Portland the Social Utopia of Free Wireless Goes Lenin

A few weeks ago it was announced that the free Wi-Fi network that was being deployed in Portland was being scrapped. Buried above ground by its own arrogance and stupidity. (Think Lenin.)

The idea: get a company to come into Portland, build up a free network for people to use - as long as they endured ads on 1/3 of the screen which would pay for it and make that company a profit - in order for all of Portland - especially the poorer neighborhoods - to get onto the Internet.

Noble.

Stupid, but Noble.

The idea that people who complain to the city about getting food, no money to maintain their own houses due to the rising tax bills, and who cannot afford to get PCs - let alone laptops that cost $1,000 and up - could use the free wi-fi provided by Portland to get onto the Internet so they would not be "dis-advantaged" in the communication age  could not pass the laugh test - yet the city Government thought it was a fine idea and went with it - ignoring all reality of what a MARKET is.

Standing in the middle of an intersection you got great reception - but motorists were mildly annoyed. Standing on a street corner in the rain with another person holding an umbrella worked better - but then you would be arrested for blocking the sidewalk. Wi-Fi can barely go through a wall, yet it was deployed that the idea of it going through a glass and steel building which kills most radio signals was the method of using it - and they thought it would work?

This is a good example of socialism ideals vs reality of the real world - they fail badly.

Wi-MAX goes through walls (think of Wi-Fi as AM radio and Wi-Max as FM) - but the same problem of people needing money to HAVE the PC and technology to get to Wi-MAX still applies. The people that a city "builds" it for are the least able to afford to use even free services. The city would have to buy 20,000 laptops to give to each household in order for them to get to it. Course  it would be "free" - the richer people would be taxed to pay for the social equalization program (You made more than $70,000, you get a bonus tax of 1,000 to help pay for some people who do not make as much as you. Feel good about it!) This is how the Federal Government and most states are actually run - tax the people who have succeeded in order to support people who cannot - or do not want to - succeed. If they fail they get supported. If they succeed they go off support - but then they have to work to get the same benefits. If they are happy where they are at, then WHY work? (Yes, old argument, but it is true. They were writing about this in the 1760s in England and in the colonies about making it too easy to support the poor.)

Wi-Fi is dead! Long Live Wi-MAX! may be the next phrase you hear from Portland.

 

 

Sen Obama and the Pack Mentality

Senator Barack Obama came through Portland on Sunday May 18 and created an "official" count of 60,000 inside the gates of Waterfront Park with another 15,000 estimated outside on the roads and on the water or bridges bordering on the rally.

 

Some people came since they really support him, some came to be part of the event, some came since standing in line for three hours to pass through security was the best thing to do on a Sunday when the weather was actually nice for a change in the mid 80s.

 

The number of people at the event surprised him - it was only organized a few days before - and the number of people there also surprised most of the expert planners in Portland - hence the three hour wait to get to the park. So much for experts. (Almost all the experts are Blue leaning Democrats.)

 

What the event did more than anything is the illustrate the "bandwagon" mentality of emotion over substance. His speech was pretty much the same, but the feeling people wanted and got from being there outweighed any mental analysis of what he wants to do. (No, I did not attend, I was guessing that at least 50,000 would be there since Portland is such a BLUE city, and so I skipped going.)

 

Senator Hillary Clinton, in state along with her daughter and husband, have gone the low-key small venue route where she can actually TALK to people, explain what she wants to do (substance) and go with logic - shows what happens in a modern America when you try to go with logic vs.. emotion - you get stomped even if you are a Democrat.

 

 

Federal Gas Tax and the 2008 Candidates Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain

For each individual suspending the FEDERAL tax of 18/cents a gallon is shrugable - roughly $6 a month for those who average 1000 miles a month in their car. I latte at coffee shop.
To the US Highway trust fund - a BIG deal since they deal in pay as you go - thus all road projects are stopped - no money (they have NEVER managed finances well).

 

If the tax was 18 cents per dollar of retail - then it would be different - that would be 72 cents a gallon.

 

If you REALLY want to conserve fuel then the tax should be changed to 64 cents per gallon up front, and all licensed truckers, cities (government bodies), and commercial registered transporters would get refunded 75% of what they paid in tax back on income tax filing for that year - like it was in the 1960s when the tax laws tracked those deductions for gas taxes. Thus only the TRUE recreational drivers and work commuters would pay - and those that deliver the goods would pay some (but they already pay in other fees and licenses to states and Federals already) and then the Social Engineers would rejoice since the high price would help their goal of forcing people into wasting their time taking public transportation vs. convenience of using private vehicles.

 

The same social engineering people would rejoice even more since now only the "rich" would be driving cars and paying taxes to siphon off on pet mass transit projects from the Trust Fund and not feel guilty about it (Wait! they don't feel guilty now taking money from it to do that now.)

 

Would I hate having to pay 60 cents a gallon in Federal tax? Yes, would I pay to have the convenience of a car? Yes. Would all the people who do cannot afford the extra $16 a month in fuel costs drive less due to lack of money? Yes. Would the social engineers and environmentalists be happy? Yes!

 

Would the price of fuel go down? NO. Lower demand would force the price up per gallon so that the fuel companies to get the same gross income they have now to get the same net profit they have now. EVERY time conservation has worked in any commodity the people who have that commodity HAD to raise prices. This is even true for community owned electric utilities, water, gas etc - every time a big conservation plan worked the people who owned the stuff HAD to raise prices to stay in business. Net effect was just using less - never saving the end users ANY money.

 

Want to stop the growth of 8 lane highways - price all but the affluent out of cars by raising taxes till it hurts the masses and they drive less - and be sure to say to them that the rich are now supporting them in mass transit - and that if you want to drive cars then get an education to find a career that pays you enough to afford a car to drive to work.

 

Would this hurt people in the far west where a 50 mile drive to a hospital is considered a local drive? YES. Then you give all those who live in a rural census track the same tax breaks as businesses - refund 75% of fuel taxes they paid in.

You MUST index the tax to the CPI.

 

Hillary and McCain are pandering to a populist crowd - no impact in reality. Obama is right, meaningless gesture to people - big impact to the roads.

 

Now if states and the Federal government only spent the money collected in road taxes on roads . . .