Thread: Edwards, Clinton, and McCain want H-1B increase

<<<<< 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_6 ... ck_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 Guant?namo. 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_6 ... ck_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_6 ... ck_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/ ... onNews.htm

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.

I swear.... this labor day has an International Flavor