|
One interesting problem progressives are confronting right now is that basic lack of expertise in spending money. Let's take broadband, though this could apply to any arena - the TARP fund, the automakers, infrastructure, etc. Right now, AT&T is cutting capital spending, which means that the goal of universal broadband recently lauded by a broad coalition is actually being set back. Realistically, the government is the only entity that is going to spend to build out broadband in a severe downturn, and indeed, broadband is one of the best ways to generate new economic growth.
For instance, the Brookings Institution estimated recently that each percentage increase in broadband deployment would result in nearly 300,000 jobs each year. These are good jobs, jobs that don't emit much carbon, and that can be situated in rural areas and close to clean power sources (where Google's new server farms are located). Moreover, much of the problem with our broadband infrastructure is that 'broadband' speeds are often inadequate, a hundred times slower than in Korea or Japan. With the lack of speed, the excessive cost, and the lack of competition in the market, a good percentage of the country choose not to buy broadband because the options don't make sense. This is bad for all sorts of reasons, and the fix - lots of people making and stringing fiber and inventing new machines and services to take advantage of all of it - is exactly what our economy needs.
The cost estimates I've heard to get the US to Japanese world-class standards are between $100-$300 billion, and now is the time for that buildout to happen. Some of that can come from the Universal Service Fund, the rest can be appropriated from Congress. Now the problem is that the traditional model of doing stuff with government money looks a lot like the TARP model, which is really just Pentagon-style subsidization of private well-connected interests (check out the fight over mandating universal purchase of private health insurance for a good example). And that doesn't really build very good broadband, and it puts that built broadband in the hands of powerful companies. The government can't just subsidize AT&T, since they will just take the money and reduce investment elsewhere. That won't stimulate the economy or create jobs or increase broadband penetration.
And this is where Mike Lux's warnings about the culture of caution kicks in. Right now, it's standard DC procedure to think incrementally, like reapportioning USF monies, rather than boldly, like turning the postal service into a broadband delivery vehicle or calling this an Eisenhower moment for building out an entirely new system for communications. It's time to get creative, and ask for a whole lot. One question is that generations of policy-makers have been trained on incrementalism and warding off the worst of conservative policies while saving what remains of the 1930s liberal order - does the knowledge of implementing large and transformative progressive institutional models through government even exist anywhere?
|
