Obama’s Inaugural Address & Technology Policy

by on January 20, 2009 · 7 comments

Three passages from Obama’s inaugural address stand out as important for the mix of technology policy issues covered here at the TLF.  On technology policy (a non-trivial 5.4% of the address by word count):

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories…. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

On how to determine whether government intervention is warranted:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. 

On regulatory policy:

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control….

So what does all this mean for tech policy?

Clearly, Obama considers subsidies for broadband deployment to be a rhetorical winner.  But in an era of painfully tight budget constraints, the stimulus package unveiled last week includes “only” “$6 billion to promote deployment of high-speed Internet access in unserved and underserved areas… considerably less than the $44 billion requested by Internet advocates”—per the WSJ, which also notes that this corporate welfare would be tied to “open access” (a/k/a “net neutrality”) mandates.  Obama’s even more serious about spending “stimulus” money on health IT.  The stimulus plan includes $20 billion in e-health spending (again, per the WSJ).  I’ll bet that both programs will be dwarfed in size by Obama’s subsidies for “green” energy sources.

Obama’s emphasis on “what works” will no doubt be greeted by many as a welcome return to “reality-based” policy-making.  But even if one attempted to implement this approach free of any “ideological pre-dispositions,” how would one actually evaluate the efficacy of any proposed government intervention?  How often will there be anything remotely resembling a controlled experiment to inform policy-making?  As difficult as it is to predict the unintended consequences of intervention, it’s even more difficult to do so in high-tech sectors of the economy, where the rate of change is particularly rapid.

  • http://skiften.se/2009/01/21/varlden-januari-2013-01-21/ Världen januari 2013-01-21 « Skiften

    [...] Så blev det douche and turd i presidentvalet? Ja, Barack Obama blir förstås uppstyrd av en ekonomisk kris om vad som han kan göra (problemet är den äldre synen att se samhället och dess ekonomi som en maskin). I sektorer i snabb utveckling får det dock effekter, och det är svårt att utröna effektiviteten. [...]

  • mwendy

    To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel – let no crisis opportunity go unspent.

    We have a sea-shift here. We've preached for the better part of two decades to let the free market (well, almost free) do the bidding, to essentially design our product offerings. Now, in the space of just 4 months, many seemingly have jettisoned this knowledge for the security of a bailout culture.

    You think the stimulus package comes without strings? Think again. Instead of moving contract-to-contract, market-to-market – we're going to have another regulator, Uncle Sam, in the middle, making “evehanded” decisions in place of the market.

    You want the money – you design your offering in Uncle Sam's optimally defined manner.

    Further, for the small technology provider, in particular – the one who can barely administer his local taxes, Healthcare for employees, and other regulatory obligations – this shift means one more (crushing) burden they have to undertake if they want to make it in our economy. Do you think that small guy has time to go begging/lobbying for government handouts? Yet, small companies in general produce over half of the jobs in the US.

    I'm further appalled by the fact that the same people who designed the TARP – the bailout plan we're told doesn't work – are essentially designing the Economic Stimulus plan. Is this going to be any better? Their track records stinks.

    Emanuel is right – he's got his WMD excuse at the ready to sell the plan.

  • http://techliberation.com/author/berinszoka/ Berin Szoka

    Amen!

  • dm

    Businesses don't do controlled experiments before investing in factories or infra-structure, either. Government investment will be evaluated the same way private investment is: by its rate of return, once the funds are committed, and by the success of pilot programs and engineering studies.

    As to mwendy's concerns about small technology providers — the government treats small providers preferentially with their Small Business Opportunity programs. The government's insistence on open standards is another advantage for small providers — they are free to provide solutions that work, without being tied to closed and proprietary standards.

  • dm

    Businesses don't do controlled experiments before investing in factories or infra-structure, either. Government investment will be evaluated the same way private investment is: by its rate of return, once the funds are committed, and by the success of pilot programs and engineering studies.

    As to mwendy's concerns about small technology providers — the government treats small providers preferentially with their Small Business Opportunity programs. The government's insistence on open standards is another advantage for small providers — they are free to provide solutions that work, without being tied to closed and proprietary standards.

  • dm

    Businesses don't do controlled experiments before investing in factories or infra-structure, either. Government investment will be evaluated the same way private investment is: by its rate of return, once the funds are committed, and by the success of pilot programs and engineering studies.

    As to mwendy's concerns about small technology providers — the government treats small providers preferentially with their Small Business Opportunity programs. The government's insistence on open standards is another advantage for small providers — they are free to provide solutions that work, without being tied to closed and proprietary standards.

  • http://techliberation.com/2009/03/03/venture-capitalists-reject-bailout-an-inspiring-dose-of-economic-sanity/ Venture Capitalists Reject Bailout: An Inspiring Dose of Economic Sanity | The Technology Liberation Front

    [...] warned about the dangers of subsidies to the high-tech industry, but I do recognize that the unintended [...]

Previous post:

Next post: