Time: Fri Nov 15 21:14:27 1996
To: joyce@mlode.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: 1of2) Tucker to Hillary - 1992 letter]
Cc:
Bcc:
Joyce,
I am working up
At 07:37 PM 11/15/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul....This article is in two parts. It is very interesting reading. I
>hope you make time to read it as I did. Jackie Patru is a personal
>friend of mine. She is extremely active in bringing this type of
>information to the public. She is living with a guy who, in my opinion,
>is one of the most informed people on the subject of the CFR, IMF, World
>Bank, U.N., Regionalism, shadow government, etc., etc., etc.
>I testified before the Penna. Senate Judicary on the issue of War Power
>legislation and the growth of the militia in the State in July of 95. In
>the process of researching Pa. state legislation under Roosevelt's
>declared bankruptcy I think I may have found the legal mechanism which
>enabled the states to turn over its delegated legislative authority to
>the feds. Someone who I showed it to refered to it as "the smoking gun."
>Interested in seeing it? I would like your input on the matter.
> Joyce
>Return-path: <104645.452@compuserve.com>
> id NAA15222; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:20:01 -0500
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:16:24 -0500
>From: Jackie Patru <104645.452@compuserve.com>
>Subject: 1of2) Tucker to Hillary - 1992 letter
>Message-ID: <199611151319_MC1-C05-347D@compuserve.com>
>Apparently-To: jadam2594@aol.com
>Apparently-To: wab@well.com
>Apparently-To: baker@universalweb.com
>Apparently-To: beck_ch@leg.wa.gov
>Apparently-To: DotHB@aol.com
>Apparently-To: glenlb@southwind.net
>Apparently-To: david.d.w.c.carpenter@txmta1.amd.com
>Apparently-To: lancehamilton@sisna.com
>Apparently-To: comminc@fortnet.org
>Apparently-To: jdulaney@best.com
>Apparently-To: BudLidMan@aol.com
>Apparently-To: FireTheFed@email.corenet.net
>Apparently-To: jimfloyd@cneti.com
>Apparently-To: ADHDDOC@aol.com
>Apparently-To: carolyn@tiac.net
>Apparently-To: luhaynes@plix.com
>Apparently-To: nssc@vulcan.inlink.com
>Apparently-To: Ken_Jarvis@prodigy.com
>Apparently-To: JJOHNSON72@aol.com
>Apparently-To: eplurib@megalinx.net
>Apparently-To: trinet@net-master.net
>Apparently-To: radiotimk@aol.com
>Apparently-To: AlphaFran@aol.com
>Apparently-To: glewis@telis.org
>Apparently-To: loeffler@comtch.iea.com
>Apparently-To: m9776@erols.com
>Apparently-To: helenm@interport.net
>Apparently-To: mts@wavefront.com
>Apparently-To: newland@juno.com
>Apparently-To: powens19@mixcom.com
>Apparently-To: pnet@uscom.com
>Apparently-To: patriot@netaxs.com
>Apparently-To: stellap@ix.netcom.com
>Apparently-To: cjr@paloverde.com
>Apparently-To: pawlrevere@aol.com
>Apparently-To: mikeb@mlode.com
>Apparently-To: Nicsmith1@aol.com
>Apparently-To: rjtavel@iquest.net
>Apparently-To: TonyWMFO@aol.com
>Apparently-To: bigbend@juno.com
>Apparently-To: jwhitley@inforamp.net
>To: mikeb@mlode.com
>
>This will be a two-part message because I'm concerned it's
>too text-intensive for one. It's 15 typed pages (12 pt.)
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Following is a letter from Marc Tucker to Hillary Clinton
>just after the election in 1992. Tucker tells us David
>Rockefeller was "delighted" and "radiating happiness" .
>This could be termed a "doomsday" letter for America because
>it is a plan to put their "system" in place within the "first
>four years" before Bill has to run again. In fact, Tucker
>says it is the opportunity to institute the "entire American
>system for human resources development, almost all of
>the current components of which were put in place before
>World War II."
>
>Those who have studied and fully understand the meaning in and
>behind the words, terms and phraseology used by the so-called
>"educators" will no doubt understand the implications in the
>letter. For some of us the implications won't be as clear;
>however, the facts that the components of this plan were "put
>in place before WWII" and that David Rockefeller is apparently
>the "engine driving this planned system" should be enough to
>make us shudder with dread. How far have they come in these
>four years? I would imagine their success varies from State
>to State, however the mechanisms have been / are being put in
>place on a country-wide scale.
>
>State legislators should beware because like it or not, your
>children and grand children will be captured in what Tucker
>calls their "seamless web". For any elected officials who
>believe they will be safe if they "don't make waves", or for
>those legislative "leaders" who believe they will be "taken
>care of" after they've helped to destroy America and hand our
>children [David Hornbeck prefers the term - HUMAN CAPITAL -
>when referring to our children ] over to these people - GUESS
>AGAIN. Your investments, your savings stashed away, your
>property, all the STUFF you've accumulated or hope to
>accumulate will be lost or worthless. If you have off-shore
>accounts, just try to get them back into the country when the
>"system" is in place. If you have property, remember that
>there will be no private-ownership of property when the
>"system" is in place. If you allow your plans for climbing
>further up the political ladder to prevent you from taking a
>firm, solid, unwavering stand against all that is unholy...
>you will never rest in peace and when America is lost you will
>realize you lost your soul along the way.
>
>You have a critical and grave decision to make NOW. Will you
>continue voting for bills based on a "legal summary" which
>leaves out the most pertinent information, or based only on
>the lies told you by your legislative "leaders" who you know
>in your heart have sold out? Will you continue to vote for
>bills based on promises and gifts from lobbyists - or will you
>NOW make the determination to "never again vote for a bill
>without having read and FULLY UNDERSTAND it" ? Will you NOW
>begin lobbying against bills that you know will further the
>plans of the world policymakers like Rocky and friends?
>
>The choice shouldn't be difficult if you have the strength of
>character, integrity and honesty necessary to serve as your
>foundation and if you rely on God to be your Leader and Judge.
>
>May He bless us, everyone, and may He guide our efforts to
>keep America[n's] free.
>
>In love and pursuit of Liberty
>Jackie Patru
>Council on Domestic Relations
>Pennsylvania Kitchen Militia
>
>Note: The letter came from Congressman Henry Hyde's office.
>The original is 18 pages and very difficult to read in some
>places. I've transcribed it exactly and to the best of my
>ability as some of the words were nearly unreadable. If you
>want a copy of the original you may send a business sized,
>self-addressed, stamped (2 stamps) envelope and 3 Federal
>Reserve Notes (to help defray my cost and time) to: CDR, P.O.
>Box 190, Millerton, Pennsylvania [16936].
>
>To: My friends on the fax network... I'm sending only the
>first page with this cover to give you an idea of the letter's
>contents. I cannot afford to fax 18 pages, nor would you be
>able to read it as it has lost legibility through several
>faxings before it made its way to me.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>
>11 November 1992
>
>Hillary Clinton
>The Governors Mansion
>1800 Canter Street
>Little Rock, Ark 72206
>
>Dear Hillary:
>
>I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you
>did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last
>Wednesday in David Rockefeller's office with him, John
>Sculley, Dave Barram and David Haselkorn. It was a great
>celebration. Both John and David R[ockefeller] were more
>expansive than I have ever seen them -- literally radiating
>happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has
>seized its last chance. I am fond of quoting Winston
>Churchill to the effect that "America always does the right
>thing -- after it has exhausted all the alternatives." This
>election, more than anything else in my experience, proves
>his point
>
>The subject we were discussing was what you and Bill should do
>now about education, training and labor market policy.
>Following that meeting, I chaired another in Washington on the
>same topic. Those present at the second meeting included Tim
>Barnicie(?) Dave Barram, Mike Kohen, David Hornbeck, Hilary
>Pennington, Aney(?) Planner, Lauren Resnick, Betsy Brown
>Ruzzi, Bob Schwartz, Mike Smith and Bill Spring. Shirley
>Malcolm, Ray Marshall(?) and Susan McGuire were also invited.
>Though these three were not able to be present at last week's
>meeting, they have all contributed by telephone to the ideas
>that follow. Ira Magaziner was also invited to this meeting.
>
>Our purpose in these meetings was to propose concrete actions
>that the Clinton administration could take -- between now
>and the inauguration, in the first 100 days and beyond. The
>result, from where I sit, was really exciting. We took a very
>large leap forward in terms of how to advance the agenda on
>which you and we have all been working -- a practical plan for
>putting all the major components of the system in place within
>four years, by the time Bill has to run again.
>
>I take personal responsibility for what follows. Though I
>believe every one involved in the planning effort is in broad
>agreement, they may not all agree on the details. You should
>also be aware that, although the plan comes from a group
>closely associated with the National Center on Education and
>the Economy, there was no practical way to poll our whole
>Board on this plan in the time available. It represents,
>then, not a proposal from our Center, but the best thinking of
>the group I have named.
>
>We think the great opportunity you have is to ____(?) the
>entire American system for human resources development, almost
>all of the current components of which were put in place
>before World War II. [At the side column is hand written the
>date 1942] The danger is that each of the ideas that Bill
>advanced in the campaign in the area of education and training
>could be translated individually in the ordinary course of
>governing into a legislative proposal and enacted as a
>program. This is the path of least resistance. But it will
>lead to these programs being grafted onto the present system,
>not to a new system, and the opportunity will have been lost.
>If this sense of time and place is correct it is essential
>that the administrations' efforts be guided by a consistent
>vision of what it wants to accomplish in the field of human
>resource [our children] development with respect both to
>choice of key officials and the program.
>
>What follows comes in three pieces:
>
>First, a vision of the kind of national -- not federal --
>human resources development system the nation could have.
>This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that
>should inform that vision. What is essential is that we
>create a seamless web of opportunities, to develop one's
>skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the
>same system for everyone -- young and old, poor and rich,
>worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven
>by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs of the
>organizations providing the services), guided by clear
>standards that define the stages of the system for the people
>who progress through it, and regulated on the basis of
>outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs
>into the system.
>Second, a proposed legislative agenda you can use to implement
>this vision. We propose four high priority packages that will
>enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
>
>1. The first would use your proposals for an apprenticeship
>system as the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new
>postsecondary training system in place. That system would
>incorporate your proposal for reforming postsecondary
>education finance. It contains what we think is a powerful
>idea for rolling out and scaling up the whole new human
>resources system nation wide over the next four years, using
>the (renamed) apprenticeship idea as the entering wedge.
>
>2. The second would combine initiatives on dislocated
>workers, a rebuilt employment-service and a new system of
>labor market boards to offer the Clinton administration's
>employment security program, built on the best practices
>anywhere in the world. This is the backbone of a system for
>assuring adult workers in our society that they need never
>again watch with dismay as their jobs disappear and their
>chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
>
>3. The third, would concentrate on the overwhelming problems
>of our inner cities, combining elements of the first and
>second packages into a special program to greatly raise the
>work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our
>great cities.
>
>4. The fourth, would enable you to take advantage of
>legislation on which Congress has already been working to
>advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda.
>
>The other major proposal we offer has to go with government
>organization for the human resources agenda. While we share
>your reservations about the hazards involved in bringing the
>reorganization proposals to the Congress, we believe that the
>one we have come up with minimizes those draw backs while
>creating an opportunity for the new administration to move
>like lightning to implement its human resources development
>proposals. We hope you can consider the merits of this idea
>quickly because if you decide to go with it or something like
>it, it will greatly affect the nature of the orders you make
>to prospective cabinet members.
>
>THE VISION
>
>We take the proposals Bill put before the country in the
>campaign to be utterly consistent with the ideas advanced in
>Americas Choice, the school restructuring agenda first stated
>in A Nation Prepared, and later incorporated in the work of
>the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, and the
>elaboration of this view that Ray and I tried to capture in
>our book, Thinking for a Living. Taken together, we think
>these ideas constitute a consistent vision for a new human
>resources development system for the United States. I have
>tried to capture the essence of that vision below.
>
>AN ECONOMIC STRATEGY BASED ON SKILL DEVELOPMENT
>
>
>* The economy's strength is derived from a whole population
>as skilled as any in the world, working in workplaces
>organized to take maximum advantage of the skills those people
>have to offer.
>
>* A seamless system of unending skill development that begins
>in the home with the very young and continues through school,
>postsecondary education and the workplace.
>
>THE SCHOOLS
>
>Clear national standards of performance in general education
>(the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in
>common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in
>the world for students of 16 and public schools are expected
>to bring all but the most severely handicapped up to that
>standard. Students get a certificate when they meet the
>standard allowing them to go on to the next stage of their
>education. Though the standards are set to international
>benchmarks, they are distinctly American reflecting our needs
>and values.
>
>We have a national system of education in which curriculum,
>pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure
>systems are all linked to the national standards, but which
>provides for substantial variance among states, districts and
>schools on these matters. This new system of linked
>standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American
>tracking system, combining high academic standards with the
>ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and
>qualify all students [three crossed out words-could not read]
>learning in the postsecondary system and at work
>
>We have a system that rewards students who meet the national
>standards with further education and good jobs providing them
>a strong incentive to work hard in school.
>
>Our public school systems our reorganized to free up school
>professionals to make the key decisions about how to use all
>the available resources to bring students up to the standards.
>Most of the federal, state, district and union rules and
>regulations that now restrict school professionals' ability to
>make these decisions are swept away, though strong measures
>are in place to make sure that vulnerable populations get the
>help they need. School professionals are paid at a level
>comparable to that of other professionals, but they are
>expected to put in a full year, to spend whatever time it
>takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the
>results of their work. The federal, state and local
>governments provide the time, staff development resources,
>technology and other support needed for them to do the job.
>Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can
>possibly bring all of our students up to the standards only a
>few have been expected to meet up to now.
>
>There is a real -- aggressive -- program of public choice in
>our schools, rather than the flaccid version that is
>widespread now.
>
>All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at
>reaching the standards: that is, that whether they make it
>or not depends on the effort they are willing to make, and
>nothing else. School delivery standards are in place to make
>sure this happens. These standards have the same status in
>the system as the new student performance standards, assuring
>that the quality of instruction is high every where, but they
>are fashioned so as not to constitute a new bureaucratic
>nightmare.
>
>POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND WORK SKILLS
>
>All students who meet the new national standards for general
>education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years
>of free additional education. [Does that mean at age 16 a
>child's school days are over if they haven't "met the
>standards"?] We would have the federal and state governments
>match funds to guarantee one free year of college education to
>everyone who meets the new national standards for general
>education. So a student who meets the standard at sixteen
>would be entitled to two free years of high-school and one of
>college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are
>available for additional education beyond that. National
>standards for sub-baccalaureate college-level professional and
>technical degrees and certificates will be established with
>the participation of employers, labor and higher education.
>These programs will include both academic study and structured
>on-the-job training. Eighty percent or more of American high
>school graduates will be expected to get some form of college
>degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate. These
>new professional and technical certificates and degrees
>typically are won within three years of acquiring the general
>education certificate. So, for most postsecondary students,
>college will be free. These professional and technical degree
>programs will be designed to link to programs leading to the
>baccalaureate degree and higher degrees. There will be no
>dead ends in this system. Everyone who meets the general
>education standard will be able to go to some form of college,
>being able to borrow all the money they need to do so, beyond
>the first free year.
>
>This idea of post-secondary professional and technical
>certificates captures all of the essentials of the
>apprenticeship idea, while offering none of its drawbacks (see
>below).
>
>But it also makes it clear that those engaged in apprentice-
>style programs are getting more than narrow training: they
>are continuing their education for other purposes as well, and
>building a base for more education later. Clearly, this idea
>redefines college. Proprietary schools, employers and
>community-based organizations will want to offer these
>programs, as well as community colleges and four-year
>institutions, but these new entrants will have to be
>accredited if they are to qualify to offer the programs.
>[CONTROL]
>
>Employers are not required to provide slots for the structured
>on-the-job training components of the program but many do so,
>because they get first access to the most accomplished
>graduates of these programs, and they can use these programs
>to introduce the trainees to their own values and way of doing
>things.
>
>The system of skill standards for technical and professional
>degrees is the same for students just coming out of high-
>school and for adults in the workforce. It is progressive
>[Communist], in the sense that certificates and degrees for
>entry level jobs lead to further professional and technical
>education programs at higher levels. [Where?] Just as in the
>case of the system for the schools, though, the standards are
>the same everywhere (leading to maximum mobility for
>students), the curricula can vary widely and programs can be
>custom designed to fit the needs of full-time and part-time
>students with very different requirements. Government grant
>and loan programs are available on the same terms to full-time
>and part-time students, as long as the programs in which they
>are enrolled are designed to lead to certificates and degrees
>defined by the system of professional and technical standards
>[more government control].
>
>The national system of professional and technical standards is
>designed much like the multi-state bar, which provides a
>national core around which the states can specify additional
>standards that meet their unique needs. There are national
>standards and exams for no more than twenty broad occupational
>areas, each of which can lead to many occupations in a number
>of related industries. Students who qualify in any one of
>these areas have the broad skills required by a whole family
>of occupations and most are sufficiently skilled to enter the
>workforce immediately, with further occupation specific skills
>provided by their union or employer. Industry and
>occupational groups can voluntarily create standards building
>on these broad standards for their own needs as can the
>states. Students entering the system are first introduced to
>very broad occupational groups, narrowing over time to
>concentrate on acquiring the skills needed for a cluster of
>occupations.
>
>This modular system provides for the initiative of particular
>states and industries while at the same time providing for
>mobility across states and occupations by reducing the time
>and cost entailed in moving from one occupation to the other.
>In this way, a balance is established between the kinds of
>organic skills needed to function effectively in high-
>performance work organizations and the skills needed to
>continue learning quickly and well through a lifetime of work,
>on the one hand, and the specific skills needed to perform at
>a high level in a particular occupation on the other.
>
> Institutions receiving grant and loan funds under this system
>are required to provide information to the public and to
>government agencies in a uniform format. This information
>covers enrollment by program, costs and success rates for
>students of different backgrounds and characteristics, and
>career outcome for those students, thereby enabling students
>to make informed choices among institutions based on cost and
>performance. Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to
>zero, both because programs that do not deliver what they
>promise are not selected by prospective students and because
>the new postsecondary loan system uses the IRS to collect what
>is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned. [DATA
>TRANSMISSION!]
>
>EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED
>ADULTS
>
>The national system of skill standards establishes the basis
>for the development of a coherent, unified training system.
>That system can be accessed by students coming out of high
>school, employed adults who want to improve their prospects,
>unemployed adults who are dislocated and others who lack the
>basic skills required to get out of poverty. But it is all
>the same system. There are no longer any parts of it that are
>exclusively for the disadvantaged, though special measures are
>taken to make sure that the disadvantaged are served. It is a
>system for everyone, just as all the parts of the system
>already described are for everyone. So the people who take
>advantage of this system are not marked by it as "damaged
>goods". The skills they acquire are world class, clear and
>defined in part by the employers who will make the decisions
>about hiring and advancement.
>
>The new general education standard becomes the target for all
>basic education programs, both for school dropouts and adults.
>Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in
>all professional and technical degree programs. A wide range
>of agencies and institutions offer programs leading to the
>general education certificate, including high schools, dropout
>recovery centers, adult education centers, community colleges,
>prisons and employers. These programs are tailored to the
>needs of the people who enroll in them. All the programs
>receiving government grant or loan funds that come with
>dropouts and adults for enrollment in programs, preparing
>students to meet the general education standard must release
>the same kind of data required of the postsecondary
>institutions on enrollment, program description, cost and
>success rates. Reports are produced for each institution and
>for the system as a whole showing differential success rates
>for each major demographic group.
>
>The system is funded in four different ways, all providing
>access to the same or similar set of services. School
>dropouts below the age of 21 are entitled to the same amount
>of funding from the same sources that they would have been
>entitled to had they stayed in school. Dislocated workers are
>funded by the federal government through the federal programs
>for that purpose and by state employment insurance funds. The
>chronically unemployed are funded by federal and state funds
>established for that purpose. Employed people can access the
>system through the requirement that their employer spend an
>amount equal to 1.1/2 % of their salary and wage bill on
>training leading to national skill certificates. People in
>prison could get reductions in their sentences by meeting the
>general education standard in a program provided by the prison
>system. Any of these groups can also use the funds in their
>individual training account, if they have any, the balances
>in their grant entitlement or their access to the student loan
>fund.
>
>LABOR MARKET SYSTEMS
>
>The employment service is greatly ungraded and separated from
>the unemployment insurance fund. All available front-line
>jobs -- whether public or private -- must be listed in it by
>law. (This provision must be carefully designed to make sure
>that employers will not be subject to employment suits based
>on the data produced by the system -- if they are subject to
>such suits, they will not participate.) All trainees in the
>system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it
>without a fee. So it is no longer a system just for the poor
>and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully
>computerized It lists not only job openings and job seekers
>(with their qualifications), but also all the institutions in
>the labor market are offering programs leading to the general
>education certificate and those offering programs leading to
>the professional and technical college degrees and
>certificates, along with all the relevant data about the cost,
>characteristics and performance of those programs -- for
>everyone and for special populations. Counselors are
>available to any citizen to help them asses their needs, plan
>a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to find
>an opening. [womb to tomb].
>
>A system of labor market boards is established at the local,
>state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job
>training, post secondary professional and technical education,
>adult basic education, job matching and counselling. The
>rebuilt Employment Service, is supervised by these boards.
>The system's clients no longer have to go from agency to
>agency filling out separate applications for separate
>programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market
>board office by one counselor assessing the integrated
>computer-based program which makes it possible for the
>counsellor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs
>at once, plan a program with the client and assemble the
>necessary funding from all the available sources. The same
>system will enable counselor and client to array all the
>relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative
>costs and performance records and determine which providers
>are best able to meet the client's needs based on performance.
>
>SOME COMMON FEATURES
>
>Throughout, the object is to have a performance -- and
>client-oriented system, to encourage local creativity and
>responsibility by getting local people to commit to high goals
>and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the
>rules, regulations and bureaucracy that are in their way as
>possible, provided that they are making real progress against
>their goals. For this to work, the standards at every level
>of the system have to be clear; every client has to know what
>they have to accomplish in order to get what they want out of
>the system. The service providers have to be supported in the
>task of getting their clients to the finish line and rewarded
>when they are making real progress toward that goal. We would
>sweep away means-tested programs because they stigmatize their
>recipients and alienate the public, replacing them with
>programs that are for everyone, but also work for the
>disadvantaged. We would replace rules defining inputs with
>rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them.
>This means, among other things, permitting local people to
>combine as many federal programs as they see fit, provided
>that the intended beneficiaries are progressing toward the
>right outcomes (there are now twenty-three separate federal
>programs for dislocated workers). We would make individuals,
>their families and whole communities the unit of service, not
>agencies, programs and projects. Wherever possible we would
>have service programs compete with one another for funds that
>come with the client, in an environment in which the client
>has good information about the cost and performance record of
>the competing providers. Dealing with public agencies --
>whether they are schools or the employment service -- should
>be more like dealing with Federal Express than with the old
>Post Office.
>
>This vision, as I pointed out above, is consistent with
>everything Bill proposed as a candidate. But it goes beyond
>those proposals, extending them from ideas for new programs to
>a comprehensive vision of how they can be used as building
>blocks for a whole new system. But this vision is very
>complex, will take a long time to sell, and will have to be
>revised many times along the way. The right way to think
>about it is as an internal working document that forms the
>background for a plan, not the plan itself. One would want to
>make sure that the specific actions of the new administration
>were designed in a general way, to advance this agenda as it
>evolves while not committing anyone to the details which would
>change over time.
>
>Everything that follow is cast in the frame of strategies for
>bringing the new system into being, not as a pilot program,
>not as a few demonstrations to be swept aside in another
>administration, but everywhere, as a new way of doing
>business.
>
>In the section that follows, we break these goals down into
>their main components and propose an action plan for each.
>
>MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM
>
>The preceding section presented a vision of the system we have
>in mind, chronologically from the point of view of an
>individual served by it. Here we reverse the order, starting
>with descriptions of program components designed to serve
>adults and working our way down to the very young.
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail