roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

roundtable: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Re: Federal Budget Negotiations

Ted Kircher (kircher@bga.com)
Fri, 29 Dec 1995 14:35:03 -0600 (CST) 

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 14:35:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Ted Kircher <kircher@bga.com>
Subject: Re: Federal Budget Negotiations
To: Vigdor Schreibman - FINS <fins@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9512291405.B14260-0100000@urchin.bga.com>


On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Vigdor Schreibman - FINS wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  1) Balancing the budget - ...
>
>   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.

Thanks for this information, but I am surprised that the total U.S. debt
isn't estimated to be around $6T by 2002 since there will be deficits in
each of the intervening years added to today's debt of around $5T. This
does not include 'loans' from government trust funds.


> > I would also like your opinion on the 21th century economic viability of
> > the U.S. ...
>
>   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.

I heard similar remarks within the IBM 'fortress' in the mid-'80's! - and
the rate of technological change keeps accelerating. The U.S. has some
fundamental flaws, one of which is that we are far from providing equal
opportunities to all citizens regardless of the 'luck of the dice' of their
birth (sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, family wealth,
family values, ...). Full equality, of course, is impossible, but we should
have the goal of at least becoming 'Ivory pure' (94.99%).


> > > > 2) Remedying the past inequities
>
> > 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.
>
> .... 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.

I apologize for combining the two (jugular, character assassination).
My main point was the latter, i.e. I do see much real gain in criticizing
someone. Instead I believe that the 'best defense is a good offense' - to
effectively show a future alternative that includes economic validity.


> > 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 of Republicans have
> made little improvement over the ideas advanced by Monarchists and
> Marxists;  all are arrangements for domination by strategically placed
> individuals.

I am not as cynical as you - in this day and age, although I would have been
in the Middle Ages. The 'slippery slope' of being too helpful/top down is
easy to get on. There is a fine line between having good intentions and
doing the best for a person.


> > 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.

I would have more confidence in the future being decided by the collective
wisdom of a well-educated, non-organized set of people than 'raw
organizational power'. We have never had the former, but I see 'light at
the end of the tunnel' for this to be possible as a result of the expanding
information age technology.


> > 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.

I agree that pragmatically these issues have to be put on the 'back burner'
for the moment, but all of the U.S. paradigms need to be reexamined if we
are to come as close as possible to full social equality as well as continue 
to be world leader. 

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

[CNI Home Page]