From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Education and Efficiency (was Re: Efficiency)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:53:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.084813.20573@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>Official Sununu Conservatism says that efficiency costs jobs.  (At least
>when referring to Clinton's plans)
>
>The Republicans are always bitching about how that the Democrats will
>educate people, train people, etc... but pay for it with a payroll tax.

I have no quarrel *at all* with education and training. I do
quarrel with bankrupt policies of more social engineering and Government
meddling that masquearades as "investment" in "infrastructure" without
really being of use to society. 

>As a result [of higher taxes], no business will hire new people, or
>it will be forced into
>bankruptcy, as a result we'll have lots of well-trained people who,
>because of the Captiol Gains Tax, can't get the capital to start a new
>business.

Consider the ill-famed CETA program, that was supposed to provide
"well-trained" people witha transition to work. Often, the
people were trained to do things for which there was no need or market. 
The record of CETA on placing workers was poor because the genius-types
running the program in most cases didn't stop to ask where the people would
actually work after they finished. The JPTA was a step in the right
direction, bringing in businesses who would actually use these poeple.
Then of course the complaint sprang up that Govt was paying for "company
training". Unless there is a job waiting, there is a fundamental flaw in
the "field of dreams" belief that "If you are trained, the jobs will come."

No. If you create the right environment for businesses, they will
create jobs, and the most flexible capital tool available, the
humans, will adapt to the opportunities that exist.
Reagan didn't create 20 million jobs through any "jobs" program.
He did it with economic growth, pure and simple.

So Clinton will add about 5% of our current spending on education, which
increased in the 80's by almost 40%, and miracles will somehow occur.
Steelworkers' sons will quote Milton, and inner-city minorities will learn
financial accounting. And somehow, these trained people will sprout
corresponding jobs. I think not. Not when already qualified people are
out of work, and willing to dispute the notion that we somehow have
a shortage of qualified people. Indeed,
one wonders why the surplus of qualified out-of-work ex-GM middle managers
isn't causing the creation of a new (inefficient!) car company. After
all, by the Clinton logic, that's what should happen.

>Sigh.  Someone explain to the conservatives that the most important
>capital is educated, motivated, and organized _people_. 

*Sigh*. This implies *real* education, not just throwing more money at
the blackboard. If you don't know the numbers, you should -- our educational
system costs more than any other in the world, and the results
are mediocre at best. Mr Rubin and Mr Sand, among others, have the numbing
numbers.

Let's get real. We *do* need an improved education system, and parts
of our workforce need better training. But that implies the
need for structural improvements in our education system, because
the internal reforms attempted in the 80's haven't done the job.
When push came to shove, Bush supported real school choice, while
Clinton clung to the orthodox line of the NEA. 

That, finally, is the bottom line difference. Clinton showed his
willingness to subordinate the needs of the learners in this
country to the demands of the teaching unions. *Real* education,
and real progress in improving the level of training of our workforce,
will suffer under his leadership because of it.

---
Pat

P.S.
>It isn't
>enough to subsidize grains so they can be exported in the US gov't isn't
>opening trade walls and informing farmers of overseas markets.

Score another for Bush. His made excellent progress with Canada
and Mexico, not to mention GATT.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc