In the public comment survey, we asked for both reactions to specific questions and narrative comment. Responses came from individuals in local, state, and federal government, business, environmental and other non-governmental organizations, and the reli gious and academic communities.
Approximately 75 percent of respondents showed satisfaction with the draft goals, indicators, and policy themes. More than 80 percent of those respondents believed the draft goals and indicators would strengthen the long-term health and stability of the U.S. economy, our natural resource base, and communities.
Most respondents supported the draft goals, but many expressed doubt that such idealistic goals could be achieved. Some examples of comments on the draft goals are as follows:
Economic Prosperity: Sustain a healthy economy, which grows sufficiently to create meaningful jobs, reduce poverty, and provide the opportunity for a high quality of life for all in an increasingly competitive world.
The draft goal on economic prosperity received the greatest number of responses. Some respondents felt the definition of "meaningful" jobs was unclear. Others questioned the assumption that a growing economy creates jobs and reduces poverty. Several respondents disliked the use of the phrase "in an increasingly competitive world," and suggested we focus on creating an increasingly cooperative rather than competitive world. A substantial number of respondents thought economic growth was inco mpatible with sustainable development and the use of Gross Domestic Product as a measurement of progress was flawed.
Population: Move toward stabilization of U.S. population.
The draft goal on population also received a significant number of comments. Respondents believed that population rates should be decreased, not just stabilized. Some expressed strong support for the draft population goal and believed it was the most important of all goals and deserved the highest priority.
Most general comments offered suggested modifications for or expressed disagreement with the draft indicators. Some respondents were concerned about our ability to meet the high standards implied by the "ambitious" indicators, primarily for funding reaso ns. Some others sought more specific indicators or targets.
Respondents showed general support for the overall policy themes, such as the need to shift some decisionmaking to local levels and affected individuals and to embrace and practice environmental stewardship. However, some expressed concern that they may be too vague or overreaching. Others thought a "broader world view" should be applied to the draft themes. Some respondents suggested that additional topics should be incorporated into the report, such as energy conservation; diversification of transpor tation; and research and development directed toward new technologies.
The two most frequent comments regarding the draft themes questioned whether advocating the "government's role in agriculture" could be misconstrued as a proposal for government subsidies, and that "improving immigration strategies" could have conflicting meanings to different people.
For a copy of the public comment survey or analysis, please call the President's Council office at 202/408-5296.