roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:20:01 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:20:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
To: Ted Kircher <kircher@bga.com>
Subject: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9512190853.A8403-0100000@urchin.bga.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951219111801.742B-100000@access2.digex.net>


On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Ted Kircher wrote:
> 
> You are intermixing what I consider to be three issues that I feel need 
> to be dealt with separately for pragmatic reasons: 1) balancing the 
> budget (w/ the most impartial economic forecast - CBO) 2) remedying the 
> past inequities and 3) devising a plan that evolves towards equity in 
> the future.

  There is is no way to divorce ourselves from one part of reality 
to be able to craft a resolution of other parts that are essentially 
interdependent.  


> 1) Balancing the budget - as I stated in an earlier note, I feel this is a
>    must for reasons that go beyond those that the Republicans have stated
>    because I am concerned with the long term economic viability of the US 
>    in the global marketplace.
> 
>    Within that scope, I would acquiesce to your or 'Blue Dog' Democrats'
>    priorities about how to partitioning of this pot of money (reduce/
>    eliminate tax cuts, ...). However, I feel that this is only a relatively
>    minor aspect of the overall inequity set of issues.

  The "Common Sense Balanced Budget Act of 1995" offered on the floor of
the House Oct 26, 1995, and later including Senate input 14 Nov 1995 as
"The Coalition Budget," would provide a conservative resolution of the
impasse. This has two dramatic differences with the Republican plan passed
by Congress: 1) 0 Contract with America Tax cuts; and 2) 0.5% reduction in
the CPI. For more information people can cal either Jeff Fleming (Rep. 
John Tanner) at 225-4714, Paul Reagan (Rep. L.F. Payne) at 225-4711, 
David Carle (Sen. Paul Simon) at 224-7115, or Greg Weiner (Sen. Bob Kerry) 
at 224-6551.

  The budget proposal has received national acclaim in endorsements by the 
Concord Coalition, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsday, The 
Philadelphia Inquirer, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, and The San 
Francisco Chronicle, among others.


> 2) Remedying the past inequities - that you described so well in your
>    article "Pay the Public Debt made by a Politics of Rich and Poor".
> 
>    However bad this was, it was better than earlier inequities against women
>    (lack of suffrage), blacks (slavery) , ...., serfs, ...., Christians to
>    the lions in the Roman empire, ... That is, the inequities of those in
>    power have reduced over time - albeit perhaps they may have only gone
>    from 1 to around 4 or 5 on a scale of 10, where 10 represented the goal
>    of complete equity.
> 
>    Like all of the other inequities, one should not expect to get reimbursed
>    for the past inequities - unless one lives in Bosnia where 'who's on top'
>    constantly changes. This might be true in the US as well if there was
>    very little hope for improvements in the future - and I believe there are
>    as I outline in 3).

  Many thoughtful Americans would accept such a compromise but Gingrich
Republicans are adamantly opposed.  On the contrary, they insist on
sucking hundreds of billions more from American families. Under these
conditions I think it appropriate for the people to "go for the jugular,"
and end forever the appalling mentality of Gingrich Republicans. 


> 3) In order to have a chance of achieving equity in the future, I feel that
>    the emphasis needs to be on moving from "all men are created equal" to
>    "each individual has equal opportunity". The emphasis should continue to
>    be on each individual to achieve the 'American dream', but this has to 
>    be on a more level playing field so that a higher (natural ability)
>    percentage of the average 'have-nots' can achieve it versus the small
>    percentage of exceptional 'have-nots' that the Republicans point out.
>    This, however, should not be an affirmative action program!

  That is not good enough.  People should, in my view, fight for a major
shift in the balance of power to address the continuing inequities.  A
good place to achieve this is in the design of a public lane on the
information highway, as below discussed. 


>    One aspect of this is to fully exploit computer technology to provide a
>    basic computer for every student in their home whose electronics and
>    operation system would be upgraded every couple of years to allow access
>    to the Internet and an extensive set of CBT (Computer Based Training)
>    courses. This should not cost more than $25 per month.

  Not a bad idea, this.  Libraries and schools should also be able to 
obtain essential equipment and training to allow the application of their 
considerable talents for the betterment of all.


>    Another aspect is that the acceleration of computer technology is
>    creating more opportunities for new people since 'experience equals
>    scar-tissue' will be more of a reality. An individual only needs to
>    learn the basis information of 'how to learn how to learn' - most of
>    which was known at the beginning of the 20th century, and then have
>    access to the latest information - which is equivalent to saying it 
>    must be on-line.

  You are speaking of the need for an infrastructure, which we have
proposed in the charter of the Cyberspace Society, which I started some
months ago.  Below, are pertinent excerpts.

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>


               **************************************
               INTRODUCTION TO THE CYBERSPACE SOCIETY
               **************************************

The Cyberspace Society was formed to counterbalance the power
of the large industry interests in cyberspace.  From telephone
deregulation to new on-line service providers such as Microsoft
there are major changes occurring in the ability to access
information, changes in the character of information that will
be accessible, and changes in costs.

There are important public interests at stake and it is
not clear that the market winner(s) in the information
highway sweepstakes will create a world that is kind, virtuous,
and caring.

To some, the lure of the new frontier brings a sense of lawlessness.
Some articles in _Wired Magazine_ suggest cyberspace is a world to
be conquered and used to one's own advantage.

The Cyberspace Society must offer a better response to technological change,
not a new leap backward to the wild west mentality.  We should, instead,
work toward liberating the creativity and commitment of all people, and
promote the general welfare of society in deference to selfish postures of
individual pressure groups.  This strategy can most likely guide the
technological genius of cyberspace toward unlimited development and
maximum competence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

              **************************************
              COORDINATION OF THE CYBERSPACE SOCIETY
              **************************************

The members of The Society will be given access to the electronic
listserve for the Society.  This is currently listserv@READNS1.READADP.COM
The list "owners" are currently:

    Vigdor Schreibman <fins@access.digex.net>
    W. Curtiss Priest <bmslib@mitvma.mit.edu>

To subscribe send a message to the listserve with the message:

    SUBSCRIBE CYBER-SOC (ADDRESS) (FIRST NAME, LAST NAME)

                           * * * * *

A strategic framework for "The Cyberspace Society" should be based on:
A) the Cyberspace Ethic; and B) the Cyberspace Social Contract.


* DRAFT * VISION STATEMENT FOR PLANNING A DESIRABLE FUTURE
BY CITIZENS OF "THE CYBERSPACE SOCIETY"

A.  The Cyberspace Ethic
The new institution should educate citizens of Cyberspace, pursuant to an
enlightened democratic ethic for the future of the Information Age.  As Ralph
Barton Perry, the philosopher of education, wrote  "Democracy is that form
of social organization which most depends on ... the cultivation of
enlightened good will in the body of its citizens."  John Warfield, a design
visionary, has observed that enlightened good will means the capacity to
analyze and resolve the issues facing society "through synthesis of ideas,
to arrive at positions that promote the general welfare of the society in
deference to selfish postures of individual pressure groups."  There is now
available a body of knowledge and experience that has been applied
successfully in a large variety of academic and real-world situations, which
can facilitate collaborative group inquiry and action required under the
Cyberspace Ethic.  A cellular structure will be used, and group work will be
systematically organized so as to include the desirable dimensions of
knowledge and perspective of the Cyberspace Society, including system
designers, system insiders, and system outsiders.

B.  The Cyberspace Social Contract
The proposed social contract for Cyberspace should promote citizenship in
"The Cyberspace Society" that is responsive to that ethic.  This must be
supported by instrumental measures that effectively support the paramount
social needs of the society and global environment in forms that are not
subject to countervailing profit pressures, which have traditionally
disregarded or even undermined desired social goods.  The choice of such
measures would be made exclusively by the citizens of the Cyberspace Society.
The role of the strategic planners will not be to make such decisions but to
assist in the organization and facilitation of free and fair citizen choice.

A 3-part design is proposed:
        1) a 3-level infrastructure,
        2) a bill of rights, and
        3) a set of applications constituting global challenges:

   1. Cyberspace infrastructure -- three virtual networks --
interconnected to one another, but each operating with an independent
economic model and social purpose:
      a. A public information infrastructure (PII) to assure that core
Government publications are made available in all useful formats for the free
use of the general public.  PII would be developed and operated by a central
government institution in close collaboration with all government agencies,
libraries, colleges and universities, schools and other not-for-profit
entities throughout the nation;
      b.  A global "sustainable development" infrastructure (GSDI) to assure
preservation and restoration of the integrity of natural systems which
sustain both economic prosperity and life itself, and to foster economic
growth, environmental protection, and social equity as interdependent,
mutually reinforcing national goals. GSDI would follow the successful
Internet/NREN model using leveraged government funding, together with direct
financial support and management by not-for-profit and private institutions
at local, state, regional, national, and global levels. Access to GSDI would
be governed by an authorized use policy (AUP), connecting schools, libraries,
hospitals, and local governments to each other and to the Internet/GSDI for
those purposes; and
       c. A global information infrastructure (GII), funded and managed by
private industry to provide free market access to voice, data, and video
telecommunications services.  The GII would embrace the following six
principles: encourage private investment; promote competition; create a
flexible regulatory framework; provide open access to the network for all
information service providers; ensure universal service; and protect and
promote the free exchange of information and ideas on the GII.

        2. Cyberspace bill of rights e.g.:
           a. Common carrier structure, separating conduit and
                 content;
           b. Equal access and affordable service;
           c. Freedom of expression, privacy, security, and copyright
                 protection;

        3. Cyberspace global challenges applications e.g.:
           a. Disease prevention and health promotion;
           b. News and citizen discussion of issues in virtual communities
           c. Distance learning, child development, worker retraining;
           d. Manufacturing, and others.

                           --------------------

  Public funding for such an infrastructure can realistically be obtained
by an equitable reallocation of the funds that are now being "thrown away"
by Congress on information technology, as I discuss in my essay "Common
Sense in Cyberspace: A Cause for People Power" (Aug 1995) [Fins-PaN-23].

[CNI Home Page]