On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:52:43 -0500, "William Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Any CBA is better than no CBA - - even a badly skewed one. Its the same > argument for formalizing theory in economics. It makes clear what your > assumptions and logic are and makes it easy to identify areas of > agreement and disagreements between opponents on an issue. - - Bill > Dickens
Did I just read what I think I read? So here is the scenario - a *badly skewed* CBA is used by misguided (do-gooder) policy makers to influence legislation by defeating a more reasonable (logical) argument. This CBA had more traction (the bad science environmentalists had a well funded propaganda campaign) and the resultant legislation ended up killing millions of people (refrigerators in third world countries no longer able to keep food cold or pesticides no longer available to kill mosquitos which carried disease). I find it hard to agree that "any CBA is better than no CBA." -Fred Childress > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/03 01:57PM >>> > One problem with applying CBA to policy formulation is ensuring > reliability > and objectivity. Too often, CBA is manipulated for predetermined > policy > positions. EPA once produced a Regulatory Impact Analysis that > contended > that benefits from the phaseout of CFCs are $8 trillion to $32 > trillion. In > such cases, CBA does more to confound, rather than illuminate, > rational > policy formulation. > > Is there a practical way for policy makers to assess the reliability > and > objectivity of CBA? > > Walt Warnick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Driessnack, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cost benefit analysis > > > > In defense you can say that almost all of the weapons related > spending > (Procurement and RDT&E budget - almost half of the budget when you > consider > the spare purchases) is accomplished having gone through some CBA in > the > process of deciding the approach to develop, procure, and then maintain > the > equipment. An Analysis of Alternative is required along with > estimates > (actually by several layers of organizations). > > > > The other source to look at would be the Federal Acquisition > Regulations > (FAR). This policy drives use of CBA for certain purchases. So you > could > estimate off of this policy! > > > > jdd > > > > John D Driessnack, PMP, CCE/A > > Professor, Defense Acquisition University > > PMT-250/352, DAU Risk/Tools Subject Matter Expert > > DAWIA PM, Acq Logi, FM Level III > > NE-Capital Campus, Faculty Department > > Program Management and Leadership > > 9820 Belvoir Rd, Building 205, Room 115B > > Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-5565 > > 703-805-4655 (DSN-655) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FAX 703-805-3728 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Cost benefit analysis > > > > Does anyone know how often CBA is actually used in making policy? > What > percent of the federal budget (or state or local) has been determined > by > CBA? > > Cyril Morong > > > Yours in Liberty, Fred Childress LNC Region 5 Alt Representative - http://www.LP.org "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -Will Rogers
