By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The 2021 infrastructure bill, intended to fund affordable fiber internet, was effectively rewritten by Republicans, funneling billions to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos for satellite service instead. The Wall Street Journal applauded this shift, claiming existing wireless and satellite services are sufficient despite their expense, congestion, and limited capacity. The editorial board criticized provisions aimed at ensuring affordable access and community input, highlighting their preference for market-driven solutions. This redirection of funds away from local fiber projects will likely result in slower and more expensive internet access for many Americans while enriching billionaires.
Read the original article here
The Wall Street Journal Applauds Republicans’ Corrupt, Illegal Theft Of Billions In Taxpayer Dollars
The Wall Street Journal, in its editorial page, often seems to champion the cause of those who stand to benefit financially, regardless of the ethical implications. This observation is particularly relevant when considering the way they often frame discussions around government spending and the allocation of taxpayer dollars. The article in question that was popular on the conservative subreddit highlights a disturbing trend: an apparent celebration of actions that, at their core, represent the corrupt and potentially illegal diversion of public funds, particularly when Republicans are involved. It’s a phenomenon that speaks volumes about the priorities of some in the media.
The narrative of this potential misuse of funds often begins with a seemingly noble objective, such as expanding internet access to rural communities. However, as the specifics unfold, a far more troubling reality often emerges. Consider the scenario of a rural county tasked with implementing fiber optic infrastructure. The original plan involved a comprehensive fiber network, offering affordable, high-speed internet to almost all households for an extended period. This was a sustainable, responsible approach, representing a genuine investment in the community’s future. Yet, this plan was seemingly abandoned, with funds apparently redirected to a less efficient, more expensive option, such as Starlink, which does not provide as good of service.
The issue goes beyond mere inefficiency. It raises the question of whether this shift was driven by legitimate concerns or by the influence of powerful figures and corporations. The anger of the people who worked hard to make the fiber optic system work is warranted, seeing that it can lead to higher prices. The cost of such actions extends beyond the economic realm. They erode public trust, foster cynicism, and create a sense that the rules don’t apply to everyone. This apparent disregard for the public good is a hallmark of the very entities and ideologies that the Wall Street Journal often chooses to promote.
The reaction from some in the media, particularly those with a conservative bent, often seems to be one of barely concealed glee. They celebrate this “theft” of taxpayer money as a victory for their ideological principles. The cheering can be heard through the editorials of the Wall Street Journal. It’s as though they are applauding a magician who has pulled off an impressive trick, without acknowledging that the trick leaves most Americans’ wallets emptier. This kind of response highlights the chasm between the interests of the wealthy elite and the everyday concerns of the working class.
The notion that private enterprise inevitably leads to innovation and lower prices, a common refrain in conservative circles, often rings hollow in reality. In many areas, essential services like internet, trash removal, and healthcare are dominated by monopolies or near-monopolies, leaving consumers with limited choices and little leverage. This lack of competition allows these companies to prioritize profits over affordability and quality, leaving people with subpar services at inflated prices. The only people who seem to benefit are those at the top, whose wealth is often amassed through these very practices.
When discussing the allocation of public funds, it is crucial to remember the underlying goal: to improve the lives of citizens. Services like broadband access, healthcare, and infrastructure should be viewed as public goods, not profit-seeking ventures. Focusing on the long-term well-being of the community should take precedence over short-term gains for private corporations. This often requires a willingness to invest in public infrastructure, even if it doesn’t immediately result in a profit. The government paying for infrastructure is simply the government doing its job.
The underlying motivations of those who benefit from these kinds of transactions are often difficult to discern. However, it’s undeniable that powerful figures and corporations are increasingly exerting influence over government policy. They often use their financial clout to shape legislation, lobby for favorable regulations, and influence public opinion through media outlets. This creates a system in which the public’s interests are often sidelined in favor of private gain. When government subsidies are used to enrich tech billionaires at the expense of local communities, it’s a clear indication that something is very wrong.
The lack of transparency and accountability in these transactions is another cause for concern. When public funds are diverted without proper oversight, auditing, or public input, it creates an environment ripe for corruption and abuse. It is essential to demand greater transparency and hold those responsible for these actions accountable. This means ensuring that contracts are awarded fairly, that spending is closely monitored, and that those who engage in illegal or unethical behavior are brought to justice.
It’s crucial to recognize the importance of public services and the potential benefits of government control of essential goods and services. Competition, while beneficial in some contexts, can often lead to the “enshittification” of products and services, where companies prioritize short-term profits over long-term value. Publicly funded options, on the other hand, can prioritize accessibility, affordability, and quality, making essential services more accessible to everyone. The focus should be on building a society that is fair, equitable, and serves the needs of all its citizens, not just the privileged few.