The federal government reached its $31.4 trillion debt limit yesterday.  This means the government can’t borrow more money to pay for its services and programs.  However, the Department of Treasury can use extraordinary measures such as suspending certain types of investments in savings plans for government workers and health plans for retired USPS workers to avoid default. These means can last until early June.  Needless to say, the debt ceiling has to be addressed… and Congress has options. Ideally, the government should not be borrowing money and should have a balanced budget.  That’s extremely unlikely to happen, especially in the short term, so Plan B is that Republicans need to insist on spending cuts before the debt ceiling is raised.  Some Democrats want to go to Plan C which is completely suspending the debt ceiling.  That would be waving the white flag of surrender and admitting that Congress doesn’t care about the national debt.  Any debt ceiling increase needs to include spending cuts and needs to be short term rather than long term.  The country’s debt and deficit are topics that Congress needs to consider throughout the year, not just when the debt ceiling is breached.  This is the first (and hopefully not the last) opportunity for Republicans to show that they are serious about eliminating deficit spending and reducing the debt.
 
Biden’s Tech Failure
 
In a recent op-ed, the President spelled out the supposed abuses of the tech industry and the consequences they have for society. He then outlines a political agenda to regulate the American tech industry and rightly recognizing the limits of executive power in this area.  He concludes calling for bipartisan movement in Congress to achieve that vision. However, the President’s vision is immensely short-sighted and would do far more harm than good.
 
President Biden opens his piece by acknowledging, “The American tech industry is the most innovative in the world.” He commends those who have made that statement true. However, he immediately follows this fleeting nod with, “But like many Americans, I’m concerned.”  The first concrete “abuse” identified by Biden is that “Big Tech companies collect huge amounts of data on the things we buy, on the websites we visit, [and] on the places we go.” Biden then goes on to claim that these companies use this data to purposely direct users towards extreme, polarizing content “to keep them logged on and clicking.”
 
This is no more an “abuse” by tech companies than is any brick-and-mortar company conducting basic market research. Any business researches the market to try to find which products have the most demand and therefore determine how to market their own inventory to maximize success. Data collection by Big Tech companies is merely a modern iteration of that same tried-and-true business practice. Simply because tech companies are using more sophisticated means to do so does not make it any more malicious.
 
In the same way any store would amplify its best-selling products, so too would a social media company amplify its high performing content or – in this case – content it determines a user would be more interested than generic non-targeted ads. Biden claims this causes extremism and polarization. Unfortunately, the demand for extremism and polarization already exists. This divide was not created by Big Tech, but, by many of the bipartisan lawmakers to whom Biden directed this op-ed to.
 
Biden then goes on to claim that “tech companies have elbowed mom-and-pop businesses out of their platforms, disadvantaged them, or charged them outlandish prices, making it harder for them to compete and grow.” 
 
Unfortunately, Biden provides neither examples nor statistics to back up these claims about Big Tech’s relationship with small businesses. The likely reason for this is because of how many small businesses owe their existence to big tech firms. Big Tech allows these small businesses to reach more customers than ever before. And, yes, sometimes they charge for that service. If it is “outlandish,” the small business can walk away. However, if many small businesses accept or determine they cannot grow without it, then the price would fit the demand for the service and is anything but outlandish. Rather, this is the free market at work.
 
Biden then outlines three affirmative policy solutions he believes will fix the current woes. First, he suggests “clear limits on how companies can collect, use, and share highly personal data.” His second suggestion calls for Congress to “fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” Lastly, Biden vaguely suggests adding “more competition back to the tech sector.”
 
Biden’s proposal to reform Section 230 would be a disaster for online discourse. If Biden is looking for bipartisan successes as it relates to tech, he need look no further than Section 230. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-O.R.), one of the original authors of this law when he was a member of the House, describes it as a “sword and a shield” for internet speech, giving tech companies a shield from frivolous litigation to safeguard speech rights, but a sword to be able to remove harmful posts as they see fit. Removing that would upset a very important balance online.
 
Lastly, President Biden’s call for a “level playing field” online lack any specifics. However, he does complain, “When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while… disadvantaging competitors.” This, however, is how all business works. If President Biden is suggesting that companies stop promoting their own products while trying to stop consumers from buying from their competitors, that would fundamentally alter basic economics as we know it. Safeway and CVS beware if companies aren’t allowed to promote and sell their own products.
 
While the ecosystem online is far from perfect, the political urge to “just do anything” about it could cause far more issues. While connectivity is vital in American life, there are a litany of options with a variety of different considerations. Americans should be able to choose a search engine that meets their data collection desires, a social media site that meets their speech and ad preferences, and patronize companies with the right products and prices for them. The free market is the solution, not the problem.
 
Mapping the Digital Future
 
Despite calls from many observers (including TPA) to do so, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) decided to not push back its January 13 deadline for states to challenge the accuracy of the national broadband map. NTIA published a blog on Friday putting its foot down on that deadline, The January 13th date was established for states to provide feedback about discrepancies in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) map for the purposes of funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The administration reiterated its June 30 date for allocating BEAD funding to each state and territory, and emphasized it needed to keep that January 13 deadline to ensure that goal is met. The NTIA said that since the map was released in November, it has held one-on-one sessions with dozens of states and territories and their broadband offices, as well as engaged with more than a dozen advocacy organizations to discuss how to submit challenges. The post noted that while the NTIA has received requests to delay the timeline from some states and other stakeholders, other states told the administration it should keep its deadline so they can begin developing their plans and subgrant programs as quickly as possible. “Unfortunately, a delay in the timeline would mean a delay in providing funding to communities who desperately need it, and it will not address many of the process concerns we have heard,” the post said. “Every day we delay is another day that communities are not connected. We feel the urgency to getting this funding out the door so it can be put to work for everyone in America.” Broadband Breakfast reported that the blog post came one month after NTIA Director Alan Davidson said at the Institute on Telecommunications Policy and Regulation annual conference that the rapidly approaching deadline made him “incredibly uncomfortable.” 
 
The NTIA ignored the issues highlighted in a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which pointed out the map might not be sufficiently corrected before it is used to help determine which locations in the U.S. will get a slice of the $42.5 billion in BEAD grants. CRS noted some concerns that had been raised across the country, including understaffed broadband offices, confidential mapping data of third-party vendors and likely legal battles over whether certain areas are truly unserved. The report said that “the map’s accuracy, timeliness and fairness…may be of continued concern to the 118th Congress,” suggesting that Congress could mandate an extension of the challenge process timeline for BEAD money allocation. Although some members of Congress have raised concerns about the deadline, there has so far been no movement to change the status quo.
 
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) sent a letter to Davidson on January 10 called for a 90-day delay on the challenge process, calling that deadline “too aggressive” and arguing that “our highest priority through this entire process should be the accuracy of the maps.” The FCC has reported more than 1 million challenges to the data in the map. Despite reiterating the now-passed January 13 date in its blog post, NTIA encouraged states and other stakeholders to continue to submit challenges to the map, calling it “a living document.”  “Both NTIA and the FCC are committed to iteratively improving the National Broadband Map,” the post said. “As we drive toward June 30, we will continue to partner with states and the FCC to improve the accuracy of both the location and availability data so that the map includes as much data as possible when we allocate funds.” NTIA should have heeded the many concerns about the small window of time in which challenges could be submitted to help determine allocation of the billions of dollars in taxpayer funding for broadband. Now, it is time for Congress to step in and force the administration’s hand.
 

BLOGS:

Tuesday: TPA Sends Letter to Senator Thune on Broadband Oversight

Wednesday: FDA’s Campaign Against Misinformation Should Start With Its Own

Thursday: Taxpayer Watchdog Addresses Looming Debt Ceiling Limit

Friday: TPA’s Bill of the Month: TRUST In Congress Act


MEDIA:

January 13, 2023:  I joined “Just the News, No Noise” with John Solomon and Amanda Head on Real America’s Voice to discuss inflation.
 
January 14, 2023: The Wyoming Tribune Eagle (Cheyenne, Wy.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Cowboy State saga highlights need for postal reform.”
 
January 15, 2023: August Free Press (Waynesboro, Va.) mentioned TPA in their article, “Should Members of Congress be able to use inside information to buy, sell stocks?”
 
January 16, 2023:  WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about electric vehicles.
 
January 16, 2023:  Inside Sources ran TPA’s op-ed, “FDA’s Campaign Against Misinformation Should Start With Its Own.”
 
January 16, 2023: The Boston Herald (Boston, Ma.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Americans deserve safe, secure postal system.”
 
January 17, 2023: Financial Regulation News mentioned TPA in their story, “Reps. Spanberger, Roy sponsor bill to ban stock trading by members of Congress.”
 
January 17, 2023:  WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, “Deputy Mayor targeted for larger role as squeegee kids continue to ignore ban.”
 
January 18, 2023: The Livingston Parish News (Denham Springs, La.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Postal Service can learn from neighbor to the north.”
 
January 18, 2023: The Center Square ran TPA’s op-ed, “The collusion of popcorn lung and fear.”
 
January 18, 2023: The Nashua Telegraph ran TPA’s op-ed, “FDA’s Campaign Against Misinformation Should Start With Its Own.”
 
January 19, 2023:  WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me about Governor Wes Moore’s spending and tax plan.
 
January 19, 2023:  I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about the debt ceiling.
 
January 19, 2023: Filter Magazine ran TPA’s op-ed, “‘Next Time It Could Be You’—The McCarthyism in Tobacco Control.”
 
January 20, 2023: RealClear Markets ran TPA’s op-ed, “Joe Biden's Tech Vision Will Hamstring Innovation.”
 
January 20, 2023: Townhall.com ran TPA’s op-ed, “NTIA Foolishly Ignores Calls for Extension of Broadband Map Challenge Deadline.”
 
January 20, 2023: RealClear Policy ran TPA’s op-ed, “Alzheimer’s Drug Approval a Big Leap Forward for FDA.”
 
Have a great weekend!