This editorial in The Detroit News by Orjiakor N. Isiogu, chairman of the Michigan Public Service Commission, very nearly perfectly sums up our argument.
Like HDTV before it, 4G-LTE wireless holds incredible promise for consumers and device manufacturers alike. But today there is insufficient wireless capacity to support millions of 4G-LTE devices, and demand is rising ever faster. According to Cisco Systems, mobile traffic is expected to increase 26-fold by 2015. By 2015 the majority of Internet traffic will be via mobile devices - a reality unthinkable just two years ago.
That's why LightSquared's venture is significant. It would substantially increase America's broadband wireless capacity while providing next-generation high-speed wireless data and voice to areas previously underserved. In addition, the company plans to market its nationwide network on a wholesale model, allowing any number of new competitors to enter the market. Many observers have hailed this proposal as a key part of President Obama's plan to increase high-speed Internet adoption nationwide, while also increasing competition in a consolidating wireless industry, all at zero cost to taxpayers, thanks to a planned $25 billion investment by the company.
More competitors in the market will mean lower prices and better service for consumers, along with expanded wireless broadband options. Another key benefit will be the economic benefit associated with building out a national network, including the creation of an estimated 15,000 jobs per year. Public safety could be enhanced by this network as well.
Simply put, whether you're somewhere in urban Michigan or rural California, an expanded wireless network means more competition, lower prices, and better service. And we're doing it all at zero cost to taxpayers.
For real - it is. And the truth is, that while all of this debate about the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is important, worthwhile and necessary, it's also something of a red herring. Because at the end of the day the problem that the merger was initiated in part to address, the problem that will ultimately prevent new competition, stifle innovation and shut down the incredible potential to create jobs and grow the economy through broadband investment remains.
And that problem is SPECTRUM.
And if there's something we know a little bit about, it's the need for more spectrum.
Check out this very excellent article written by Jeff Kagen at E-Commerce Times, "Let's Solve the Real Wireless Problem: Spectrum Shortage" http://www.technewsworld.com/s...
Few topics today are generating as much discussion as the seemingly insatiable demand for mobile data and how our country is going to keep pace with it. The United States has set a national goal to provide 98 percent of Americans with broadband access within the next five years. LightSquared is stepping up to help make this a reality. We are contributing $14 billion in private investment over the next eight years to build a nationwide wireless broadband network using 4G-LTE technology integrated with satellite coverage. This represents a $14 billion private sector-not government-investment in America's infrastructure.
The deployment and management of the LightSquared network will, in turn, create new jobs. We expect to generate more than 15,000 direct and indirect jobs in each of the next five years. And that's just the beginning of what the LightSquared network will help bring to California and across the country.
LightSquared will offer network capacity on a wholesale-only basis. This is a dramatic departure from the current vertically integrated model in the wireless industry, and it will open the broadband market to new players such as retailers, cable companies, and device manufacturers, to name a few. This means that end users - consumers like you - will enjoy the benefits of innovation, increased competition, and choice.
Come to think of it, they like to argue and obfuscate in abstractions, as well. They campaign in abstractions and make abstract pledges until those abstractions turn into something tangible, like a subprime lending crisis or a downgrade from a particular private rating agency.
We spend so much time wading through abstractions that we cannot get to the meat of the issues that face us today. Enough of that.
What really happens in a bad economy? And what is the public's role during these tough times?
What with all the attacks on Labor in states like Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, there has been just so much misunderstanding out there these past couple weeks about what things are actually like for State workers.
Are the conditions decent?
Is there excessive pay?
Is there even a need for State workers?
Well, I can't answer every question, but I can sure tell you what it's like in our house...and the reason my words carry the "voice of authority" is because The Girlfriend has been working for the State of Washington for the past 16 years.
Bona fides established, let's get to telling the story:
It is about time for the 112th House to come back into session, and the first thing on the agenda appears to be an effort to take away any healthcare reform that have been passed by this Administration.
Next comes an effort to slash Social Security and Medicare, an effort to reverse financial reforms, and proposals to "slash" spending-but only on domestic discretionary items.
If the House majority had its way there would be no restrictions on offshore drilling, no rules designed to prevent climate change-in fact, few if any environmental protections at all...and all of this is intended to bring to life the philosophy that government, for all intents and purposes, should just go away and leave us all alone.
I don't buy into that kind of thinking-not even a little bit-and today we're going to look around the world and see if we can't figure out why.
Our so-called "representatives" up on Capitol Hill once again proved that they only represent the wealthy and corporate America, not the "little" people who voted to get them elected. Sure, there are a few who agree with their politics, but they are living mainly in Texas. (No offense is intended towards my wonderful friends in TX, but we aren't always on the same page when it comes to politics and human rights)
This month approximately 1.2 MILLION jobless Americans will have no income to buy food, pay mortgages or to put gas in their vehicles to go out and search for work. In fact, they won't be able to make the vehicle payments and will lose them as well.
Why? Because all of the Republicans who voted on this package and a minority of right wing Democrats decided that it made more sense to close a tax loophole enjoyed by the richest of Americans - NOT you and me. The companies and banks chose to hoard OUR money given to them in the bailout instead of using it to hire more workers (which would have stimulated the economy).
Arnold Schwarzenegger's right-wing Director of Finance, Mike Genest, is resigning from his post, after being the governor's point man on the budget since 2005. And after being the governor's point man on gutting the state these last few years, he is leaving with a few parting shots. Not at the current governor, but at one of the hopefuls looking to replace him: Steve Poizner. As Genest tells it to George Skelton, Poizner's 10-10-10 tax cut plan is a political non-starter as well as economically and financially ruinous:
"Tax cuts do tend to improve the economy," Genest says, "but it's very hard historically to find where they result in a revenue increase. You could argue that the best thing for the economy is to have no taxes at all, but people depend on some government services. Without them, we don't have any economy. If you don't believe me, look at Somalia."
Genest continues: "There's no basis to believe that a tax cut now would be affordable given the budget situation the state faces. I know Rush Limbaugh is going to hate me."
As for deeper spending cuts, Genest says: "You can always cut spending by 10%. The question is do you want to. We just tried to close parks, and that didn't work out. We tried to take money away from women's shelters and had to relent on that."
I like Genest's honesty here - he says they wanted to close parks and cause further harm to battered women, but that public outcry prevented this. One wonders if Democratic leaders will get the message: Arnold can be forced to back down if the Dems refuse to go along with his hurtful cuts by mobilizing public outrage. Skelton, for once, helpfully connected the dots and showed that the attack on government itself actually hurts instead of helps businesses and jobs:
There's also a dispute about whether businesses and wealthy Californians really are fleeing the state to escape high taxation. Many think any fleeing has more to do with high property costs, traffic congestion and subpar public schools.
"If high income taxes were chasing away rich Californians, high-income households would be more likely than low-income households to move to states without income taxes, but they aren't," the Public Policy Institute of California reported in July. And two years ago, the institute found that "when California businesses relocate, most stay within -- rather than moving out of -- the state."
This gets to a fundamental truth that most Californians understand, but that Poizner is determined to ignore: without strong public services, California is an undesirable place to live, work, create, and innovate. The best way to chase away businesses and jobs is to destroy our schools, wipe out our health care system, and let our transportation system become paralyzed through gridlock and dependence on oil.
In fact, a coalition of business groups have come together to fight for one of the big government spending programs designed to help California's crisis - high speed rail. I fully expect Poizner to oppose the high speed rail project, so I would like to see him explain that opposition to the corporations that comprise the SF Chamber of Commerce, the Bay Area Council, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who together founded the new HSR coalition.
Skelton also quoted from Lou Cannon, noted biographer of Ronald Reagan, who pointed out that the Republican hero himself supported several tax increases in California, including the largest ever (as a proportion of the budget) to close a budget gap in 1967. At least while he was governor, Reagan understood the role of government in providing for the California Dream.
It's a role Poizner refuses to understand, even when a fellow right-winger like Mike Genest tries to explain it to him. Although I'm sure it will play well with the teabagger base.
During my first term in the California Legislature back in 1998, I was reminded regularly that the state budget is a moral document, setting forth the priorities and values of its people. If what we are seeing today is such a set of priorities, we have clearly lost our moral compass.
The resignation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin provides an opportunity to understand what is happening to us in California. There are people who have so little respect for government and governing that they thing Palin's resignation is a good thing. In California there are also people who have so little respect for government and governing that they think it is a good idea to let the state fall off of a financial cliff.
Sarah Palin is said to be resigning so she can climb the ladder of Republican politics -- possibly even to run for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. One would think that abandoning office in the middle of her term would disqualify her from having a future in seeking elected office. But this is not the case -- just the opposite. In fact this is so much not the case that the resignation is seen as a "brilliant" strategic move to increase her chances of obtaining that Presidential nomination prize.
A recent large headline in the San Jose Mercury News got me thinking. The headline was, "A dire warning from the Governor". (Online headline is different from the morning's print headline.) From the story, "Schwarzenegger said ... his threat ... is necessary to prod lawmakers into swift action."
I have to admit that even I rolled my eyes when I saw that -- even though I understand how serious the problem is. And this led me to think that maybe there is a "crying wolf" factor at work here. This has been going on now or a long time.
A few months ago the crisis was reaching a breaking point, dire warnings were issued, and most importantly the public was starting to pay attention. This triggered the leadership in Sacramento to do what I think was the worst possible thing: they came up with the fluffy budget compromise that "solved" the crisis and resulted in the failed May 19 Special Election. I believe the compromise was a mistake that broke the tension and led people to believe that the "crisis" was over, so they tuned back out.
I think the "chicken little" aspect of the whole affair kept people away from the polls in droves.
But, when you also have Chuck DeVore saying that, essentially, poor people should leave the state, is the real risk of losing the California Middle Class? What if the middle class actually takes DeVore up on it?
I bring this up because we are now not only attacking the lower class, which has few options to leave, but also the middle class. Not to be too crass here, but the Republicans have traditionally stuck to the taking from the poorest precisely because they had few options. The poor vote at disproportionately low numbers, but that is not really the case of the middle class.
If we abandon our middle class, we shouldn't be surprised at the consequences. We'll get a less educated work force that is less desirable for investment in the state. Jobs will leave the state, and then eventually so will the Californians. The Reverse Okie Migration is far more likely to occur than the migration of the rich. Of course, the Rich will ultimately find it's hard to develop wealth in a state without a middle class.
In the short-term, it will be very hard to really analyze data for these types of questions. But as our infrastructure deteriorates, our manufacturing sector withers, and the innovation inspired by education diminishes, will the Middle Class really stay in California? Could they afford to?
So, with Arnold's cuts to CalGrants, public schools, community colleges, state parks, and other services utilized heavily by the middle class, will the middle class flee? Is this the way that the California Dream really ends?
There's really nothing like taking Republican callers on a radio show: sure, the monumental stupidity burns something awful, but sometimes you can get real moments of clarity. One of those moments came today during my weekly radio show today on KVTA 1520, as caller after conservative caller applied the logic of household budgets to the disaster that is the state budget.
There's this consistent talking point in right-wing circles about "responsibility" when it comes to the state budget. Specifically, people feel that if they can balance their own expenditures and income in a checkbook, that the CA Legislature should be able to do the same. It stands to reason, in their minds, that if they're going into more and more debt every month, they have to cut back on expenses--and therefore, by analogy, the Legislature should be forced to do likewise.
The problem is that government isn't a household we live in: it's a product we pay for. We can collectively spend as much as we want on it. Unlike a household budget, the overall income isn't fixed: it's up to us as citizens to determine the price we are willing to pay.
Government exists to provide for the public safety, and to provide services that would be impossible or too expensive to pay for individually. As a people, we have a choice in the marketplace of government services: we can choose to drive a broken-down beater, or we can choose to drive a nice car that will reliably get us from point A to point B. When we as a people go to the ballot box, what we're doing is going to the government store to, in essence, choose the government we want to buy.
Instead of looking at each party as a budget manager, it's really more appropriate to look at them at car salespeople.
By electing 63% of the legislature to be Democrats, the people of California have spoken: we choose to have a quality product--and by and large, we choose to pay for it. But because of the 2/3 rule, a small minority of Republicans are denying us our economic choice and forcing us to buy a lemon: we're going to drive a broken-down beater, they insist, and they'll blow up the car if we say otherwise.
Of course, the only reason we're in this position in the first place is the rank irresponsibility of Republicans for the last three decades, who have managed to convince just enough voters that we just strip out a few options and do the financing right, we can drive that dream car we've always wanted at bargain basement prices. Pretty soon the car breaks down or gets repossessed--but hey, we saved a few bucks in the meantime!
The issue at hand isn't a question of responsible vs. irresponsible budget managers; it's about honest brokers vs. charlatan scam artists on the marketplace of government services.
Here at Calitics there is an interesting diary from 'zeroh8' asking "Why Are We Spending So Much More?" zeroh8 looked at the changes over the last ten years in how the state spends money. The result, according to the diary, is a per-capita increase of $1088 as follows:
California Government Department 2007-08 less 1997-98 Per Capita Spending
Criminal Justice $185 General Government $14 Health $265 Higher
Education $109 K-12 Education $399 Resources & Environmental
Protection $27 Social Services $59 Transportation $30 Total $1,088
Robert Cruikshank commented that the appearance of an education spending increase is an illusion, (sadly California still ranks 47th in education spending-per-pupil)
Marketing works. But we already knew that. Big business has been marketing the idea that corporations making decisions for us is better than having government run by the people. And a lot of people have bought into that idea.
But is it really better to be government by corporations? In February I wrote,
I was in Sacramento for some meetings this week, and have a few thoughts and observations.
The first is the most important. The people in and around our government are good, dedicated people who are doing those jobs because they care and want to do the right thing. You don't make big money in public service. In the last few decades a government job meant less pay than a comparable "private" sector job and a number of working-environment hassles, like the extra procedures (paperwork and bureaucracy) that are required in public positions to involve transparency and accountability. And, of course, they have to put up with the Republican-inspired abuse of people who work for the government. So give these people a break and assume good faith.
After decades of anti-government speeches claiming that government holds back business, government takes money out of the economy and government is less efficient than corporations, people came to believe that, as Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is the problem, not the solution." This led to deregulation and budget cutbacks in all areas including education and infrastructure.
