Does anyone believe we'll ever see a politician cite a report that carefully balances the costs and benefits of a new policy?

New York City lowers speed limit to save lives

Why don't reporters ask for that?

The Universe of Public Policy

I got a laugh from this. Apparently, Democrats lost the Senate last election despite agreeing with the voters, policy-wise, on "everything."

Here's a list of ALL public policies.

• Raise the Minimum Wage to $10.10
• Let illegal immigrants stay
• government should limit greenhouse gases
• upper income people pay too little in taxes
• corporations pay too little in taxes
• gay marriage should be legal
• congress should improve Obamacare but not repeal it

Knowing this should make the next Presidential election a lot more focused. No more foreign policy debates, no one cares about abortion, apparently, or guns.

A Can of Worms

One of the biggest realizations I had during and after the ACA debate was that the left clamored for this encyclopedic bill without caring (at least publicly) about the costs/downsides of the bill. I never heard one news report, heard one elected Democrat, or read one "progressive" blog article that tried to weigh the pros and cons. I'm sure there were a few bloggers who briefly mentioned a downside, but by and large, the left believed the ACA would reduce the uninsured rate to zero, some thought it would lower costs, and the most connected probably knew taxes would be going up for the richest.

The only party that really should have done more homework to present the problems with the ACA was the news media, and they did nothing of the sort. No reporting on how premiums would have to go up if those with pre-existing issued were guaranteed insurance, no talk about the effects of allowing students up to 26 to stay on insurance, no discussion of the minimum loss ratio regulation. All of these regulations--as far as the media were concerned--were freebies. Only positives.

Now, I'm worried about the same thing happening with Net Neutrality. It appears that the FCC is going to reclassify the internet as a public utility. This will allow them more power to regulate it. It is very important to understand, that as it is, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET that this will fix. Instead, the Net Neutrality activists want this to forestall fast lanes, primarily.

My concern is that all of those who are advocating this policy change have not really considered all of the downsides of doing so. They are scared of prioritizing content, this will prevent that, so this must be done. What else will it enable the FCC to do? Shouldn't that be part of the debate? Wouldn't it be prudent also to wait until the cable companies do this prioritizing and see what the effect is before we outlaw it? There's a chance that prioritizing would be better for consumers.

I would fear a slow-lane internet that receives no maintenance and gradually deteriorates, but I believe we should address that problem when it occurs; reclassification could have large, unintended consequences (as many regulations do).