In the world of entrepreneurship and startup ecosystems, where disruption, innovation, and venture capital reign supreme, keeping an eye on public policy isn’t just smart — it’s essential.
Thanks for that insider perspective on what the rest of us watched from afar. I won't spin a long comment about all that I think this presidential transition represents or the work that needs to be done, but I would like to call out two failures of communication in my quick read of this journal record. The first thing that I would like to call out is that lumping all immigration into one large bucket is not helpful or accurate. First of all, the difference between legal immigration quotas and "high-value" high tech developers and contributors coming into the United States has not changed and will not change under Donald Trump (unless it goes up). Confounding what is happening on our borders with the kind of talent that is helpful to grow innovation and change in fields like A.I., is neither helpful or accurate. Secondly, I believe there are millions who have entered our country via a swimming test or rock climbing test at the southern border who are not contributing members to our nation--not even in the service industry where we constantly read and hear the elite class call out as their place in our society. I don't think we would be having the problems or massive financial drain on our welfare systems if these people were being integrated into our nation--people who are here illegally, but still getting social service well beyond that of citizens and our own homeless.
My second area of concern that I think has to be addressed aggressively and is not getting the traction that is needed in congress is that we are arguably on the verge of financial collapse as a nation with a $36T nation debt that is growing faster than the illegal immigration and no one in congress is will to face the fact that we have a Gov that is between 35-50 times the size of one of the nation's largest corporations (Exxon Mobile Corp) and we live in more of a Banana Republic today that gives millions and even billions of dollars to bureaucrats to spend recklessly with virtually no accountability. NGO's have become the newest vehicle for Gov corruption and congress lives by the lie that there is very little in our budget that can be reduced or changed. This lie, from both sides of the aisle, is the lie of "non-discretionary spending". This lie has been used for decades and we have not had even a balanced budget since Bill Clinton. Congress continues to hide behind this lie and we are standing on the edge of this national collapse of our financial system.
If we are unable to get these two issues addressed quickly and at a level that exceeds any prior administration's efforts to change our nation, everything else is merely academic and it really won't matter. These are not original thoughts or ideas. Far smarter people that me have been ringing the alarm of what happens next to a nation that lives on borrowed money and refuses to do in the business of the nation what every entrepreneur that you know has to do every day in their businesses and their homes. Live within their means. We have not tried to live within our means for a very long time and now the price to get back to zero may be a fool's dream.
Tim, you made my day with your reference to writing a comment long, because I'm constantly criticized for writing too much (or rather, encouraged that my audience would be bigger, and I could earn more advertising revenue, if I broke my articles up into smaller chunks). Alas, I don't write for people's preferences; I write for me and if people like it, wonderful! I welcome the long comments so we can get our points across.
That said, in the back of my mind was this nag that I was already writing too much. As a result, I didn't get into the details of the two points you make.
As to immigration, we agree 100%. We can, should, and do, welcome more people into the United States than any other country - legally, meaningfully, and beneficially. That should never stop. We need to fix how it's being managed.
As to the size of government or our debt, I am of a simpler mind: Our government should be a fraction of the size it is now. I don't care about a balanced budget (that just means they will maintain the exceptional size while trying to figure out how to bring it more revenue). Bottom line: it is full of bloat, waste, and inefficiency. We spend trillions of dollars for an organization about as effective as a car dealership.
While a discussion rages that we need much of what the government does, I'm in the camp of killing it off and starting over. Granted, obviously we can't really do that, but we certainly can have that culture and approach that leads with "end it" and then asks if whatever it did needs to be replaced in some way.
I agree and I agree that our government is full of bloat, waste, inefficiency and CORRUPTION. 20 years ago I believed that Gov corruption was the exception to the rule, but today I believe that the only advantage of a government that is 35 times the size of one of the most complex and robust companies on the planet (I reference Exxon Mobile only because of its size and complexity), with a Federal Government that is between 2.2M and 3M people, the sheer size alone means accountability is impossible, making the importance of your suggestion to get rid of most of WashDC vital to the survival of the nation as we know it. Waste and Corruption can only go on for so long before we find our nation back at where we started in 1776. That would be a very sad way to see our problems resolved. As a side note: My Instagram account highlights these issues daily, along with some other vital interests of our nation's health, history and faith. @OldGuyNotStupid. Thank you for your comments and this post.
The one area congress should decrease spending is defense. Simply put the business of war while profitable for the US and all other countries is unsustainable. Cut our defense budget by 25%, balance the budget like a smart investor: save more than you spend and invest in green and new technologies where we shine and innovate. Provide funding for education and teach youngsters how to think independently. Wow wouldn’t that just go against any authoritarian monopolistic tendencies.
Apparently, the Pentagon has failed to be able to account for their spending over the last 7 reviews. How many trillions of dollars are going into the war machine for which we do not have tracking or accountability? The pentagon must be held accountable for their spending and transparency has to be coded into law. And I agree, we are involved in way too many wars and military conflicts that are probably none of our business. We don't have the money to spend--so we should stop pretending like we do.
The big push in the small drone universe these days is what's called beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operation. Under current rules (14 CFR part 107) a pilot must keep eyes on their aircraft at all times, either directly or indirectly with the use of human spotters. Binoculars or electronic means aren't allowed (voice comms between spotters and pilot over radio are permitted). There is a waiver process that requires manually walking a request to the FAA office in DC. A handful of waivers have been granted to large corporations (Southern Company) and first responders in large cities.
For at least 5 years there's been a proposed rule change (14 CFR part 108) for setting the rules for BVLOS flight. It's slowly working through the system, mostly because the FAA has gone through five different directors since 2018, two of them "acting" directors who were just chair sitting because they didn't have the congressional mandate to implement policy. The current director, Michael Whitaker, has only been in place since October 2023 and has stepped down as of Jan 20, despite being appointed with wide bipartisan support (98-0 vote).
If and when a new FAA administrator is appointed, the priority will be (well, probably should be) address the growing number of incidents around airports involving commercial and crewed aircraft. Mostly an issue with execution of the existing rules, but also one of recruiting air traffic controllers and continued modernization. Of course getting part 108 through can happen concurrently, but once the rules are in place there will be a lot of pushback from other agencies, local municipalities, general aviation communities (who might find themselves competing with drones for missions like cropdusting), and the public at large. It has to be right, but more importantly, it has to be promoted as a net positive. I don't see that happening without a champion at the legislative or executive level.
The current waivers are showing the usefulness of stationing drones in areas such as power substations, high crime areas and for security perimeters. "Drone as first responder" has become the latest buzzword for selling hardware to police forces. By positioning drones in remote docks (I prefer the term nest, but that's just my warped sense of humor), a pilot at the 911 dispatch center -or pretty much anywhere- can get eyes on a situation in minutes, relaying video to the squad car in route. Suspects have even surrendered to drones. Just like you can't outrun Motorola, you can't hide from Skydio. As waivers continue to be granted for limited use across delivery and other missions the real value of drones will be clear.
Much of my business plan ultimately depends on part 108. I was hoping things would have moved a lot faster than they have. I'm hopeful that someone in the new administration will get part 108 implemented but it's obviously going to be a very low priority and likely not to get much positive press either. Picking battles is how DC works. If the waivers are good enough to show progress, that might be enough for the FAA to call it a success. But what might be is still a long way away.
And then there's the whole thing about DJI and not having a US ecosystem that can effectively produce the equivalent products, but this is long enough!
Thanks for that insider perspective on what the rest of us watched from afar. I won't spin a long comment about all that I think this presidential transition represents or the work that needs to be done, but I would like to call out two failures of communication in my quick read of this journal record. The first thing that I would like to call out is that lumping all immigration into one large bucket is not helpful or accurate. First of all, the difference between legal immigration quotas and "high-value" high tech developers and contributors coming into the United States has not changed and will not change under Donald Trump (unless it goes up). Confounding what is happening on our borders with the kind of talent that is helpful to grow innovation and change in fields like A.I., is neither helpful or accurate. Secondly, I believe there are millions who have entered our country via a swimming test or rock climbing test at the southern border who are not contributing members to our nation--not even in the service industry where we constantly read and hear the elite class call out as their place in our society. I don't think we would be having the problems or massive financial drain on our welfare systems if these people were being integrated into our nation--people who are here illegally, but still getting social service well beyond that of citizens and our own homeless.
My second area of concern that I think has to be addressed aggressively and is not getting the traction that is needed in congress is that we are arguably on the verge of financial collapse as a nation with a $36T nation debt that is growing faster than the illegal immigration and no one in congress is will to face the fact that we have a Gov that is between 35-50 times the size of one of the nation's largest corporations (Exxon Mobile Corp) and we live in more of a Banana Republic today that gives millions and even billions of dollars to bureaucrats to spend recklessly with virtually no accountability. NGO's have become the newest vehicle for Gov corruption and congress lives by the lie that there is very little in our budget that can be reduced or changed. This lie, from both sides of the aisle, is the lie of "non-discretionary spending". This lie has been used for decades and we have not had even a balanced budget since Bill Clinton. Congress continues to hide behind this lie and we are standing on the edge of this national collapse of our financial system.
If we are unable to get these two issues addressed quickly and at a level that exceeds any prior administration's efforts to change our nation, everything else is merely academic and it really won't matter. These are not original thoughts or ideas. Far smarter people that me have been ringing the alarm of what happens next to a nation that lives on borrowed money and refuses to do in the business of the nation what every entrepreneur that you know has to do every day in their businesses and their homes. Live within their means. We have not tried to live within our means for a very long time and now the price to get back to zero may be a fool's dream.
Tim, you made my day with your reference to writing a comment long, because I'm constantly criticized for writing too much (or rather, encouraged that my audience would be bigger, and I could earn more advertising revenue, if I broke my articles up into smaller chunks). Alas, I don't write for people's preferences; I write for me and if people like it, wonderful! I welcome the long comments so we can get our points across.
That said, in the back of my mind was this nag that I was already writing too much. As a result, I didn't get into the details of the two points you make.
As to immigration, we agree 100%. We can, should, and do, welcome more people into the United States than any other country - legally, meaningfully, and beneficially. That should never stop. We need to fix how it's being managed.
As to the size of government or our debt, I am of a simpler mind: Our government should be a fraction of the size it is now. I don't care about a balanced budget (that just means they will maintain the exceptional size while trying to figure out how to bring it more revenue). Bottom line: it is full of bloat, waste, and inefficiency. We spend trillions of dollars for an organization about as effective as a car dealership.
While a discussion rages that we need much of what the government does, I'm in the camp of killing it off and starting over. Granted, obviously we can't really do that, but we certainly can have that culture and approach that leads with "end it" and then asks if whatever it did needs to be replaced in some way.
I agree and I agree that our government is full of bloat, waste, inefficiency and CORRUPTION. 20 years ago I believed that Gov corruption was the exception to the rule, but today I believe that the only advantage of a government that is 35 times the size of one of the most complex and robust companies on the planet (I reference Exxon Mobile only because of its size and complexity), with a Federal Government that is between 2.2M and 3M people, the sheer size alone means accountability is impossible, making the importance of your suggestion to get rid of most of WashDC vital to the survival of the nation as we know it. Waste and Corruption can only go on for so long before we find our nation back at where we started in 1776. That would be a very sad way to see our problems resolved. As a side note: My Instagram account highlights these issues daily, along with some other vital interests of our nation's health, history and faith. @OldGuyNotStupid. Thank you for your comments and this post.
The one area congress should decrease spending is defense. Simply put the business of war while profitable for the US and all other countries is unsustainable. Cut our defense budget by 25%, balance the budget like a smart investor: save more than you spend and invest in green and new technologies where we shine and innovate. Provide funding for education and teach youngsters how to think independently. Wow wouldn’t that just go against any authoritarian monopolistic tendencies.
Wonderful push. Absolutely agree!
Apparently, the Pentagon has failed to be able to account for their spending over the last 7 reviews. How many trillions of dollars are going into the war machine for which we do not have tracking or accountability? The pentagon must be held accountable for their spending and transparency has to be coded into law. And I agree, we are involved in way too many wars and military conflicts that are probably none of our business. We don't have the money to spend--so we should stop pretending like we do.
And we’ve LOST all the wars since WWII. Yes you can fact check this. ;)
RE: "support for drone technology"
The big push in the small drone universe these days is what's called beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operation. Under current rules (14 CFR part 107) a pilot must keep eyes on their aircraft at all times, either directly or indirectly with the use of human spotters. Binoculars or electronic means aren't allowed (voice comms between spotters and pilot over radio are permitted). There is a waiver process that requires manually walking a request to the FAA office in DC. A handful of waivers have been granted to large corporations (Southern Company) and first responders in large cities.
For at least 5 years there's been a proposed rule change (14 CFR part 108) for setting the rules for BVLOS flight. It's slowly working through the system, mostly because the FAA has gone through five different directors since 2018, two of them "acting" directors who were just chair sitting because they didn't have the congressional mandate to implement policy. The current director, Michael Whitaker, has only been in place since October 2023 and has stepped down as of Jan 20, despite being appointed with wide bipartisan support (98-0 vote).
If and when a new FAA administrator is appointed, the priority will be (well, probably should be) address the growing number of incidents around airports involving commercial and crewed aircraft. Mostly an issue with execution of the existing rules, but also one of recruiting air traffic controllers and continued modernization. Of course getting part 108 through can happen concurrently, but once the rules are in place there will be a lot of pushback from other agencies, local municipalities, general aviation communities (who might find themselves competing with drones for missions like cropdusting), and the public at large. It has to be right, but more importantly, it has to be promoted as a net positive. I don't see that happening without a champion at the legislative or executive level.
The current waivers are showing the usefulness of stationing drones in areas such as power substations, high crime areas and for security perimeters. "Drone as first responder" has become the latest buzzword for selling hardware to police forces. By positioning drones in remote docks (I prefer the term nest, but that's just my warped sense of humor), a pilot at the 911 dispatch center -or pretty much anywhere- can get eyes on a situation in minutes, relaying video to the squad car in route. Suspects have even surrendered to drones. Just like you can't outrun Motorola, you can't hide from Skydio. As waivers continue to be granted for limited use across delivery and other missions the real value of drones will be clear.
Much of my business plan ultimately depends on part 108. I was hoping things would have moved a lot faster than they have. I'm hopeful that someone in the new administration will get part 108 implemented but it's obviously going to be a very low priority and likely not to get much positive press either. Picking battles is how DC works. If the waivers are good enough to show progress, that might be enough for the FAA to call it a success. But what might be is still a long way away.
And then there's the whole thing about DJI and not having a US ecosystem that can effectively produce the equivalent products, but this is long enough!