the chemical companies to only seek approval for those crops that will use large quantities of their chemicals, such as wheat, corn, oats, etc., and ignore smaller crops, such as peaches, cherries, cucumbers, etc., which will be more likely continue to have older, potentially less safe chemicals sprayed on them.
	In addition to the direct harmful affects listed above, the revised EPA approval rules created less of an incentive for chemical companies to conduct research, since it would most likely take longer to get any newly researched chemicals approved for use. This longer approval process reduces the effective patent life of these new, potentially more effective and safer chemicals. It also warped the incentive structure for prioritizing the research objectives for these companies, to focus almost exclusively on crops that would use large amounts of their pesticides.

I used this example because it illustrates how a well-intentioned policy that “sounds good” in sound bites, but which is badly informed, designed or implemented can backfire and work against its own good intentions. It also shows that I reserve the right to be critical, even of presidents who I thought generally did a good job.

Please keep this example in mind as you become more informed as the election nears and you decide whether to vote for John Kerry or vote for George Bush. Take all sound bites with a grain of salt. Think through the possible consequences of a public policy or action or stance before you vote!