From: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Subject: Re: The media will choose the next president
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message are those of an
	      individual at SRI International, and do not necessarily
	      reflect those of the company.
Reply-To: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless)
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:19:04 GMT

In response to post:
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: The media will choose the next president

>      Bush has a LOT of faults, but Clinton's economic plan puts a big
> emphasis on giving jobs to people to rebuild our infrastructure (i.e.
> shoveling tar on roads).  This will not produce workers with needed skills
> and will only increase the deficit.

Roads are only one of the items in the Clinton infrastructure plan. Data
networks are also DEFINITELY part of the plan. For example, Al Gore is
sponsoring a bill to upgrade the internet to support connections from K-12
educational sites nationwide (just as it supports higher education today).

Infrastructure also includes new or refurbished buildings, mass-transit
systems, efficient and newer power and telecom systems. Some of this
is high-tech, some is low-tech. The idea is that with good investments, all
of our nation-wide efforts benefit -- both public and private.

Where would we be today without the original investments in the US
Interstate system? What about the ARPA and NSF nets?

Let's look at it this way: when you build $500 million worth of new bombers,
you have a large investment in equipment that produces absolutely no income
and requires a serious long-term commitment on upkeep and personnel. The jobs
created are the direct staff (usually government employees or contractors) for
the bombers and base, as well as some indirect jobs created to those
businesses that service the base and its personnel.

When you spend $500 million on a fleet of new energy-efficient and high-speed
trains for a commuter corridor, you also have serious long-term commitments,
but you offest that with the fares collected for the system. As well, you get
indirect increases in revenue on higher taxes collected from individuals and
companies that improve their finances by benefitting from the newly-created
service. The jobs created are both the staff of the new system, as well as
indirect jobs for service of the new industry. In addition, more jobs are
created for those who benefit financially from the new service, plus entire
new industries that figure out ways to use the service that were never
predicted. For example, the high-speed rail might spur new counter-to-counter
messenger services that could not feasibly exist without the high-speed rail
net in place.

Here's a historical example of the benefit to a good infrastructure:
The Roman empire was not great just because they had a really-cool army. They
were great because they had a road network that allowed them to put that army
anywhere they wanted to, plus a logistics system to keep it fed, plus an
engineering genius that allowed them to erect fortresses practically
overnight. It was the INFRASTRUCTURE of the Roman army that kept the Empire
unconquered. It was the decrepitude of their civil infrastructure that
hastened their decline.

Learn from history, or you are doomed to repeat it.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2937 talk.politics.misc:41995 alt.politics.clinton:3022 alt.politics.elections:11583