roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Ted Kircher (kircher@bga.com)
Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:16:13 -0600 (CST) 

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:16:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Ted Kircher <kircher@bga.com>
Subject: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations
To: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9512270927.A19574-0100000@urchin.bga.com>


On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Vigdor Schreibman - FINS wrote:
> 
>   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.

In a total sense that is true, but I still feel that this topics needs to
be approached in the three part manner I outlined - 1) the budget itself,
2) remedying past inequities and 3) future positive and pragmatic actions.
Since this is only a matter of how to structure the issues, it is very
subjective and not worth further discussion between us.


> > 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.
>
>   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," ...
>
>   The budget proposal has received national acclaim ...

We are in agreement on the budget in this broad sense. I wish you (or
someone) would clarify the total debt of the US in 2002 of a balanced
budget plan using CBO figures - externally and internally, i.e. the amount
owed to government trust funds. 

I would also like your opinion on the 21th century economic viability of 
the US even under these relatively optimistic figures. This includes the 
ability of people ('haves', retirees, ..) to leave the US (even give up 
their citizenship) and not pay taxes or invest in the US to reduce its 
debt - yet a significant portion of that debt will be owed to those who 
leave. I would like to know the laws that are in place today to prevent 
this situation.


> > 2) Remedying the past inequities
> 
>   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.

I fail to understand what is meant by 'going for the jugular', and I don't
think that character assassination is very helpful in any pragmatic way. 
As I consider a balanced budget to be very important, I believe credit 
needs to be given to Gingrich for bringing this important issue to the 
forefront.


> > 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". ...
>
>   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.

I agree with a public lane on the information highway as I believe that
everyone needs to have access.


> >    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.

I don't want you to miss my key point which is to provide the 
opportunity to empower each individual, To accomplish this, I believe 
personal student computers are essential. They would be oriented to 
accessing the Internet and allowing for CBT courses which are on-line 
mentored primarily by senior citizens. As such, each student progresses 
at his/her own rate in each subject area. Time-shared remote computers 
in libraries are non-competitive with the 'haves' who have home (student) 
computers - hence are intrinsically inequitable. The computers in schools 
should be more functional to complement the student computers including 
allowing for video conferencing with successful people in industry to 
motivate/direct students as to how their learning relates to long range 
opportunities when they enter the work force. Ideally, people in industry 
should recommend, even lead, group projects in schools via the relatively 
low overhead of time because of video conferencing.

The model for this educational approach is the boy/girl scouts where the 
CBT courses are analogous to merit badges and school projects to scout 
meetings.

In summary, I believe that student education should take place primarily 
via CBT courses, mentors and access to people in industry, and the 
'teacher' should be the facilitator to bring these together.

This should reduce the administrivia cost of schools as well as teachers,
and direct money more directly to the education of the students who should
greater responsibilty as well as opportunity for their own success.


> >    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. ...

I have a concern that the Cyberspace Society may be too top down, akin 
to the liberal Democrats approach of 'trying to help the unfortuate' 
which translates into building a base of dependent citizens to keep the 
Democrats in power.

I believe the approach needs to be bottom up, i.e. providing equal
opportunity for every citizen to be 'as good as he/she can be', hence
providing equal access to information, learning resources (mentors) 
and guidance from those who are successful in industry. This approach 
doesn't have to be restricted to K-12 children.

I have sufficient faith that there is no special gene pool, having had 
very positive associations with members of all persuasions, hence believe 
that equal opportunity is one of the necessary conditions to achieve an 
equitible society.

On the other hand, I feel that some of the American traditions of 
family value (no 's', i.e. retaining the bulk of family money across 
generations) and religion (allowing an unmarried, HIV teenager to have 
a HIV baby because 'God allowed the conception') are detrimental to 
achieving an equitable society. These paradigm shifts will, unfortuately, 
require a long time.

Ted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Age Consulting	     "Exploiting Technology for Society"
6618 Lost Horizon Drive, Austin, Texas 78759-6117, USA	  (512) 335-1149
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CNI Home Page]