Edwards, Clinton, and McCain want H-1B increase
Edwards, Clinton, and McCain want H-1B increase
Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 3:04 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1749 -- 9/04/2007 >>>>>
Over the Labor Day holiday presidential candidates Edwards, Clinton, and
McCain were busy sticking their thumbs in the eyes of American workers. All
three of them reiterated their desire to increase the number of H-1B visas.
In the statement below, Edwards sounds more like a Libertarian than a Democrat
by making a demand-based argument for unlimited H-1B visas. He thinks that the
number of visas issued should be based on the number of visas employers want.
He goes on after this statement to state that he favors giving illegal aliens
amnesty. Why doesn't Edwards just come right out and say that he wants open
borders?
EDWARDS: Regarding the H-1B visa question: I think it is important
for us to have available, for the work that's being done here in
this valley, plus all over the country, the talent and the mental
capacity we need. So the H-1B visa program is important; it should
be expanded, based on the needs that exist.
McCain takes a different tact -- he thinks that our opposition to an H-1B
increase is an emotional response to our opposition to amnesty. Apparently
McCain thinks we are too dumb to know the difference.
Wright: You're a good politician, but let's go back to H-1B, though.
Do you see any kind of change in the number granted?
McCain: Yes, but because we're hung up on the whole immigration
issue, we haven't moved forward on the H-1B, as we should have.
Every time they say "H-1B," somebody says, "OK, then I'm going
to attach building a wall under it," or
Clinton sure knows how to play the crowd. She promised to give high-tech
employers more H-1Bs and she wants to hand out government subsidies to give
broadband internet service to poor people. One problem with her plan -- once
she puts all the American high-tech workers out of their jobs there won't be
anybody to pay taxes for her subsidy. Oh well, if that happens she can always
borrow the money and add to our national debt -- Bush does it and nobody seems
to mind.
Clinton said she supports increasing the number of foreign-born
high-tech workers allowed into the country as well as providing tax
incentives to encourage broadband deployment in under-served areas
of the country and encouraging new technology in renewable energy.
Somehow I can just see Joe Pon saying this while smoking a big fat cigar.
"It's clear from her [Clinton] rmarks today, she's in tune with
what Silicon Valley is looking for," said Joe Pon, vice president
of corporate affairs for Applied Materials, which hosted the
event.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6790508?nclick_check=1
Edwards describes stands on health care, energy, Iraq Mercury News San Jose
Mercury News Article Launched: 08/30/2007
As part of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's "Road to the White House"
series, former Sen. John Edwards appeared before 200 executives Aug. 1.
After a short speech, he was interviewed by Mercury News Editorial Page Editor
and Vice President Stephen E. Wright. Below is an edited transcript.
Go to www.mercurynews.com/opinion to read a transcript of an interview Wright
did with Sen. John McCain (before he announced he would be a presidential
candidate) and Cisco Systems Chief Executive John Chambers.
Also posted is a story about Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech to the Leadership
Group about her "innovation" agenda.
STEPHEN E. WRIGHT: There are many "green-technology" companies that call
Silicon Valley home, so we know that global-warming is a problem. But in
Washington, it seems that they are having a difficult time prioritizing
responses. What would be the two or three most important global-warming issues
you would tackle? And, if elected president, how would you solve them?
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: Addressing global warming in a serious way requires a
comprehensive set of ideas. I think it's very hard to say there is this one
solution. My view is that we have to cap carbon emissions in America. We need
a national cap. We ought to reduce our carbon emissions by a minimum of 80
percent over the next four decades. I'm going to add a caveat because the
science is, while clear about the human contribution to global warming, it's
constantly changing and evolving. We get new information, it seems like,
regularly. But I think we have to get off carbon-based fuels. It's a very
simple thing, and that means wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels. I think we
should not be building coal-fired power plants. We don't have the capacity to
sequester or capture the carbon.
WRIGHT: Sorry to interrupt, but what about nuclear power?
EDWARDS: I'm totally opposed to nuclear power. And I know there may be people
in the room who are for nuclear power. But I am opposed to it because I am not
satisfied we have a safe way to dispose of the waste, and I think there's also
a practical problem, which is this transition has to happen now. And we
haven't built a nuclear power plant in America in decades. It would take an
extraordinary amount of time to plan, develop, build, and get a nuclear power
plant on line.
WRIGHT: Let me move now to health care because you were out first with your
universal plan, and, obviously, California has been talking about health care
reform seriously for the past year. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan seems to
be stuck on the operating table. But perhaps you could talk a little bit about
how your health care plan would address the rising costs, especially to
individuals, and then how you would pay the estimated $90 billion to $120
billion cost.
EDWARDS: The structure of my plan is it mandates coverage. There's an employer
requirement, but there's also an employee requirement. It actually applies to
every American. Every single American, by law, must be covered by health
insurance, and that is a distinction from some of the proposals that are made
by everyone else. If you don't mandate it, then you can have as many as 10 and
20 million Americans who don't have health care coverage.
So it mandates coverage - requires employers to either cover their employees
or to pay into a fund. It subsidizes health-insurance premiums up to about
$100,000 of income, and each American will choose, from a health care market,
what coverage they want, and it's basically private insurers, and there's also
a government plan. And some people, as you know, favor single-payer,
government-run health insurance. This actually provides both choices. It
covers a lot of cracks in the health care system. Mental health's treated
exactly the same as physical health. Pre-existing conditions are banned,
outlawed. Preventive care is not only covered, but required from birth on.
Long-term care and chronic care are covered. You can take your health care
with you from job to job or place to place when you move. And the cost-
containment provisions are several. Electronic record-keeping would be
required. Today, private insurers in America charge anywhere from 30 to 40
cents on each dollar for profit and overhead. We'd cap that amount at 15
percent.
WRIGHT: Since this is a business group, let me ask you what can these folks
expect if your plan is approved in terms of an impact on their bottom line?
EDWARDS: Their cost of health care is going to go down. It's going to go down
dramatically. Anybody who has analyzed all these plans has concluded it will
not only cover everybody, but it will significantly reduce costs for
employers.
WRIGHT: Let me move now quickly to research and development - a key ingredient
to Silicon Valley's success. The state has a fairly attractive R&D tax credit,
but what would you do to enhance the federal government's role in R&D, both in
public and private spending?
EDWARDS: No. 1, the R&D tax credit should be made permanent, which is
something I have proposed for years now, instead of being subject to the
budgetary whims of each individual Congress. And, I think it can also be
expanded to be made more available to more entrepreneurs.
WRIGHT: Congress and the president failed to pass any kind of immigration-
reform legislation. There are still two key aspects of immigration reform that
are important to California: the H-1B visa and agricultural workers. What
would you do about these two specific areas? And why do you think you might be
successful in getting some progress?
EDWARDS: Regarding the H-1B visa question: I think it is important for us to
have available, for the work that's being done here in this valley, plus all
over the country, the talent and the mental capacity we need. So the H-1B visa
program is important; it should be expanded, based on the needs that exist.
Also important is that America needs to be doing a much better, more-effective
job in producing, from our own young people, the talent pool that can perform
these jobs, and my view is that we are not concentrating on science and math
the way that we need to. We're not concentrating on graduate education in
those areas the way we need to. But immigration is a very hot topic out there
in America, and a very divisive topic. You can be in front of a group of
progressive Democrats, and there will be a lot of people in the room who want
to know what you're going to do about the illegal immigrants, and they're not
thinking about a path to citizenship.
Secondly, I do think we should be tougher on employers who are knowingly
violating the law, and in many cases, abusing workers. But the third piece,
and this is the more controversial one, I do think that there should be a path
to citizenship, and it needs to be a meaningful path to citizenship. I think
the path that was in the bill that was last considered by the Senate was
completely unrealistic. I mean most undocumented workers in America would
never meet that standard, which means they would never become American
citizens. And I don't want to live in a country that's made up of first-class
citizens and second-class laborers. That's not America.
WRIGHT: Now let me ask you a rather personal question. My son is an Army
cavalry scout with the 3rd Infantry Division serving in Iraq, just south of
Baghdad. Where do you think we should be fighting the war on terrorism? And
what do you have in your plans to deal with all these war veterans who will be
coming back? The country will be responsible for them for many decades.
EDWARDS: For those in the room who don't know this, I think I'm the one
candidate who's actually rejected George Bush's terminology of the "global war
on terror," because I think he's used it as an excuse for every bad thing he's
done, and it has not made the situation better. Has not made us safer. Now a
very simple equation. We have less allies and more terrorists.
We are not safer. There are two things that have to be done to address the
issue of terrorism, which is a very serious issue. Al-Qaida is real.
Islamic Jihad is real. These terrorist groups are very, very real. No. 1, we
have to use every tool available to us - and I will do this as president
- to find these people where they are, and stop them before they can do us
harm. But the second part, and the part that's been completely missing from
the Bush administration, is any long-term strategy or plan to undermine the
forces of terrorism. America needs to be seen by the rest of the world as a
force for good. We need to end the war in Iraq. Close Guantanamo. Make it
clear that America is not going to operate secret prisons. The president of
the United States will no longer illegally spy on the American people, which
this president is doing. And America will not either engage in or condone
torture. By the way, I find it absolutely amazing that a presidential
candidate has to actually say these things. Now, for our soldiers coming home:
I think that we have a sacred responsibility to men and women who have served
this country in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I think we ought to (create) an
individual home-redeployment plan for every one of them, which means, as they
come home we should evaluate their needs, their mental-health needs, their
physical-health needs. If they need job training, they should get the job
training. If they need education, they should get the education. If they're
looking to go back to civilian life, we should help them find a job - America
should help them find a job - instead of leaving them on their own. That's us
meeting our responsibility to them.
WRIGHT: Now a question from the audience on education. What would you do to
improve K-through-12 education in the United States? And what do you think
about No Child Left Behind?
EDWARDS: We think about education the wrong way in America. We think about it
as K through 12, and I think education should be thought of as a birth-to-
death experience in America. For the K-12 component, the most important thing
is to get the highest-quality teacher in front of every classroom, which I
think means raising base teacher pay, but it also means creating incentives.
Pay bonus incentives for teachers to go to the places where we need them the
most. I proposed a "college for everyone" idea that basically covers college
tuition and books for kids who are willing to work when they're in college.
And then I think the harder question, and this is something I would love your
thoughts and input on, how do we create an infrastructure for continued
learning? Because we know, at the age of 35 or 40 or 45, much of what you've
learned becomes outdated. And if you exist in an environment, which many of
you do, where your education is continuously updated, then you're fine. But
the majority of America doesn't exist in this environment.
I would love to hear your ideas about it.
WRIGHT: Another audience question: I think you are the only presidential
candidate with a housing policy that you've enunciated. Could you please
discuss some of the main points of that program?
EDWARDS: I proposed that we provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to help
people. And by the way, some of the work that I was educated on earlier today
that's being done here with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's Housing
Trust of Santa Clara County program is extraordinary - leveraging private
funds plus government funds to make housing available to people who otherwise
wouldn't have it. What's being done here could be a model for the entire
country. But I have proposed helping people with the down payment by giving
them a tax credit for it. Then we overhaul HUD which, I think, is a big
bureaucratic monster that doesn't do what it needs to do, in multiple ways. I
think we've clustered poor people together, for example, in public housing,
which feeds the cycle of poverty. We have to break that cycle, and I think we
have to be much more creative about how we use Section 8 housing vouchers. I
think we should have more Section 8 housing vouchers, but use them very
differently to create mobility for families that otherwise are stuck in the
same place, in the same poor neighborhood. I'll stop there.
Those are two of the big components.
WRIGHT: And the last question. This person asks, "Why should I support you
over your primary opponents?" You've got 30 seconds.
EDWARDS: Thank you! I like that as the last question!
WRIGHT: I am sure you do.
EDWARDS: First we have terrific people running for the Democratic nomination
for president, and I'm deadly serious about that. That's not just me being
nice. I mean we have really high-quality people running. What I think you will
find, if you have the time to look at each of us, is that I have been first
with very specific, very aggressive policy proposals.
There's a reason for that. Whether it's health care, whether it's energy,
whether it's tax policy - all these things. What we do about Iraq. There's a
reason for it, because I absolutely believe that America needs change.
Serious change. Not little change. Not incremental change. But big change.
And I think the way to measure who will lead and be aggressive for change as
president is to just look at what's happening in the presidential campaign. It
is a microcosm of what will happen in the presidency. I will be a strong
president of change.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6761900?nclick_check=1
Sen. McCain and Cisco's John Chambers talk about economic competitiveness
Mercury News San Jose Mercury News Article Launched: 08/30/2007
U.S. Sen. John McCain and Cisco Systems Chairman and CEO John Chambers were
the featured speakers on "Improving America's Business Climate and Economic
Competitiveness" during the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's 2006 Annual
Public Policy Luncheon in November. They answered questions on a broad range
of questions. And McCain talked about his presidential ambitions. The
discussion was moderated by Mercury News Editorial Pages Editor and Vice
President Stephen E. Wright. Here is an edited transcript.
Wright: We all know the challenges of global competitiveness. What are some of
the things that America is doing right?
Chambers: If you look at the future of a country, it's built around four
pillars. First is the education system. Second is the infrastructure. Third is
the environment for innovation. And fourth is supportive government. And I
think, for many of us in this room, learning how important that fourth one is,
is an ongoing process. But it doesn't matter if you're in Eastern Europe,
Romania or Turkey, or if you're in the Middle East, or Saudi Arabia, or Dubai,
or India, or China, or Hong Kong -- they look both to America and Silicon
Valley as having gotten it right. The unique environment that we've created in
America and Silicon Valley is still the best in the world. Our fifth strength
is our ability to criticize ourselves. So I'm really the optimist about our
country's future, and especially about Silicon Valley.
McCain: I agree with everything John said, and he said it in a far more
concise and articulate fashion than I would. I travel a lot around the world
and I see a big problem with anti-Americanism. But the respect, and almost
reverence, with which Silicon Valley is held, is literally throughout the
world. We do have some things to worry about, including the rising tide of
protectionism here in the United States, particularly in the Congress. And,
second, young people are not able to come and get an education in this
country, as they were before Sept. 11. Part of that is understandable. But as
you know, one of our greatest sources of talent and brains in this nation came
from people from all over the world, who studied here, and decided that they
wanted to stay and work here. That's being cut off. They're now going to
school in India. They're going to school in Europe, etc. Everybody knows that,
but we've got to fix the immigration problem overall, and we also have to fix
this H-1B problem, and we have to make it a lot easier for students from all
over the world to come and study at the finest institutions in the world.
Wright: Surprise! I have a question about H-1B visas. Obviously, it is
critical to Silicon Valley, and to innovation. John Chambers, what's the
impact of the H-1B visa limit on the country's competitiveness? And what's the
impact on Cisco?
Chambers: If you look at Silicon Valley, as an example, over 60 percent of our
engineers are first- or second-generation Asian-Americans, and our ability to
attract the best and brightest from all over the world to our country, whether
you're in Boston or Texas or North Carolina or Silicon Valley, is so key to
our future. Combining that with our local talent has made our country very,
very strong. Without realizing it, we have hung up a "not welcome" mat, and
we've got to change that. Many companies are already moving the majority of
their growth overseas in terms of engineers, for a combination of reasons,
especially the number of engineers that are being generated out of China and
India, and that number is either 5 or 10:1, depending on whose numbers you
want to use. But if we keep that welcome mat open, and attract the best and
brightest here, they'll generate a lot of jobs for many of us who are already
here, and I think it's the example of what has made us. We do not want to
export jobs; but if we can't really train in this country, and attract the
best talent here, you will see high tech export more and more. So I think it
is of fundamental importance to get this turned around.
McCain: The H-1B problem is caught up in this larger, emotional, traumatic
national debate we've been having on immigration. Just listen to the talk
shows. It's an incredibly emotional issue. I understand why people are upset.
We have to secure our border. That's the obligation that every nation in the
world has, but we also need to have a comprehensive solution to it, and part
of that is temporary workers, which applies to agriculture as well as it does
to high tech, and it also means we do something with the
12 million people who are already here as the result of failed federal
policies. The great strength of America is because we've had a fresh infusion
of new blood and vitality generation after generation, and that goes on today,
and for us to somehow turn against that, I think, would be a disaster.
Chambers: Senator, two real quick comments. The first is, I just happened to
note a story today that said if an election were held, and you would be kind
enough to run, you would win by almost 10 points vs. the most likely opponent
on the other side. Can you be nudged a little bit to talk about that?
McCain: Well, I'd like to ask your sympathy for the families of Arizona,
because Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for president, and Morris Udall from
Arizona ran for president, and Bruce Babbitt from Arizona ran for president,
and I, from Arizona, ran for president. Arizona may be the only state in
America where mothers don't tell their children that some day they can grow up
and be president.
Wright: You're a good politician, but let's go back to H-1B, though. Do you
see any kind of change in the number granted?
McCain: Yes, but because we're hung up on the whole immigration issue, we
haven't moved forward on the H-1B, as we should have. Every time they say "H-
1B," somebody says, "OK, then I'm going to attach building a wall under it,"
or "I'm going to say they can't collect food stamps." Look, the approval
rating of Congress, I saw recently, was 16 percent. The lesson from the
election will be that voters expect us to go back and work on these issues,
and get something done, rather than get in this partisan bickering and
fighting, which, frankly, isn't why they send us to Washington.
Wright: That's a beautiful segue to my next question. President Bush outlined
several initiatives for innovation and competitiveness in his State of the
Union. The Democrats have developed a plan to also address many of these same
issues, but nothing got done. So I'd like to ask each of you to name the No. 1
competitiveness issue that you think Congress should tackle in 2007.
McCain: Immigration reform has to get done. If we really want to be
competitive, we need to extend the R&D tax credit. We need to do a lot of
those things which would spur competitiveness. But I would think right off the
top of my head, for a whole lot of reasons, immigration reform is something we
should get resolved.
Wright: What's it going to take to get traction on that issue?
McCain: It's going to require the American people to demand that we act in
their interest and stop fighting amongst ourselves. Reward people who reach
across the aisle and work on a bipartisan basis. I've been around a long time.
I have not seen more bitterness and more partisanship in Washington, nor
nastier political campaigning than this one. Something's got to change, or
we're going to have trouble motivating young people to serve in public office.
Chambers: If I were to ask for one thing, it would be broadband. Our global
competitors are breaking away from us. It enables new forms of health care.
It enables new forms of innovation. It allows us to balance our personal lives
with our business lives, with our families, and we are not keeping up as a
country.
Wright: What can we do to get affordable broadband throughout the country?
Chambers: It starts with an agreement to make it a top agenda item for our
country. We need to create a reasonable amount of competitiveness, and then
holding those people accountable for it, and allow a reasonable return on it.
I don't think this is rocket science.
McCain: He's right. Broadband access needs to be a top priority.
Wright: We need a skilled workforce here in America. A key ingredient is
improving our K through 12 education system, and ensuring that more students
really understand math and science. What more can the federal government be
doing? And what should the private sector be doing?
McCain: Well, the No Child Left Behind Act is up for re-authorization.
Unlike some, I believe it was a great beginning. I think that No Child Left
Behind was the first time I can compare my children's performance with that of
people in another state. It set standards in a lot of ways. So I believe that
when we re-authorize it, we can fine-tune it, and, obviously, put more
emphasis on math and the sciences. And one area we're not as appreciative of
as we should be is junior colleges. People want job security and we've got to
tell these people, "If you do lose your job because of globalization, we're
going to provide you with an opportunity to get the education and training so
that you're not permanently out of the job market."
Chambers: Many people in this room were involved in the school-bond issues,
and others. John Doerr and Reed Hastings are constantly leading for us on
that. But I think we've got to think even more aggressively. Using Cisco as an
example, we're in partnership with the state government in Louisiana and
Mississippi. In partnership with the boards of education. We'll put in $40
million, redo the curriculum, eliminate the digital divide in the cities,
putting in wireless capabilities. Make the teachers and the administrators the
engineers of the programs, and really build a system that doesn't just catch
us up, but starts to lead again.
McCain: Maybe you don't think charter schools are right for your community.
I know what they've done in Arizona, and many of them have failed, but they've
provided competition. It's not throwing money at the problem, it's got to do
with competition. Why not try vouchers? We ought to do everything we can to
instill competition.
Wright: A question from the audience: "Will one of you please run for
president?"
McCain: I mentioned my friend, Morris Udall. He was a member of the House of
Representatives, and he ran in 1976. And he said, "If you're a United States
senator, unless you're under indictment or detoxification, you automatically
consider yourself a candidate for president of the United States."
Chambers: Senator, what's the hardest part of your decision to run for
president?
McCain: Whether I want to subject my family to the very nasty campaign that
you know will ensue at one point or another. I'm not bitter or angry about the
last campaign, but I look at these campaigns, and I see these attacks, just a
constant stream of attacks, and it hurts your family a lot more than it does
you. And I guess the other, John, is that you have to make sure that your
qualifications and your background and your experience and your talents are
suited to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I believe that it's very
likely, but it's a process you have to go through, and we haven't made that
decision yet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_6761919?nclick_check=1
Hillary Clinton unveils innovation agenda By Julia Prodis Sulek Mercury News
San Jose Mercury News Article Launched: 08/30/2007
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke the language of
Silicon Valley on Thursday when she laid out an "innovation" plan to the
valley's high-tech leaders aimed at creating new jobs, encouraging math and
science education, and "bringing the information age to every corner of the
country."
"Call this version 1.0 of my innovation agenda," the New York senator and
former first lady said, suggesting a partnership with the group to "tweak it
and fine-tune it."
As part of her nine-point plan, Clinton said she would create a $50 billion
energy research agency to reduce energy dependence and the threat of global
warming; increase the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, and
increase investment in research at the National Institutes of Health.
"A culture that values and invests in ideas is part and parcel of the promise
of America. And we have always supported that culture with public investment,"
Clinton told a group of CEOs and executives gathered at a Silicon Valley
Leadership Group meeting at Applied Materials in Santa Clara. "The fire that
was sparked here in this valley has made such a difference, but it can't be
allowed to sputter out."
Clinton said she supports increasing the number of foreign-born high-tech
workers allowed into the country as well as providing tax incentives to
encourage broadband deployment in under-served areas of the country and
encouraging new technology in renewable energy.
"It's clear from her remarks today, she's in tune with what Silicon Valley is
looking for," said Joe Pon, vice president of corporate affairs for Applied
Materials, which hosted the event. "As with anybody, it will be interesting to
see what priorities they set when they get in office. But we're not going to
let them off the hook."
Clinton addressed about 200 high-tech CEOs and executives at the leadership
group's annual "business climate summit."
She also attended a luncheon at a Palo Alto hotel, where 800 guests paid from
$250 to $1,000 to listen to her discuss a broad range of issues.
Just before her speech in Santa Clara, she spent about a half hour with a more
intimate gathering of about a dozen members of the leadership group.
There, Clinton discussed three issues at the forefront of the high-tech
industry: green and renewable energy, patent reform and protection and H-1B
work visas for foreign-born engineers.
"She was listening, highly informed and there was a great deal of commonality
in the importance of these goals," said Ken Kannappan, president and CEO of
Plantronics, a Santa Cruz-based headset maker. "I thought she was very
sincere."
For the past couple of months, a stream of presidential candidates have spent
time in Silicon Valley, with four of them speaking at Google headquarters in
Mountain View.
But Carl Guardino, the CEO of the leadership group, said it's time the
candidates stop considering Silicon Valley their "ATM machine" and started
making deposits.
Clinton received a round of applause when she said she supports increasing the
current cap on H-1B work visas. She advocated relaxing green card restrictions
of engineers "so they don't go home."
Guardino pointed out that 53 percent of all engineers in Silicon Valley are
foreign born and three of 10 new jobs are created by foreign-born CEOs.
On another topic, the Democratic front-runner called her renewable energy
plan, "energy 2.0," suggesting that instead of "leading in foreign oil
imports, we should be leading in green-tech exports."
"There's no reason we should be subsidizing oil discovery and exploration,"
she said. "Winning the 21st century energy race is as important as winning the
20th century space race."
Clinton also discussed overhauling the health care system to help not only the
uninsured, but the under-insured.
"I have no illusions of how hard this will be," she said, "but I think we
finely have a critical mass" of support.
More students need to be encouraged to study math and science, she said.
Fewer than 20 percent of American undergraduates earn degrees in science and
engineering, compared with 50 percent in China.
Perhaps the tech industry can learn from reality TV shows, she said with a
chuckle.
"Think of a series to bring real sex appeal" to science and math, she said.
She also proposed federal tax incentives to bring broadband to all areas of
the country.
"What the railroads were to 19th century innovation, the broadband should be
to the 21st century," she said. "It's critical if we expect to connect-up our
country."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this email with UNSUbSCRIBE in
the subject window
Back to archives