roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS (fins@access.digex.net)
Wed, 27 Dec 1995 11:32:57 -0500 (EST) 

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 11:32:57 -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.3.89.9512270927.A19574-0100000@urchin.bga.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951227103911.20853A-100000@access2.digex.net>


On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Ted Kircher wrote:
....
> > > 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. 

  You may have to clarify your question.  The CBO's December baseline
projection of the public debt by FY 2002 is $5,085 billion.  The deficit
by 2002 is $228 billion under the same CBO baseline.  Under the Balanced
Budget Act the deficit would be reduced to -$3 in FY 2002 but no specific
projection was provided for the public debt. 


> 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.

  Interesting questions for which I have no answers.  People can do all 
sorts of things to better their interests what will always remain within 
the United States, however, is a colossal body of wealth producing people 
and natural resources, albeit both are being drained relentlessly through 
oportunistic schemes of one sort or another.  Change that value and all
stocks will increase accordingly.


> > > 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.

  Maybe the jargon is too obscure here.  In an adversarial contest or 
when people are at war with one another there is no opportunity for 
realization of the highest values obtained through collaboration.  What 
remains is the need to fight or perish, with all the loss that this 
suggests.  Lawyers know this theory well since it is the very scheme 
chosen deliberately for the resolution of legal conflict and thus they 
have coined the term "going for the juglar" as the best way to win a 
Court argument.  This has nothing to do with character assassination.


> > > 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.

Good to learn this.


> > >    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.

Excellent!


> 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.

    Not at all.  What is explicitly intended by the "Cybersace Ethic" is
meaningful participation by citizens in the planning process that would
foster a synthesis of valued ideas to promote the general welfare of
society in deference to the selfish postures of individual pressure
groups. I am opposed to the approach offered by all political groups
predicated upon either dictatorship or mere benevolence. In this regard,
the monopoly Capitalists governed by either Democrats or Republicans 
have made little improvement over the ideas advanced by Monarchists and
Marxists;  all are arrangements for domination by strategically placed
individuals. 


> 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.

  This is certainly true but we must go further.  Equal access is only one
aspect of creating a better future.  The participatory process does not
automatically produce equitable conditions, only participation that is 
competently managed can do that.  Otherwise, the future will be created 
by those who have the raw organizational power to impose their will.


> 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.

  Now we are getting into deep waters where conflict abounds, which cannot
be resolved merely by discussion here and there.  Let us first establish a
viable national infrastructure explicitly designed to foster a balance
between aspirations for economic prosperity, social equity, and ecological
integrity, together with an adequate process that can facilitate this
goal. With that new infrastructure Americans can begin to learn how to
overcome the many many problems that persist. 

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

[CNI Home Page]