Thanks to all for your responses to my previous posts. I thought I would toss a little raw meat to you hungry wolves.
Imagine that I am an open-minded undecided voter. Please comment on the following article:
dailynews.yahoo.com
Wednesday June 07 11:15 AM EDT
Al Gore's E-Government Vision
By Matt Carolan, Inter@ctive Week
"It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies." - Abraham Lincoln, in response to a serenade, November 10, 1864.
I thought of Lincoln's statement as I read Al Gore's latest attempt to serenade the voters: his proposals this week to wire the government so as to make it more efficient.
The Gore "e-government" project, as he calls it, would wire every agency of government by the year 2003 to provide an array of services and information at high speed.
But while the Gore project tempts us with the siren song of efficiency, it leaves many unsettling questions. That is not only because he serves up the vaguest of plans, but also because technology - as we are seeing in the private sector already - is a two-edge sword with the ability to expand the power and intrusiveness of government.
The positives:
Efficiency: "Together we will transform America's collection of ramshackle bureaucracies into an 'e-government' that works for you," Gore told a crowd at North Carolina State University. His remarks conjure up the image of potential savings of hundreds of millions, if not billions, in tax dollars.
Information: "Imagine," he said, "being able to call up in a blink of an eye a list of every health plan in your area, to judge for yourself which offered the best quality care."
"Imagine," he said "if a child in the poor neighborhood could have access to the richest educational materials and most illustrious museums."
Gore also raised one item he has before, information about the purity of drinking water.
Note the power of this message, appealing to technological, good government, environmental and educational constituencies. It's a welcome, though calculated, departure from Gore's unsuccessful attempt to demagogue on George W. Bush's Social Security, tax, and missile-defense plans.
Of course, for Gore to suggest the government is a bunch of "ramshackle bureaucracies" is quite telling. Not only is he critiquing the legacy of the past, but he is also making a tacit admission of failure in his previous effort at "streamlining government" - a cautionary tale for the future? In reality, that past effort resulted mostly in cutting the military - something both Gore and George W. Bush now propose to reverse.
In any event, more efficient government is the perpetual promise of those who can't bring themselves to promise less government.
The downside:
Costs: Gore's advisors put the cost of the plan at $100 million. Add another 500 percent at least. Government programs never cost what they are estimated to cost.
Plus, remember the recent debate in Arizona, where voters in the Democratic presidential primary cast ballots online? Some groups said it raised discriminatory ballot access issues. If government services go online, the "digital divide" becomes a civil rights issue, as the poor would be cut off from accessing government services the same way as everyone else. If the FCC can pass on an "e-rate" tax to wire schools and bridge the digital divide in other ways, how many more taxes on telecom and other things are on the way once we are talking about access to "vital" government services? A chicken in every pot, indeed.
Mission Creep and Politicization: All this may cost more in the long run because it's an iron law of any bureaucracy that it expands its mission to expand its power. As data is collected, the agencies will come up with proposals for more services and more data.
Whatever savings may result from Gore's plan will not be returned to taxpayers. Instead, the government will decide to act as an ISP for the poor or an ASP to small business - or a business-to-business exchange for major corporations, citing antitrust concerns if the matter is left to the private sector.
Privacy Battles: Remember the amazing Internal Revenue Service hearings, at which we saw federal employees abusing their power over ordinary citizens? Quite a shock, eh? Now recall the recent dustups over Double-Click's collection of consumer data and we have the potential for major political battles over privacy and intragovernment information sharing. Talk about databases! Talk about congressional hearings on privacy policies! Remember the recent concerns over the intrusiveness of the census? Heck, what about intergovernment information sharing as the U.S. government interfaces with the European Union and other transnational bodies?
Attacks: Think the recent Republican-led shutdown of the government was a bad thing? How about a tech savvy militia launching attacks on federal online services? While a technological advance is inevitable in government services, dependence on the Net for services raises new security issues and potential costs. Even the private sector has yet to figure them all out.
Lincoln worried about the problems of balancing a strong government with the rights of the citizenry at a time when government power was in great part reserved for national defense and police activity.
Gore's proposal of a hyperefficient, active government, with the accompanying need to protect its "services," is light years beyond all that. |
