Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chattisgarh, and West Bengal. Next generation reforms will be carried on, building consensus with states and stakeholders for reform, perform, transform. Three major corridors, which are programs for railways, for logistics efficiency, and they have been explained, the important point that I want to highlight there is to make sure for Vikasit Bharat, you just don't need to build for better passenger convenience, you need to build for better passenger convenience, you need to give them safety, you need to shorten the travelling time for them. So one of the corridors is going to give emphasis for high density routes where passengers traffic is very high, we need to bring efficiencies and better safety in those areas. But for Vikasit Bharat, passengers need to move as they wish, but equally raw materials, building goods, cement, railroads, minerals, we need them to move efficiently as well. So the corridor will take care of that as well. So the synergy between movement of people and movement of goods is what is being highlighted in the three corridors that we are talking about. Ninth announcement that is urbanization, looking at metro and Namo Bharat, one of the railway related things which I missed out on telling you, 40,000 bogies are going to be improved in the standards with which they can be effective rolling stock and also give the convenience in the passenger experience inside the bogies as well. So 40,000 coaches are going to be brought up to the level of one-day Bharat standards. Metro and Namo Bharat I did mention, so that urban transformation through transit-oriented development can happen. The tenth announcement which I draw your attention to is one lakh crore corpus for research and innovation by private sector. So that's coming in at the tenth. Eleventh is boost to tourism, including spiritual tourism, interest-print loans will be given to states so that they can build on iconic tourist centers. And the twelfth one is supporting reforms in state. They are separate from the development of tourism centers and therefore I want you all to have the clarity that help to centers are supporting reforms in state is slightly different from boost to tourism. There will be a white paper on economic performance of the last ten years compared with the previous ten years. The twelfth announcement is so much a statement that I would like to make, which is what I made in the budget speech as well. Government has got the trust and the confidence and the blessings of the people based on its exemplary track record of GDP, as I said, governance, development and performance, effective delivery and also on Gen Kalyan. So highlighted points have been realized as goals of Vikasit Bharat till now and they are the realizable goals also continuing to be so because what we want online is we govern with good intentions, true dedication and hard work in the coming years and that's why Amit Kahl is also now called Kartabya Kahl. In short, that's a budget. Thank you very much. The finance minister has just now encapsulated the key highlights of the budget. We'll now open the floor. We can begin with the front row here. Please go ahead, Sritri. Please hand over the microphone here. Hello, ma'am. This is Priyashmita from Informist Media. Ma'am, I wanted to know about the projections in your tax collections. So tax collections are seen currently growing at about 14.4 percent, your April to December data shows. However, the projections in your budget are lower than that. So a back of the envelope calculation shows that you're going to get about 55,000 above your revised estimate if the collections continues. So your estimates are conservative, would you say that? I'll certainly ask Somanathan to come in on that. Estimates are always realistic with us. Let me clarify this. If you look at page six of the budget, you can look at it later. I'll just explain it to you. We are projecting that gross tax revenue, now this gross tax revenue in this sheet is net of refunds. So net of refunds we are projecting that in this financial year, it'll grow by 12.5 percent with reference to last year's actual. So from 30.54 lakh crores last year to 34.37 lakh crores this year is what is presented in our revised estimates. However, the sharing of taxes with the states is different for different taxes. Not all taxes are shareable in the same ratios. What has happened this year, if you look at the number and they are given on page six, union excise duties have actually shrunk. They have not increased. Most other taxes have grown at, as you say, 14 percent, etc. Union excise duties have grown minus 5 percent. That reduction is almost entirely on the account of the center, because the same way that recesses are not shared, reduction in recesses is entirely borne by the center. So as a result, the state's share has increased by 16.5 percent in our revised estimates between the state share in the revised estimate and the state share last year. There's an increase of 16.5 percent. So taxes are growing 12.5 percent net of refunds. State share is growing 16.5 percent net and therefore net to center is growing only 10.8 percent approximately. So it is not, there is no expected further padding or anything here. This is a realistic but slightly conservative estimate. The next question, please, I mean 65. Please go ahead. Hi ma'am. I'm Krithi from Informist Media. So you mentioned that K-PIX, there has been a push towards K-PIX, however, the K-PIX jump for this year is 11 percent, right, which is lowest in the last four years. So are we moving towards a place of moderation in K-PIX? And secondly, while the budget, this is another unrelated question, while the budget clearly says that you are committed to your 4.5 percent target, you have also been recommended to bring down your debt-to-GDP ratio to 40 percent level, which still stands above 50 percent. So how are we looking towards moving towards that target? Thank you. First of all, I'm on the second, your second bit was on the debt-to-GDP. What was your first one on? K-PIX. 11 percent growth in K-PIX. You've got used to about 30 percent, 23 percent from a low base. And today 11 percent on a high base appears low, Informist, 11 lakh crores going for capital expenditure. And you're seeing also that the private sector is coming in with their investments. So one has to have a clear understanding that when the government wants to spend through capital investment, it can be for one, triggering the economy so that private sector also comes in. At a time when private sector didn't come in, we still fully came in. Now we're seeing also, signs of private sector also coming in. So it's only natural for two reasons, therefore for you to look at, one, on what base are you saying 11 percent is less, growth it is. And second, please do look up if private sector is coming in or not. Does that answer you? Yeah. The next question we'll take it away. On your 40 percent, first of all, that was a figure that was set before COVID. Its relevance today is something that has to be looked at completely afresh. And in fact, in 21-22, the finance minister had set out a particular fiscal consolidation glide path, which is the post-COVID glide path. I would only point out that today India's debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the G20, apart from other countries. So we have to look at things in today's context, not based on a historical relic of a report which was prepared long ago before COVID happened. Yeah. And again, our external debt also is something which you should notice has never been high, not high even now. Yeah. Second, I would request you to confine to one question, please, because there are many questions coming up. Yeah. Thank you very much. Please go ahead. Hello, sir. Give the sir. Namaskar, ma'am. I am Alok Priyadarsh. I am from CNBC, Hawaii. My question, ma'am, is that as a consumer, as a taxpayer, people always expect this kind of investment to come back to present a budget, what are the sections that will be addressed? What are the kind of investments we'll make? However, very clearly showing that on capital expenditure, we are showing an increasing growth. More money is being put in for that, for innovation and so on. So announcements be here, announcements there, Disha Nirdeshak Bhaten be here. Yeah, Zee Business and after that you hand over the microphone to your right. Yeah. Ma'am, you have announced two big schemes, one for urban area, housing scheme, another for rooftop solar. Ma'am, how much is the budget allocation? Second question, ma'am, I would like to ask about divestment, ma'am, last time there was a target of 51,000 crores, we couldn't meet that target, this time, we couldn't find this target in the budget for the next time, and at such a time, the target is not being fulfilled when the equity market is performing very well. First of all, I would like to ask that in the disinvestment, we bring the principle of value locking. I will give you a small example, our 61 listed CPSCs and 16 PSBs, in 1st of January 2021, the CPSC was a target of 1,500,000 crores, and in today's time, it is 1,800,000 crores. So, we have created a wealth of 42 lakh crores in the public sector and it is shared with the minority shareholders, so you are not seeing the wealth effect, but you are only seeing the wealth effect, but the wealth generating is equally important. In 1 year alone, we have added 21 lakh crores, 25 lakh crores, so you can understand that from 2014, when we have done the disinvestment of 4.2 lakh crores and we have taken the dividend of 4 lakh crores from the CPSC, 8.5 lakh crores, compared to that, we are adding a market cap of 25 lakh crores per year. So, the value unlocking story means that you have to do the disinvestment, so you have to improve the wealth, you have to take the share value, and then you have to do the disinvestment in a calibrated way, that is why the government has not yet set a fixed target for the disinvestment. We have said that in other receipts, asset monetization and disinvestment, they come, and the second issue of the receipt is that if we get an opportunity, we can do more than that, but one of the fixed market signals is that we will sell the share at the same price, and because of that, it is in the market. So, what we mean is that our revenue, and secondly, we have an important strategy, is that the disinvestment and dividend are both in the opposite direction. When we are saying combined, we will do 92,000, then you see combined, and non-text revenue is the biggest story, approximately 75,000 crores of non-text revenue is being added, and the highest growth is in that, and approximately 1 lakh crores, if you look at the next budget, we are adding 1 lakh crores of non-text revenue, and in the non-text revenue add, the dividend is very big, and we are exceeding the dividend, so if you look at this sector in a combined way, then we need to go into a new direction, which we have gone. Regarding the two new schemes, the provision of 10,000 crores for rooftop solar is in the budget, as regards the urban housing scheme, its contours are being worked out, and there is a token, and it will be funded when the exact contours are finalised. Yes, the next question, please go ahead. 81, please. Okay, I mean, I'll... Hello.  Yes, Prakash Pedarshi from ETNOW. The benefit of lower tax rate of 15% has been extended for startups and investment by sovereign wealth funds. My question is, I mean, has it also been extended for manufacturing unit? No, I'm asking you, I'm seeking clarity. No. Thank you. Yeah, Bloomberg, Ruchi. Ma'am, some of the rating agencies have said that they will take a call on a ratings upgrade for India only after the next budget, but given that this budget is yours, you did say that it has been transparent. You've maintained the path of fiscal prudence as well. What will be your message for rating agencies? Not only aligning with the fiscal consolidation roadmap that we gave earlier, but bettering it, is that one simple straightforward message which every rating agency should take on board. Should take on board. Yeah, please go ahead. I hear from CNBC TV. Ma'am, two questions. One very broad generic, excellent work in terms of fiscal consolidation. Just want to understand, is it slightly ambitious to have a 5.1 number right away in the interim budget? I mean, broad, the expectation was July budget, you know, you will start kind of... No, no, no, no, no, I don't mean that. No, no, no, I don't mean that, but just try to understand. In two years, you'll be able to do below 4.5 percent. Very broad understanding, ma'am. One is that. Second, ma'am, you're talking about next generation reforms.  There doesn't seem to be, you know, any mention of that as of now. You just heard Tuhin. Sapna, you're asking the same thing. You know, but went elaborately on it. But will you still be sticking to it? Just broadly want to understand. Yeah, please go ahead. Yeah. Timsi Jaipuriya from CNBC TV18. Ma'am, in your budget speech, you've given a very ambitious target of one lakh crore worth of a fund for private sector for research and innovation, where you promise 50-year interest-free loan. If you could give the contours of the scheme, which are the sectors who'll benefit in terms of the private sector, which are the specific sectors who can avail this corpus and what kind of work or research and innovation are we focusing on? Sectors and how the scheme will work. So I'll tell you the quantitative part, and Secretary Yeh can expand on the sectors. There is, the one lakh crore is a provision over a period of time as the need emerges. This will be provided as a 50-year interest-free loan to a financial institution which will be identified, which will be within the government ambit of financial institutions, who will then finance or refinance projects at long tenors and at concessional rates of interest. Money has been provided in this budget in the Department of Economic Affairs for multiple purposes, including this one. So there is a provision for this in the Department of Economic Affairs, which covers many other things also. As regards the sectors, I'll leave Secretary Yeh. As announced in the budget speech, these are the sunrise sectors and what is the economic logic behind it? These are the innovations and research. Investments are needed today and the private sector, the returns will come couple of years down the road. And those couple of years can be four years, five years, ten years. For some investments it can be even longer. So it will not be commercially viable for private sector to invest if it were to be a commercial money for them. So this is what the fund will help them. Clear identification of those sunrise sectors will be through a stakeholder process. Yeah, business line. Namaskar, ma'am. Sheshri here. Just two clarity, ma'am. One is about the TCS. Some changes have been made in the TCS on the LRS. So what are those changes? There's not much clarity because the explanatory memorandum is not there. The second part is the housing scheme. Will it be just like an interest-subvention scheme or what will be the contour of that? So you are aware that, you know, sometime I think there was a press release in which the TCS rates were later on changed from what were announced in the budget of 23-24. So basically it is just to align those TCS rates with what was announced in the press release. There is no further change from what was announced in the press release. Your question on housing was? What will be the contours? It's still being worked out. Interest-subvention? It could be one of the features of the scheme. But nothing has been finalized yet. It's under discussion between Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. Multiple options are being considered on how to achieve the purpose that has been set out. Hello, ma'am. Ruchika Chetchak from The Standard. One question was regarding the relating to the announcement you made about the withdrawal of demand for outstanding tax. What will be the cost to ex-checker for the tax that will be foregone? And second, a small clarification. The 75,000 crore, 50-year loan that is linked to the milestone reforms. Is that in addition to the 1.3 or is it part of it? So all of you would be aware that there are a large number of small demands that are pending with respect to income tax, wealth tax, gift tax. The number in all about 2.68 crore such demands, the total amount of course is very high, which is 35 lakh crore of outstanding demand. A lot of it is in litigation. But many of these demands about 2.1 crore in fact, 2.1 crore out of 2.68 lakh demands are valued less than 25,000 rupees. Now many of these demands are very, very old. Dating from 1962 when the Income Tax Act was enacted. And right now, very recently till today. So this has been causing a lot of hindrance, especially for the tax payers because these demands are very old. Many of them are unreconciled because of systemic issues. We shifted our CPC, all the tax records centralized them in 2010, 11th year. And so that's why a cutoff has been taken at 10, 11 because previously the demands were decentralized. And so we are unable to verify many of them causing disruption and hindrance in payment of refunds. So out of this 2.1 crore demands which are less than 25,000 rupees. About 58 lakh demand entries for the period pertaining to financial year 9-10. And then from 10-11, these are less than 25,000 as already announced by the Honourable Finance Minister. And another 53 lakh entries pertaining to the remaining 5 years from 10-11 to 14-15. So 1.1 crore small demands, 25,000 and 10,000 for the 5 years. These are being remitted. The total amount is less than 3,500 crore rupees. The 75,000 crores is part of the 1 lakh 30,000 crores. Go ahead, please. Yes, go ahead. Hi, my name is Pushpita from the court. You mentioned about that nearly 40,000 real bogies will be converted to Vande Bharat standard. But if we look at the price of Vande Bharat is comparatively higher than the other ticket prices. So considering the affordability of the passengers, what will be the pricing and how will it be decided? It's up to the railways but Vande Bharat trains are one thing. The bogies 40,000 being upgraded to the Vande Bharat standard is another thing altogether. Those bogies probably cannot even take the speed with which we want to improve the high density areas with better speedy transportation for the common man. Equally, the inside bogie experience is also not up to the mark because they've been so for a very long time and as time passed by their quality has also come down a bit. So we are talking about the bogie quality matching with the Vande Bharat standards as to which of those lines of traffic that they will get connected to and as a result what will be the rationalization of the ticket price is not something that we can talk about that's something which the railways will work out gradually but progressively that point proves that through the 40,000 bogies that we're talking about the quality of the Indian rail bogies which are so important for safe travel and also ease of living travel and comfort will need up gradation and this is what we're aiming. Please speak into the microphone. Good evening minister. You had announced an aggressive plan for privatization of two government banks a couple of years back. So is that proposal still on table? And my second question is your thoughts on the shrinking successively every successive year we've been seeing the divestment receipts shrinking. So your thoughts on that? I thought Tuhin had explained the second part of your question but never mind I'll ask him again The disinvestment receipts as you say is that you know is basically you part with your wealth which is the shares or the property and convert it and monetize it. Now there is a wealth effect also there and we have partners which are the listed companies the minority shareholders. Our point is that we are also you know taking care of GDP as FM mentioned in respect of CPSCs. If you look at the CPSC's performance whether it comes to capex of 3.2 lakh growth whether it is their growth story whether their investment in green energy whether their performance in return on capital employed whether you look at return on equity on all fronts we are seeing that they are big market players they continue to improve and therefore they continue to reward shareholders including the government government is a majority shareholder but a large part of our shareholders are minority shareholders so therefore any strategy calibrated disinvestment strategy which will actually do the sum over a period of time is much more than that and besides the shares also give you dividend and we have a consistent dividend policy too and money is fungible so we have to have a new paradigm in terms of thinking about and not to just keep on parting with our wealth at one stroke we can always do it in a gradual calibrated way we will take a question from the right side ma'am please go ahead ma'am I have a question on this committee on demographic change challenges what would be the mandate what are the areas it would look at will it be urbanization will it also include issues around this whole issue of constituencies, political constituencies given that some of the northern states have grown faster also two clarifications one is on the 70,000 crore with DEA for new schemes what kind of schemes apart from solar rooftop are budgeted for and two on this issue of tax the small disputes does the 25,000 include only the principal amount or is it interest and penalty for the 25,000 on the provision for Department of Economic Affairs this has two components there are certain specific announcements that have been made and those are provided for in addition there is a large increase in our capital expenditure budget we have as was done in the year 2022-23 we have kept this in the Department of Economic Affairs to be allocated to whichever department requires it at the pace that it's absorbed so that we have flexibility to allocate it to whichever department is able to absorb it fastest whether it's railways, highways, telecom we have all of them and they are all essentially eligible to take this money when the requirement arises so that we have flexibility to optimize its utilization hello ma'am let me answer the second part as to your question as to whether the 25,000 rupees which is a remitted being withdrawn till the year 910 and 10,000 being remitted from 1011-1415 let me clarify that this is the amount of demand which is mentioned in our books and so when this demand is actually entered then it will include given the interest till the point of, till the point when the demand was actually assessed and entered so it includes the interest till that point of time and any interest which is later on is also withdrawn the front row left side please hello ma'am ma'am see when we talk about demography it is an opportunity it is a challenge and the current numbers how the changes are happening over a period of time this committee will have a mandate to have an extensive concentration of those challenges and opportunities and come out with a specific set of recommendations ma'am I am Monica from the New Indian Express ma'am in your budget speech you mentioned about the India Middle East Europe economic corridor so given the fact that there are conflicts in the Middle East region so is the project still on track and also when the French president was here was there any discussion on the corridor well it's been announced and we are taking it forward yes there is significant disturbance in the Red Sea area and the Middle East but this is a project which has long term implications for the entire region region up to Europe because it also includes Europe so yes we will be taking this project forward we will be consulting and taking it forward in all its contours second last question second last question second last question ma'am you made an important announcement about Prime Minister Yorjna in the next 5 years you will make 2 crore houses has it been decided how many houses you will make in the rural areas and how many cities for the rural areas 2 crore more and this 2 crore the target of 95 lakh has been fulfilled 3 crore we are close to achieving 3 crore and over and above the 3 crore this 2 crore and for this financial estimation how much allocation is provided it will be supplemented when the costing is worked out but there is a provision to kick it off in the coming year thank you sir you mentioned the mandate which I think we wanted a bit more clarity on that is it going to be something similar to the population control bill that has been spoken about in the past or is it going to have a different mandate we just need it say the budget speak says and I am already responded to that wait for the terms of reference to come out and then you will get to know the exact details and the overall approaches it is a huge opportunity but there are challenges both have to be taken note of and appropriate responses to be taken so that is really that broad idea I can share with you and terms of reference will come out in due course please go ahead good evening ma'am this is Pat Singh from Outlook Business since you spoke about bringing the East India to pace in terms of development I wanted to ask you how does the government plans to address the industrial gap to help these states in a free market economy and for example more than 70% of the PLI projects are currently concentrated into just three states so I wanted to they are not concentrated in three states because we want them to be concentrated in three states if there are investments happening in production in any other non-three states that you want to talk about PLI will be extended to them as well it doesn't go on the criteria of geography it grows on the criteria of manufacturing how many additional units are produced I just want to add to that the public sector investments have gone substantially to the eastern region whether you look at gas pipelines new fertilizer plants or even new LHB rolling stock which is being manufactured in Bihar so a considerable amount of the public sector investment is focused on the eastern region yes please go ahead if I can add on this particular one as you are we are all aware a special districts program in those districts is making a very significant change 60% of those districts happen to be in eastern India and when the people are better educated etc etc then more economic opportunities get generated there because skill man power is available in those areas so we will see over the period of time and that is what the government will also be providing appropriate support Ma'am this is Nivedita Mukherjee from the Sunday Garden this is with regard to the national monetization pipeline that was launched in August 9, 2021 and with regard to your focus on infrastructure in this budget what is that going forward and what has been the progress Ma'am these are two different things a very large part of infra assets are held by those infra agencies or the public sector undertakings so as they embark upon their more capital investment they also monetize some of their assets and plow it back some of the assets are owned by the government so those monetization proceeds come to the government that one is going on and that periodically those numbers come out and if I recall next year is also a very ambitious number for monetization but everything doesn't come to the government there Ma'am I have a question actually could you please identify yourself then ask a question I am Bani Kinkar Patnaik from the Economic Times Ma'am could you please elaborate a bit on the proposed changes in calculation of agricultural income under the new tax regime and Ma'am on the 75,000 crore loan under the new tax regime income from agriculture yes yes I mean some reports I saw Ma'am that's why I am I am not here to answer some reports we will go ahead Ma'am on the 75,000 crore interest-free loans to states since it is part of 1.3 lakh crore allocation under CAPEX so will the same reforms conditions continue or will there be additional reforms conditions the specifics will be worked out and it will be reform linked what reforms how much for what is something that will come when the guidelines are issued please go ahead Hi Ma'am this is Vikas from the Hindu in last year's finance bill during the debate you had announced the formation of a new committee to review the national pension system benefits to central government employees and there was an expectation that by 6 months or so we might have some outcomes that you could consider so can we expect that anytime soon or do you think that might be left for the full budget and secondly you have talked about you have committed your government to taking forward the next generation reforms I want to get some sense of what are our priority areas there and lastly sorry to take a stab at it again but this population growth committee that we are looking at is it likely to happen after the census because we have not had a census for a while and as per the national family health survey 2020 we have our total fertility rate is already below the replacement rate around 2 so is there some way that we are looking at keeping our population stable at a certain level or to reduce it over a broader period you may want to help me by saying question number 1 question number 2 I will go on answering you seem to have asked me about 5 different questions please go ahead what was your first NPS NPS was first once we are ready with the report we will let you know I don't think there was a time given we said at the earliest they will give the report so that stays there what's the second second was ma'am some sense of the priority areas for next generation reforms Ajay you want to add in there see you would have noticed that a particular section and extensively covered that what will be the broad strategies for the next several years getting into those so those are the indications that that can be the broad area for the reforms the next generation of reforms but that's not an exhaustive list but the broad sense you can get it from there and the third was ma'am the population bit the third was the population bit ma'am I think Ajay has asked I think please confine to one question because lot of many questions are still there please go ahead ma'am Janani from NDTV profit ma'am I would like to get some perspective on some of the scheme outlays one being the capex infusion to OMCs in FI 24 budget there was 35,000 30,000 for retrofitting petroleum retrofitting for OMCs this in the revised estimate it was said that 15,000 only would be allotted ahead of the budget but later we have seen that the same 15,000 amount is there for FY 25 just want to understand if the same has been deferred and also on the fertilizer subsidy comparatively it's lesser so the reason or reasons behind that map on the oil marketing company public investment the requirements were reassessed and it's also been deferred to next financial year so what and it has not been provided in the revised estimate so it was not that it was provided just coming out with the revised estimate so it is not going to be in this financial year it's been provided for in the next financial year and the second part was fertilizer subsidy is estimated based on recent trends in global ammonia and fertilizer prices which have been on a downward trend for the last six months so it's our current estimate based on the best information we have right now which is very different from the prices which were there during the early part of this year Aditya from money control you have assumed the nominal GDP of 10.5 for the budget so that would just wanted to know the division between the real GDP growth and the deflator also the tax collection growth is seen at 11.5 if I'm not wrong so there seems to be a more significant gap between the two which we've seen a trend in the past one more clarity I'm sorry for adding this is with regard to a mention that the average year income of people have increased by 50% with moderate inflation mentioned in the speech I just want to clarify is this linked to investment rate or per capita income thank you answer again you have to help me out and you ask two three questions so again for the budget purposes it is the nominal GDP which is relevant for how the fiscal deficit and other deficit numbers are done so that estimate is 10.5% and I recall last year again several of you said that are we underestimating overestimating etc we said we have a realistic number of course this year it has been a little lower 8.9 so our sense is the next year 10.5% nominal growth rate is a reasonable number as far as real growth is concerned the break up issue you would have seen the document which if economic advisers brought out just two days back and he has extensively covered his take on what the real growth would be and so you would have read the document already your second question 50% is a I said that announcement or rather the data which has been shared in the budget is in real terms so that has nothing to do with inflation you are combining the two this year there is a constant prices income has gone up by 50% there is yet another statement which is coming up there has been a moderate inflation inflation has been kept within the policy band except for the post pandemic period if you take the 10 year period it has been well within the policy band I will request I will just clarify this the reference to the growth in real per capita income is 56% is the growth between 2023 that is what ma'am was referring to in her speech and 57% growth in real per capita GDP ok that is what she was referring to thank you please go ahead I am Meena Mittal from money control the government has announced in the budget lowering the market borrowing for next financial year the gross market borrowing so I just wanted to understand if there is any confidence to the government that they will be able to lower the market borrowing amid the global challenges and the k-pics increase that has been announced so I think the confidence comes from the numbers that are presented so if the revenue numbers are realistic if the expenditure numbers are realistic then the deficit number is realistic that deficit number is then broken up into sources of financing then we have taken a 10.5% nominal growth rate 11.5% revenue growth rate which is buoyancy of less than 1.1 this year we have achieved 12 plus with the nominal growth of 8.9 so I think a very decent very conservative buoyancy has been assumed in addition the expenditure numbers are realistic we have provided for everything therefore the deficit numbers are achievable and the borrowing breakdown is given here in terms of how much is market how much is small savings small savings we have shown a declining trend in resources from small savings we have shown a declining trend in external debt and that is reflected in these borrowing numbers so these are very realistic borrowing numbers on the gross borrowing coming down next year some of the repayments of loans taken will not be happening from the consolidated fund so they do not necessarily lead to new gross borrowing so there is a slight recalibration between the growth of the net in fact not the growth the decline in the net borrowing is gentle the decline in the gross borrowing is steeper but there is a reason for it so it is very realistic Good evening ma'am Good evening ma'am this is Sanjay Agarwal I first thank you congratulate the entire government I am Sanjay Agarwal I work for PN news ma'am it is a newspaper this is a newspaper ma'am What news? It is PN news it is a newspaper it is a bilingual ma'am so I PN news How do you spell it? It is P for press N for nation PN so first like to congratulate you you have made history by presenting the sixth consecutive budget my question has already been taken by another friend I want to know that you are talking about income tax demands as Sir explained Sanjay that there have been about the borrowing is 14.13 lakh crores and your effect is 3.8 CR so wouldn't it affect and wouldn't it become like in the future there are a lot of quotes you said that is going to be people are going to say ok wave of our demands is this not going to set a wrong means I don't know what should I call it ma'am see as I mentioned to you most they should not be seen as a waiver because as I mentioned in the year 1011 we shifted our records which were previously maintained at zonal levels or state levels and which were mostly paper records or if they were computerized then they were held in computers locally there was no central record so in the year 1011 we shifted this centrally to our central processing center now in Bangalore lot of those demands which are over there they have actually been paid for by the tax payers we reach out to them and we tell them this is a small demand of course but they say well we have already paid it but the records were not with us because they were all decentralized and so mostly these demands are actually not existing they are existing on paper but they are not actual demands they are mostly fictitious and they are not going to yield any revenue some of them of course are very very small so it's not a waiver that's why Honorable FM in her speech has not called it a waiver it's just a withdrawal it's just a correction of entries ma'am shall we conclude or would you like to take one or two questions? yes we go to the middle row no supplementary and now please confine to one question now all of you the three of you good afternoon ma'am congratulations to you and everybody Karishma this side from business today ma'am if you look at the Mandrega allocation if you see the trend for the last few years whatever has been budgeted usually the revised allocation goes of course slightly a bit more and if the trend carries on it could be seen in FY25 also that you may have to allocate more in the next budget I'd like to understand from that point of view ma'am is the center happy with the way the scheme is working especially in cooperation from the states first of all Mandrega allocation is not done on the basis of a trend it is based on the demand coming from the ground that is one answer for your first question but on your second much more than me commenting CAG has commented on the way Mandrega is operating in some states where claims are all reaching a stage where they need to be verified are they really existing people in the ground are people not really those for whom the payments are going and questions critical to the very spirit letter and spirit of that program so to that extent the CAG reports highlights where course corrections will have to happen in those respective states I'm not saying a problem existing in one state is the same across board some states may do with some kind of a problem some others do with other kind of problems and so on so that has to be addressed differently from are you gradually coming down in terms of allocation you're putting two and two together which may not be right ma'am hello this is Surbhi from Business Today magazine I wanted to understand by when will the white paper that you have announced come out and will it be done by the finance ministry and secondly ma'am on capex do we foresee any slowdown in capex this fiscal because we have about two and a half two months left now and we'll have the model code of conduct coming in so that no no no but yeah so just wanted your thoughts on that thank you


Ah ah ah, don't turn that dial. This is the right station if you want to hear about Jonathan Thomas and his Christmas on the moon. Oh my goodness, I very much fear it's time for old Santa Claus soon to be here. But how in the world will we have time to pack when they haven't yet found him and brought him back?  Jonathan Thomas said he'd find him soon, so he started out with the man in the moon to squee-bobble land. And as a matter of course, they rode upon Gorgonzola the horse. It's a long, long way they've had to go, and the trouble they've had, you never know. But the road leads down through the fairy rings, past the home of giants and goblins and things. It's not much fun for a wee little boy, but he promised the children they'd have their toys. I'm glad it's his promise to keep and not mine, and he'll have to hurry. There isn't much time. The trouble has been there's a wicked old witch who rules over a land called Rumpelstich. She's wise indeed in the ways of magic, and the things she plans are very tragic. But they've had the help of the good fairy queen. She knows how to spoil the old witch's scheme. One day as they traveled, they saw a great wall, and there wasn't a way around it at all. As far as their eyes could see and more, there was nothing in sight but a row of doors. So they entered one. Though I can't understand, they found themselves standing in looking-glass land. Then lovely Queen Alice said, Now that you're here, I surely must help you for Christmas is near. So she gave them a whistle, which would make them grow tall. Or, if they preferred, it would make them grow small. She said, I am sure it will help you out. When you rescue Santa, you will need it no doubt. So they thanked her kindly and bat her good day. But in the pea soup fog, they soon lost their way. As they wandered around, they heard weepings and wails, and out came a dragon with thirteen tails. He chased them until they were quite out of breath. They were snatched just in time from a terrible death by Dinty the Keeper, who heard the uproar, and he let them come in. Then he slammed the door. But he said, Here's a present.  If the dragon eats it, his stomach will ache. Well, the dragon ate it and got very sick. He was really quite hurt that they'd played such a trick. But right after that, their trouble was doubled. They were captured alive by the awful squee bubbles. Now let's see what's happened to them, for here's where the story begins again. A gracious say to goodness, I'm so angry I could weep and wail, for I don't like being thrown in jail. No, and I don't like it either. We wish we were out of here. But how are we going to rescue Santa Claus if we're locked up in jail? That wicked old king, Squibble, he's the meanest man of all the people. If I had my hands on him, I'd show him a thing or two. You bet your boots that's what I'd do. Listen, Mr. Man and the Moon, it sounds like someone was opening the door. I wonder who it is. Hey, it's only me. Who else could it be? I've come to see you two, so as I can tell if you're hearty and well, that's what I've come to do. Is that so? Well, let me tell you a thing or two. You'd better let us out of here. That's what you'd better do. Yes, that's what you'd better do. Now isn't it a shame, and really I'm not to blame for holding you prisoner so. For I can't let you out, no matter how you shout. It's impossible to let you go. Why? Yeah, why? Why? Why, because of Santa Claus and a promise that I made this year. There shan't be a toy for any girl or boy, and there shan't be any Christmas cheer. That's why. And now, goodbye. You think you're smart, but you will find out, because we'll try and try till we do get out. Yes, we'll try and try till we do get out. In spite of your tongue wagging and all of your bragging, you'll stay here, just never fear. And you can just remember that when you get out, it'll be hot in the middle of December. It'll be hot for you, and that's a promise, not only for me, but from Jonathan Thomas. Yes. Pish and touch, what a lot of slush. And all I've got to say, I hope you stay well in this dungeon cell, and I hope you enjoy your stay. Goodbye. Slicing dice. Someday that king is going to get me mad, and when he does, it'll be pretty bad. What I would do, Mr. Man in the Moon. I only wish I knew what we could do. I wish my daddy was here.  There's no reason for all your fears. We'll get some out some way, that I'll say.  I wish we were small as this, and we could go under the door, and then I'd ask that we could. Oh, for goodness sakes, did you many crickets end up in a dudge? What's the matter, Mr. Man in the Moon, if you'll please? Oh, I've got an idea, and it makes me so awful sore. Why in the world didn't I think of it before? What idea, if you'll please? Didn't Queen Alice, when you were in the palace, give you a magic whistle? Uh-huh. Did you lose it? No, of course I didn't. I got it right here in my pocket. Well then, for goodness gracious, to sakes alive, take your whistle and blow it twice. And if the whistle is any good at all, you'll shrink and shrink, till you'll be right small. Oh, that's right, Mr. Man in the Moon. I forgot all about the whistle. I said not to fear we'd get out of here, and that's what we're going to do. We'll yet keep our promise, Master Jonathan Thomas, quicker than you can count up to two. But what about you, Mr. Man in the Moon? Maybe I can grow smaller and get out of this jail, but you can't. I'll tell you the thing to do. Why are you there for nothing to it at all? First blow the whistle and grow right small. Then curl right under the dungeon wall. Then when you get out, don't make a sound, but be right quiet and look around. Then blow the whistle once more. Then when you grow up, then unlock the door. It's as simple as counting from one up to four. Oh, that's a very good idea, Mr. Man in the Moon. I wonder why we didn't think of that before.  And he who always has the best laugh. Come on now, blow your whistle, Jonathan Thomas, and then we'll hurry and keep our promise. We'll show them something about Christmas cheer. We'll have the best Christmas of any old year. Here I go, Mr. Man in the Moon. I'm ready to blow my whistle. Then hurry and blow so you'll quickly go. When for the money, till for the show, free to get ready and forth. To say to goodness, you're getting smaller and smaller. Oh, look at me, Mr. Man in the Moon. I'm getting as small as two times two. There now, you're small enough. That magic spell is sure fine stuff. Here I go, and there's a door, Mr. Man in the Moon. And as soon as I get outside. Don't worry if you'll quickly hurry. It'll only be a minute. Here I go. Oh, here I am outside. I must blow my whistle once. And then go up tall again so I can open the door. Open. Come on, Mr. Man in the Moon. For gracious sakes. And now let's hurry faster and faster because now is the time to rescue Santa Claus. We'll sneak down this hall, because I heard the King's Creep People say that Santa Claus is until right down here. Let us be very quiet or we'll start a riot. And they'll all begin to roar. Gracious to goodness and chimney crickets. Look, I think this is the door. I think it is, too. Then we'll unlock the door and open the door. Hello, Santa Claus. Hello, Santa Claus. Hello, Mr. Man in the Moon. I knew you'd get here in time for the share, but you didn't arrive too soon. This is Jonathan Thomas, Mr. Santa Claus. I'm very pleased to meet you, if you please. How do you do, my little man? I've met you before. And my gracious, what's more, I was planning to meet you again. You mean on Christmas morning, if you please? Of course, of course. Let's see. You wanted a rocking horse, a boat, a sled and a train. I got your letter which said you've been much better and you'll never be bad again. That's right. Oh, for goodness sakes to graciousness. Here, there won't be any toys under the Christmas tree. There won't be any Christmas at all this year if we don't hurry and get out of here. Come on, let's go through this door and turn to your right. Goodness to gracious, what a sight. Soldiers are coming. We'd better start running. Oh, oh, we're going to be caught again. Run for your... My goodness, just when they're making good their escape, they've been found out and soldiers coming from every direction. Do you think Jonathan Thomas and Santa Claus and the man in the moon will be caught? Oh, I certainly hope not, because here it is almost Christmas. Well, we'll find out, I guess, in the next story of Jonathan Thomas. So don't forget to listen, will you? I won't.


Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral C. Sohani announced the selection of the 2012 Sea and Shore Sailors of the Year during a ceremony held at the Halecoa Hotel in Waikiki. The ten outstanding sailors have proven themselves to be among the very best in my Pacific Fleet. Each of them have excelled in every command they have been a part of and every excitement given to them with both technical expertise and of course inspirational leadership. I can't thank them enough. It's very humbling. It's a rewarding experience to know that you not only represent the over a thousand people at your command but you represent everyone that's in your rate. Hospital Corpsman First Class Joseph Santos was named the 2012 Pacific Fleet Sea Sailor of the Year. It's an amazing accomplishment. I didn't do it though. It's my sitters that got me here. My sitters are the ones that put me in this position. I thank them for everything. It's an awesome accomplishment. Mass Communication Specialist First Class Cassandra Thompson was named the 2012 Pacific Fleet Shore Sailor of the Year. My overall reaction was that I was so humbled that they would choose me to represent them at a higher level. Knowing that I represent over a hundred thousand sailors and that I can be their inspiration to work harder, take care of their people and just excel, have excellence as a mindset was overwhelming to me but I'm very proud. Reporting from Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, I'm Patty Officer Tia beforehand.


Anticipating the decision on affirmative action is our subject today. What does it mean for the education of America? Here on Community Matters, I'm Jay Fidel. This is Think Tech and our special guest is Vernon Schaar, an attorney who has been through a lifetime of practice and who graduated from Harvard Law School and who was interested in affirmative action and the issues before the Supreme Court today. Welcome to the show, Vernon. Thank you very much, Jay. Thank you for having me. So we have a picture of the Supreme Court and on the edifice there, it says equal justice under law. And that would mean, at least at a superficial level, that everybody gets treated equally. So if I say everybody gets treated equally, then maybe affirmative action is not equal. How do you reconcile those two things? I think affirmative action is an effort to balance or rebalance a situation, in this case, race. It's an effort to correct a prior wrong, such as the blacks or the Native Americans who may have been disadvantaged in the past and giving them a leg up by putting them into places like schools or colleges. It's an effort for social engineering, so to speak. Yeah, social engineering, balancing, rebalancing, taking a look at the last 400 years and seeing what we need to do to the product of that 400 years to make a balanced, social, equitable arrangement in this country. You know, I would say that we don't have that. And it's up to the Supreme Court to help us go there. But all the indications from reading about the arguments are that they're not likely to respect affirmative action. They're likely to break affirmative action. What's your expectation about this case? Well, I would agree with you in reading the evolution of cases over time. I would predict that you're correct that affirmative action will be knocked out. In other words, race will be erased as an affirmative action in educational settings. I was telling you before the show there's an article in The Atlantic today. The author talks about violence in the country and the remarkable increase in violence we've had in so many cities. Even this past week, we've had three or four mass murders. And the number of incidents is increasing. And it's spreading all over the country. And the author reminds us that we're not going to be able to solve this superficially, that we have to deal with this de facto segregation, particularly with respect to African-Americans, but all groups in this country before we can start to tackle the question of this increasing violence. So it's beyond looking at guns. It's a matter of finding a social balance, as you said. Do you agree with that, Arthur? I think a lot of what's going on today is a reaction. It's a rebellion. And so how do you strike a balance? And I guess the issue here also is, is this to be determined by laws or by interpretation, by the judge on what is appropriate social engineering? In this case, let's stay with race. That race is the issue. Is this something acceptable where the court should make a decision? Or is it something that the government in law should be making a decision on? Is there been too much emphasis on affirmative action? And this is a rebellion against that. I noticed that in many of the cases that you had pointed out, and I didn't realize this, after the decisions on affirmative action in colleges, many of the states, I think there's eight states, nine states, that have come out with laws, including their own state constitution, banning affirmative action. That affirmative action by laws or by governmental fiat should be removed. And so I think that raises further complexity to the whole situation. And looking at the cases, the argument seemed to be made, including some of the judges, that if you remove affirmative action, you cannot adjust the social imbalance adequately without taking race into consideration. On the other hand, some of the tests that have been coming out are so broad that it becomes unsupportable as to how you handle race without calling it race. It's a real enigma. Yeah. I think it's clear, in some of the decisions, that if you strike affirmative action, you're striking more than the social balance. You're striking the careers and the leadership of the nation. In other words, without giving Harvard too much credit, I think it's fair to say that the leadership of the nation comes out of the best schools. And if Harvard is one of the top schools, then the leadership of industry, of government and all the other places we find leadership in the country comes out of those schools. And if you don't give an appropriate measure, if you don't allow African-Americans, for example, to attend Harvard, or as many as have been the case, then you're excluding them from the future of the country in terms of leadership. And I think that's pretty clear because there won't be as, here's this, there won't be as many African-Americans at Harvard when you strike affirmative action. I think that's true. I remember I was in the service, I was in the Coast Guard during Vietnam and somebody decided, I guess it was during the Johnson administration, that the Coast Guard did not have enough African-Americans. And we had to fix that. So there was a directive came from Washington within the military, said you will now commission X number of black officers into the Coast Guard because there weren't enough in somebody's opinion in the administration at the time. And the Coast Guard did that. It was not painful. It changed the complexion, literally, of the Coast Guard. And now the Coast Guard was a more fair representation of the country. And the leadership in the Coast Guard was a more fair representation of the color of the country, so to speak. And so it does work. And it does mean that leadership can be from all sides. And the average black citizen can say, I have a chance here. I have an opportunity. I'm not being held back. I'm not being sidelined. And I suspect that the same thing happens with affirmative action outside the military and in the colleges, in the colleges that are willing to do it, in the states that are willing to let the colleges do it. How did it work at Harvard? You preceded affirmative action when you went to school, right? Yeah, so I think the argument you just gave is exactly the argument that was put forward by Harvard or the Solicitor General saying that you need to have, to make a better society, to make a better university, you need to have affirmative action to have more blacks and Native Americans there. And the only way you can do it is by considering race. That certainly is a good argument. The problem, I think, that most of us are having is who should make that decision? Is it the laws, the legislature, the courts, or the university administrators? And how do you socially engineer the situation? Should you have 50% blacks at Harvard rather than 20%? Who makes the decision on the percentage? And if it's blacks today, is it Native Americans tomorrow? Is it they and lesbian, LBGT people the next day and then Micronesians the next day? How should the government or the college administrators get into this field and how do they do it? I think Harvard now does it as sensitively as one can by saying it is only a consideration, a factor that they can look at as distinguished from the Texas case, which was just four years ago, where they say actually that they need to have more blacks at Texas or minorities or having society or the military or the business community more attuned to racial dealing with racial disharmony. It's a very complex issue. I don't know how the court's going to come out. I suspect the court in this case is, and that's another enigma to me. If the law is correct that there should be more attention given to minority race, then why should it change when the Supreme Court justice has changed from five years ago to the current time? And I think the prediction now is that you're right. I think they're going to strike down affirmative action, even in the Harvard sense of making it just one factor of consideration and not a quota. But does that make sense that today with this new court, affirmative action is not good? But five years ago with the prior court when Ginsburg was there, it was a good thing to do. How do you reconcile that? I don't think you can. The fundamental thing is racism. I think it reflects that this conservative court is racist.  And I can see racism in the Dobs decision. That decision is based on accentuating the disparity. And this will accentuate the disparity too when they make that ruling. The other thing that troubles me is we're talking about the new federalism. And the new federalism is you take a federal position on things when it suits you. And when it doesn't suit you, don't take a federal position on things. So for example, you say, well, we want the states to decide about abortion. But we are going to let them, in fact, encourage them to do that. At the same time, why can't the states decide affirmative action too? Some states, some of those colleges you mentioned, which have set aside affirmative action, they did it because the legislatures in those states, which were supporting those schools, said you can't do it anymore. So in that case, the states decided. But here, the Supreme Court is on the brink of deciding by itself. So where is this? Is it federal? Is it state? Is it a combination? How do you know? And therefore, you have to look beyond that, I think, and look at the real goals are. And their goals, in this case, I believe, are racist. So the other thing you mentioned that I like it well on just for a minute is this is very complex. It amounts to an algorithm. And an algorithm has so many variables and so many tests and so many confirmations within the formula. If you wanted to write an algorithm about Harvard or North Carolina, it does this sort of thing. It would be complex. And is the Supreme Court saying they want to get into that? They want to be involved in writing the algorithm? They have no capacity, zero capacity, to write the algorithm. And then when they finish, there'll be the whole question of legacy, where Harvard has a special category. You can have an advantage if you apply. If your parents or grandparents or uncles and aunts went to Harvard, which I always really wondered about. So when the smoke clears on affirmative action, there still would be legacy. There will still be an algorithm, but you pull the race out of the algorithm. And therefore, you pull the possibilities, the opportunities of the African-Americans, and as you say, the indigenous people out of the formula. So the Supreme Court would be writing, or shall I say, rewriting the algorithm in this decision that we expect from them. Shouldn't they leave that to the schools? Shouldn't they leave that to the states? And finally, let me say this. A lot of this is subjective, isn't it, Vernon? It's subjective on the part of a few administrators who are handling admissions. And that's not going to change. And so when they see a photograph, for example, of an applicant, they're going to consider it, whatever the Supreme Court says. The problem is it will be irregular. It will be subjective to the point of each admissions if the officer on his own or her own. So I see chaos coming out of this. What do you see? I think that is probably the case. But I think you need that because I think the kinds of discussion we're having today is important to take a look at and to evaluate. You've raised the issue of federalism versus the state action. I think there's another denominator in that is whether either of them should get involved and whether or not it should be the people, the individuals. Look at all of these cases now. We have to go back to why the Supreme Court is there and it is specifically on the 14th amendment that the state cannot discriminate either in enforcement or in passing laws and the state cannot treat the population equally. So going back to that test, I think one needs to look at the underlying treatise as to whether individuals should make that decision rather than the college administrators or the legislature or the Supreme Court. Let me raise another issue that I think on this complexity, should Harvard be any different than North Carolina? North Carolina is a public school. So you can get the 14th amendment there. What is the application to Harvard? Is it private school? Shouldn't they be able to make their own decisions? But Harvard does get federal funding from grads and such. So is that enough so that they should be treated the same? Yeah, it's very good questions. More questions. More questions. I don't think the Supreme Court, especially the conservative majority, has the capacity to wrap around all of these issues and come up with a fair decision that applies policy across the whole country. And I feel that what they're gonna do is going to make a mess is what's gonna happen. That's my own prediction on it. But let me ask you this. We talk about the African Americans, we talk about the indigenous, the Indians and whatnot. But we haven't mentioned the Asians. And a lot of the people who have the benefit of affirmative action, at least theoretically, are Asian applicants.  And they do well in school and their applications are impressive. Why do we need to give them affirmative action? Well, if anything, this is where I think very cleverly, the plaintiffs in the Harvard suit is raising it on behalf of the Asians saying that you are now being discriminated against. The Asians at Harvard are viewed the same as the white people in the Baki case or the Bollinger, the Michigan case or the Texas Fisher case. They've turned it on their ear because they're saying now that Asians, because it fits the mold of good grades, good SAT national exams, a lot of extracurricular activities, they've learned the formula and therefore they should get in ahead of the black who may have less criteria. And so I think it's very clever the way they've raised this. It really is an Asian issue at Harvard. I don't know about North Carolina, but then therefore they're saying should race be a consideration at all. It's my understanding at the California school systems now that the Asian, the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans are far in greater proportion at the University of California schools than their proportion in the population. And that I think is in part with the state statute that they banned affirmative action. Query whether the same would not be true at Harvard if that were the case. Well, and then there's this whole notion of these. There were two cases, they're probably gonna be split because Justice Jackson has recused herself on one of them, I guess it's the Harvard case. Phil said on the North Carolina case, but not the Harvard case. There are two separate cases now, which sounds right. I mean, recusal is something the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten about lately and good for her. But what I get is there's two states involved, two educational environments, but there's another thousands of colleges around the country that this decision will affect or directly or indirectly, I'm not sure how. And I wonder if you have a sense, let's assume for a moment that the Supreme Court decides no more affirmative action. You must be completely colorblind in your admissions process. How does that affect American education? I'm not sure how they're, because in these various cases there's been various tests that have been tried or issues versus in Texas, I think they definitely say race was one of the considerations, but that was for the 25% that were not automatically enrolled because they were in 10% or 7% of their high school class. I'm not sure anyone's gonna be clever enough to be able to figure out a way of getting to the disadvantage without looking at this race issue. I just don't know. Let me offer you a piece from the future, if you will, an issue from the future. Let's assume I'm white and I see a school in which the admissions officers are de facto giving a break all by themselves affirmative action or not, and it would be against the law under this Supreme Court decision we expect. And I see an admissions office that is, in my view, giving a break to a minority group of some kind. So, and I don't get in. I do not get in and I'm ticked off about it. So I sue, and I sue and I say this school is not following the law as laid down by the Supreme Court. They are favoring African-Americans. They are favoring Asians. They are favoring indigenous people. They're violating Supreme Court's decision. Then here's some numbers.  I compare the numbers against before and I am suing the school. And I suggest to you, Vernon, that the people who have opposed affirmative action or either they're plaintiffs or representing the plaintiffs in the case now in front of the corner, you know, looking at them a racist point of view and they would be people all over the country who would likewise look at them a racist point of view and they would be suing all these schools where they suspected right or wrong that the admissions officers were taking race into account. Wouldn't you expect a number of cases of litigation matters to arise from the decision we expect from the Supreme Court? I don't know how this courts would handle it. Or they'd be able to analyze whether there has been discrimination or not. You know, you raised another allied point was the legacy students versus the, you know, I think Harvard now has a program where they favor a number of students who were, you know, first time in college, but parents never went to college. So they're trying to reverse the other side. As we go through this, it's gonna be more and more complicated as to how the courts would even be able to analyze or how someone would be able to make an argument. All of the other cases so far, the Fisher, the Babaki, the Bollinger cases, all have specific, I mean, the admissions officers were very candid about the situation. But Harvard now, what they say is that minority, race minority is a consideration, but it is only a consideration. It's not definitive. So I'm not sure how someone can show otherwise that they have a higher SAT score or that they have a higher high school graduation score. It's gonna be more and more difficult to... Yeah, especially with the courts looking over the shoulder of the admissions officers on anything. And I think my early point is this will open a channel for examination and re-examination of whatever algorithm the admissions officers use and it's not healthy. The schools ought to be able to have some autonomy on the subject in my view. But let me go to a larger issue where we have to close after a few minutes. And that is the Supreme Court itself. Here we are, we know what they said. We know the recent background of their thinking. We know that they're a conservative majority. We know they have problems about ethics and recusal and the paper in the past few days have been critical of Samuel Alito for the possible leaking of not one but two decisions for strategic purposes from the Supreme Court. So the court is under attack, I would say, and public confidence in the court is at a low ebb. When you and I went to school, we had ultimate esteem for the court. Right or wrong, they were the top of the line. And now I don't feel that way anymore. There's a lot of people I know. There was one lawyer, a district court judge who resigned from the Supreme Court. He was so offended by what he saw was going on there. That was interesting. And he published his letter of resignation. And so, we've had to talk about packing the court. We have to talk about the current limits to less than life. We have a lack of public confidence. At the same time, people seem to be saying that the court is out of touch and that the present configuration is out of touch with these important dramatic, profound changes that are happening in the country. And they should be in touch, but instead they're off in their conservative corner. And I wonder what your thoughts are about that. How is the Supreme Court doing? What is the signal for the future about the respect the Supreme Court has, not only from the bar and the rest of the judiciary, and for that matter, the legislatures. What about the people? Who would be feeling differently about the Supreme Court now? Yes and no, I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the justices and their respect for the institution. As a, for instance, I was really interested and pleased to hear that Scalia and Ginsburg, who are about as arch-conservative and arch-progressive justices as there could be at the time were extremely good friends, socialized, went to the opera together and had great accord with each other. I've spoken to Scalia and he confirmed that there was a real collegiality and that much of the arguments or distaste of what have you against each other was manufactured by the media and it was not true. I don't know if that is the case still today. I'm willing to give it a benefit of the doubt and hope that collegiality still exists, even though these things that you've mentioned, the leaking of articles and so forth are troubling. We'll see, I'm hoping that the Supreme Court as an institution succeeds especially because we have so much difficulty with the executive branch at this point. But we'll see. Yeah, we'll see, we'll have to watch. We'll have to watch the opinions and this particularly the affirmative action opinion. So we've guessed about- You said Jackson was gonna recuse yourself from the North Carolina. I mean, just the Harvard, but not the North Carolina case. Yes. Not sure how she, I mean, there's so a lot, I. Oh, there's a, one is a private school, the other's a public school. Well, maybe on that basis, I know for the Harvard one, she was on the board of overseers at Harvard. Yeah, that's the reason. Yeah, okay. Well, it'll be interesting to see how that decision plays out if there are two separate decisions. And as you say, if she does the North Carolina, so that might be interesting. If you sat Vernon on that court, how would you rule? And what would your justification be? You know, before this week, and just when you first talked to me about this interview, I would have said affirmative action, keep affirmative action, Harvard's doing a good job on it. After reading all of the decisions, I could go, I'm 50-50, I don't know. My mind is open and I'm willing to hope that the courts, but the admissions officer will find other ways of so-called balancing the admission policies. I just, it's interesting. I think things have evolved. I think more importantly, if you were to take that and transpose it to Hawaii, what would the situation be on Hawaiian programs and Hawaiian admission and the requirement to have Hawaiians and all boards and commission, is that a good thing or not a good thing? So I become a little more introspective in looking at these things on the issue of race and also from my own experience of being one of five Chinese or Asians in a class of 526 back in 1956 to probably when my son attended law school there, much larger percentage. And I think today, the law school must have Asians, maybe 25% of their student bodies is Asian, probably disproportionate to the population. So I don't know, I don't know about it. Let me offer you one thought. That is, we learned in a sense from the Dobbs case that the devil can be in the detail. We know where they're going ideologically. We know what their fundamental concerns are. But it's how they say it, how they justify it and the exact order they give because everybody in the country will be reading that. Everybody on every campus will be concerned about following it or not. And so it could be a relatively soft landing or as I said before, the possibility of chaos. You agree that the devil would be in the detail? I agree with you. Yes, I think it would be very important how they craft the decision out of this. You know, the cases, for instance, with the Fisher case or the Baki or the earlier cases have always been split. I mean, it's like four to three and it'll be important how they rationalize it because I think from an institutional standpoint, it's important that the Supreme Court be looked at as having a wisdom of being able to handle all of this. I don't know. The jury still will see what the decision comes out as. And on this one here, I think it's going to be a close call. Roe v. Wade, I'm totally against that decision, but I think it's important that we respect our Supreme Court. Well, I'm only sorry you're not on it, Vernon, but you've made your choices along the way to practice law instead. I would be somewhat comforted if you were on it, actually. I think you are an oracle of wisdom and when the decision comes out, I hope you'll join me again. We'll take a look at the language. We'll parse out exactly how they crafted it and we'll try to figure out how that will affect the country and education in the country and Harvard and North Carolina and every other school. I hope you'll be available for that. Thank you very much, Jay. It's always a pleasure to talk to you and I appreciate being asked. Thank you, Vernon Shard. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.