No, you don’t have a right to broadband Internet
Like anything, once the majority has something, everybody wants in. The Wall Street Journal reports House Democrats have cobbled together an infrastructure proposal that includes “$40 billion in ‘direct federal funding to connect all of America to affordable high speed Internet.’” Meanwhile, in a report titled “If you think you have issues with your broadband internet, you’re not alone,” our local paper reports on the frustration of those who have eschewed an urban/suburban lifestyle, moving to rural counties where they are unable to get a consistent broadband connection.
With scant attention to the cost of extending broadband to areas where it would be underutilized, the article tells us of the misfortune of the poor folks looking for five acres of land where they can raise chickens and bees without sacrificing their connection to cyberspace. A group advocating for extending broadband service, promotes the idea that broadband is “a utility now and we need universal access.” The article closes with a quote from a frustrated schoolteacher saying, “Internet is no longer a privilege… it’s a right.” The statement makes a now common error by confusing goods and services with “rights.”
To be clear, goods and services are not the same as human rights. They may be (and generally are) unequally distributed. For example, few rural communities have big shopping malls, big name entertainment or five star restaurants. Rights, on the other hand, must be distributed equally.
Let’s not confuse the efforts to ensure equal rights with the desire to socialize the cost of providing services to those who can and do make informed choices.
AOC
From the “Much Ado About Nothing” department comes a 12 second video of youngest woman ever House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (now dubbed AOC by the media, social and otherwise). Like almost everything, the video is at ground zero in the culture wars and is likely to remain there for at least a few more seconds.
Of greater concern to me is the Paul Krugman defense of AOC’s suggestion of top tax rates of 70 or 80%. How else will the government pay for free everything – healthcare, college education, whatever? Citing studies done by Peter Diamond and Christina Romer, he uses a marginal utility analysis to explain why rates that high wouldn’t matter. He fails to mention that Diamond’s study was done in the 1960’s when the highest rate, 91%, was lowered to 70%. Nor, does he mention that Romer was run out of the Obama administration after its first year because she dared advocate that higher rates would dampen economic growth.
 |
| Nancy Pelosi (left) and AOC (right, no not really) |
Pelosi and Ryan
So, long as I’m taking shots at politicians, I’ll close with some observations about two oft-mentioned names.
It’s fair to say that Nancy Pelosi’s politics are way too liberal for me to even contemplate. I set that aside yesterday watching CBS’s Jane Pauley interview her. There was one word that occurred to me at its end: resiliency. She dismissed the target placed on her back during the recent campaign season saying, “once you step into the arena” you should expect it. She further asserted she would “go home” once her “mission” was accomplished and not before. She sets a great example for young women – at least for those who venture forth from their safe spaces.
While my head is still spinning, I should point to one of my former heroes, Paul Ryan. Once the stalwart advocate of both low taxes and a balanced budget, he has departed Washington with a legacy that reflects neither. As perhaps the most well informed member of leadership during two years of Republican control of government, he leaves us with a tax reform that is a mixed bag of good and evil along with a $1 trillion dollar annual deficit.
I’m having a WTF moment.
WHO WILL LEAD?
No comments:
Post a Comment