snilloctjc
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 401
- Location
- El Paso, TX USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
On the evening of January 25, 2011 President Obama fulfilled the Constitution's mandate and presented his annual State of the Union Address. Immediately following his speech representatives of the GOP and Tea Party offered their response. Today the airwaves, cyberspace, and print media are filled with the usual partisan cheers and jeers for what the President had to say about the state of our union, and the direction he thinks we should take going forward.
I am not an Honorable Member of Congress. I am not a world renowned expert in anything. I am not a famous journalist, political pundit, news commentator, internet blogger, or famous anything for that matter. There isn't any crowd beating a path to my door step to hear what I have to say on the subject. I'm nobody.
I'm nobody, but what the President has to say, and what actions may come from his direction, will directly impact my life today and that of my children going forward. I'm nobody, but I claim my right to free speech and have my say, even if the only one who reads it is me.
In his opening remarks President Obama had this to say:
I could not agree more. In that spirit of "moving forward together" I offer my thoughts on the proposals put forward in your speech.
Who would argue with such goals? One might add others, change the order of priority, but reject them out right? Not I. The devil and the debate are in the details. Disagreement will come over the methods chosen to pursue these goals, and the underlying philosophy of government that guides those methods. Disagreement should foster discussion and compromise, not gridlock.
With all due respect Mr. President the examples you cite from history (with the exception of NASA) do not support your proposal for direct investment in private enterprise through government loans to "encourage" innovation. The U.S. Government has no place engaging in venture capitalism. As you stated in the speech, "Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation".
As an alternative, I propose we direct our existing government research facilities and infrastructure (Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, The CDC, DARPA...) to identify and prioritize their research and funds towards specific achievements those in your stated focus areas: bio-medical research, information technology, and clean energy technology. Focus on a specific goal with a deadline was what lead to all those innovations and break through tecnology achievements produced by NASA. The same focus and control is what is required to meet your objectives as stated.
Grants to universities for scientific research should also be limited to these areas.
Unlike the in the past, where the technology innovations developed by government efforts and investment were freely handed over to the free enterprise system, future innovations should be patented by the government and their use in the private sector come through a licensing agreement to fund additional and on-going basic scientific research. Government Scientists involved in these developments should also be compensated with a part ownership in the patents to provide the necessary incentive for the best and the brightest to work for the government programs in the first place.
Start up funding for such an approach is already in place with the current budget.
I absolutely, unequivocally agree education is critical to providing the knowledgeable people who will drive our innovation.
We have all read the studies you referenced regarding how our public education system is producing students that lag behind their international counter-parts in the areas of math and science. We can argue all day about why this is or is not true, or what variations between one country’s system and ours explain the failings. The bottom line is we need to make sure we produce enough well educated, knowledgeable citizens to fuel our innovation and continued economic success.
Across this great country there are many fine institutions of learning. They inhabit all levels of our educational system, from grade school to graduate school. Until we acknowledge that the state’s responsibility ends with providing the tools and resources for a student to receive an education we will continue to throw scarce financial resources away by the handful. The government cannot compel a student to study or a parent to parent.
The Federal Government however has neither the constitutional mandate to provide for public education nor the necessary funds to do so on an on-going basis. The “Race to the Top program” sets individual states in competition for limited federal funds. It does not unite it divides.
The most successful and long running example of the Federal Government in the arena of higher education is our service academies. These academies exemplify what “a place of high expectations and high performance” look like in reality. They do so because of their competitive entrance requirements, their limited enrollment, their 24/7 demand for self-discipline, and their requirement that the student upon graduation repay his education through national service.
This is the model we should adapt and expand to develop the work force of the future.
*******************************
This is getting very long, so I will continue in another note
I am not an Honorable Member of Congress. I am not a world renowned expert in anything. I am not a famous journalist, political pundit, news commentator, internet blogger, or famous anything for that matter. There isn't any crowd beating a path to my door step to hear what I have to say on the subject. I'm nobody.
I'm nobody, but what the President has to say, and what actions may come from his direction, will directly impact my life today and that of my children going forward. I'm nobody, but I claim my right to free speech and have my say, even if the only one who reads it is me.
In his opening remarks President Obama had this to say:
"What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.
I believe we can. I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all - for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics."
I could not agree more. In that spirit of "moving forward together" I offer my thoughts on the proposals put forward in your speech.
"We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future. And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there"
Who would argue with such goals? One might add others, change the order of priority, but reject them out right? Not I. The devil and the debate are in the details. Disagreement will come over the methods chosen to pursue these goals, and the underlying philosophy of government that guides those methods. Disagreement should foster discussion and compromise, not gridlock.
"The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation"
"In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology..."
"In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology..."
With all due respect Mr. President the examples you cite from history (with the exception of NASA) do not support your proposal for direct investment in private enterprise through government loans to "encourage" innovation. The U.S. Government has no place engaging in venture capitalism. As you stated in the speech, "Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation".
As an alternative, I propose we direct our existing government research facilities and infrastructure (Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, The CDC, DARPA...) to identify and prioritize their research and funds towards specific achievements those in your stated focus areas: bio-medical research, information technology, and clean energy technology. Focus on a specific goal with a deadline was what lead to all those innovations and break through tecnology achievements produced by NASA. The same focus and control is what is required to meet your objectives as stated.
Grants to universities for scientific research should also be limited to these areas.
Unlike the in the past, where the technology innovations developed by government efforts and investment were freely handed over to the free enterprise system, future innovations should be patented by the government and their use in the private sector come through a licensing agreement to fund additional and on-going basic scientific research. Government Scientists involved in these developments should also be compensated with a part ownership in the patents to provide the necessary incentive for the best and the brightest to work for the government programs in the first place.
Start up funding for such an approach is already in place with the current budget.
"Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success. But if we want to win the future - if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas - then we also have to win the race to educate our kids."
I absolutely, unequivocally agree education is critical to providing the knowledgeable people who will drive our innovation.
We have all read the studies you referenced regarding how our public education system is producing students that lag behind their international counter-parts in the areas of math and science. We can argue all day about why this is or is not true, or what variations between one country’s system and ours explain the failings. The bottom line is we need to make sure we produce enough well educated, knowledgeable citizens to fuel our innovation and continued economic success.
Across this great country there are many fine institutions of learning. They inhabit all levels of our educational system, from grade school to graduate school. Until we acknowledge that the state’s responsibility ends with providing the tools and resources for a student to receive an education we will continue to throw scarce financial resources away by the handful. The government cannot compel a student to study or a parent to parent.
The Federal Government however has neither the constitutional mandate to provide for public education nor the necessary funds to do so on an on-going basis. The “Race to the Top program” sets individual states in competition for limited federal funds. It does not unite it divides.
The most successful and long running example of the Federal Government in the arena of higher education is our service academies. These academies exemplify what “a place of high expectations and high performance” look like in reality. They do so because of their competitive entrance requirements, their limited enrollment, their 24/7 demand for self-discipline, and their requirement that the student upon graduation repay his education through national service.
This is the model we should adapt and expand to develop the work force of the future.
"The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information - from high-speed rail to high-speed internet."
*******************************
This is getting very long, so I will continue in another note