USDA Invests $23 Million in Broadband for Rural North Dakota Communities
FARGO, N.D., Jan. 7, 2020 – Today, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development North Dakota State Director Clare Carlson announced USDA has invested $23 million in two high-speed broadband infrastructure projects that will create or improve rural e-Connectivity for 2,643 rural households and 78 businesses in North Dakota. This is one of many funding announcements in the first round of USDA’s ReConnect Pilot Program investments.
“Providing critical communications investments in rural areas of North Dakota is important because when rural America thrives, all America thrives,” Carlson said. “Polar Communications and Daktel Communications will use USDA’s ReConnect Program to provide essential broadband technology to rural areas, which is a utility as important as water, sewer and electricity. North Dakota farms and ranches, small businesses and families in these communities will experience a positive economic impact from access to broadband e-Connectivity.”
Polar Communications will use a $21.2 million loan and grant combination in ReConnect Program funding to construct a fiber-to-the-premises network encompassing 1,870 square miles. The service area is expected to reach 2,237 households, six educational facilities, one health care center and one critical community facility in Grand Forks, Walsh and Pembina counties. Polar Communications provides telecommunications services to more than 8,000 subscribers in North Dakota and Minnesota. Its fiber-optic network provides voice, video and broadband services. Polar Communications also provides advanced business services such as phone systems, video surveillance and advanced networking.
Daktel Communications will use a $1.8 million ReConnect Program grant to provide broadband service to 406 households and three educational facilities over 354 square miles. Daktel Communications is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier that provides services within the Jamestown, N.D., exchange.
Background:
In March 2018, Congress provided $600 million to USDA to expand broadband infrastructure and services in rural America. On Dec. 13, 2018, Secretary Sonny Perdue announced the rules of the program, called “ReConnect,” including how the loans and grants will be awarded to help build broadband infrastructure in rural America. USDA received 146 applications between May 31, 2019, and July 12, 2019, requesting $1.4 billion in funding across all three ReConnect Program funding products: 100 percent loan, 100 percent grant, and loan-grant combinations. USDA is reviewing applications and announcing approved projects on a rolling basis. Additional investments in all three categories will be made in the coming weeks.
These grants, loans and combination funds enable the federal government to partner with the private sector and rural communities to build modern broadband infrastructure in areas with insufficient internet service. Insufficient service is defined as connection speeds of less than 10 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload.
In December 2019, Agriculture Secretary Perdue announced USDA will be making available an additional $550 million in ReConnect funding in 2020. USDA will make available up to $200 million for grants, up to $200 million for 50/50 grant/loan combinations, and up to $200 million for low-interest loans. The application window for this round of funding will open Jan. 31, 2020. Applications for all funding products will be accepted in the same application window, which will close no later than March 16, 2020.
A full description of 2020 ReConnect Pilot Program funding is available on page 67913 of the Dec. 12, 2019, Federal Register (PDF, 336 KB). To learn more about eligibility, technical assistance and recent announcements, visit www.usda.gov/reconnect.
In April 2017, President Donald J. Trump established the Interagency Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity to identify legislative, regulatory and policy changes that could promote agriculture and prosperity in rural communities. In January 2018, Secretary Perdue presented the Task Force’s findings to President Trump. These findings included 31 recommendations to align the federal government with state, local and tribal governments to take advantage of opportunities that exist in rural America. Increasing investments in rural infrastructure is a key recommendation of the task force. To view the report in its entirety, please view the Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB). In addition, to view the categories of the recommendations, please view the Rural Prosperity infographic (PDF, 190 KB).
USDA Rural Development provides loans and grants to help expand economic opportunities and create jobs in rural areas. This assistance supports infrastructure improvements; business development; housing; community facilities such as schools, public safety and health care; and high-speed internet access in rural areas. For more information, visit www.rd.usda.gov.
#============
Dear Dave,
My wife and I will both turn 30 next month. We have two young children, and we make a little over $85,000 combined. The problem is we have about $70,000 in debt. Some of it is credit card debt, but nearly $50,000 is in two car loans. Her mom and dad have offered to let us move in with them, so we can save up money and start getting a better handle on our finances, but we’re not sure how we feel about this. What’s your advice?
Justin
Dear Justin,
You’ve got a ridiculous amount of money wrapped up in those cars. I’d sell the stupid things, get into a couple of little beaters, and start living on a budget and paying down debt.
In your situation, the only scenario where I’d even consider taking the in-laws up on their offer is one where the stay is for a very short, agreed-upon period of time. They’d have to be absolutely wonderful people, too, and everyone involved would need to know their boundaries.
But you guys can get out of debt pretty fast if you’ll just lose the cars. You could even save a little money on the side while you were paying down debt, and buy a better car as soon as the debt was gone.
You might love your cars so much that you’re unwilling to make the sacrifice. Not me. I’d rather keep my dignity intact, and work my way out of the mess I created!
—Dave
(Playing the lottery robs you of your future)
Word count: 293
Dear Dave,
I’ve been struggling financially for the past few months, so I’ve been playing the lottery once a week. To me, the chance to win millions is worth a few dollars a month, even if things are tight.
Paula
Dear Paula,
You’ve told me you’re having money troubles, and at the same time you’re throwing money out the window every week? Honestly, the small amount you’re talking about doesn’t make a difference. Even if it’s just two or three bucks a week, that action represents a lot of financially irresponsible behavior in your life.
I’m going to be very blunt with you. The lottery is a tax on the poor and people who can’t do math. Your chances of winning are bleak at best. Did you know the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are about 1 in 292,000,000? There are plenty of other very unusual things that are much more likely to happen to you than winning the lottery. Your chances of making a hole-in-one on the golf course are about 1 in 12,500. Even your odds of having quadruplets are around 1 in 11 million.
When times are tough and you’re strapped for cash, the last thing you need to do is spend what little you have on gimmicks. My advice is to focus on working hard, living on a tight budget that cuts out all unnecessary expenses, and saving every penny you can. Unlike the lottery, this is a plan that works every time. When you start living on a budget and get out of debt, it provides a little bit of breathing room in your life. You might even feel like you got a raise!
Don’t let your finances—and your dreams—be hijacked by the lottery.
—Dave
* Dave Ramsey is CEO of Ramsey Solutions. He has authored seven best-selling books, including The Total Money Makeover. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 16 million listeners each week on 600 radio stations and multiple digital platforms. Follow Dave on the web at daveramsey.com and on Twitter at @DaveRamsey.
================
GOP Albatross
by James A. Haught
664 words
Every schoolchild knows that the Ancient Mariner was forced to wear a dead albatross around his neck.
I think America’s Republican Party wears a dying albatross: white evangelicals who are both the GOP’s life-support system and also a curse upon Republicans.
The conservative party couldn’t survive without hidebound born-again whites – yet those fundamentalists taint the GOP by forcing it to adhere to their narrow-minded agenda: hating gays, hating abortion, hating Hollywood sex, hating evolution, hating the separation of church and state, hating Muslims, hating foreigners and minorities, hating sex education, hating secularism, etc.
However, white evangelicals are shrinking relentlessly as religion dies in America, so the future of the right-wing party is bleak.
Currently, such believers are the heart of the GOP, giving it at least three-fourths of their vote. In contrast, young Americans who say their religion is “none” – a group that is swelling rapidly – hold strong progressive views and generally support the Democratic Party. Most of them are repelled by the Religious Right.
“More Bad News for the Survival of the Republican Party” was the caption of a Washington Post column by Jennifer Rubin. She outlined how the nation’s share of white evangelicals is dropping rapidly in the 21st century. Some surveys find them as low as 13 percent of the adult populace. Rubin began:
Republicans have made a demographic bet: By artificially inflating the white percentage of the electorate (by throwing up barriers for poor and nonwhite Americans to vote) and driving white Christian turnout sky-high with a combination of cultural resentment and xenophobia, they figure they can extend the lifespan of their increasingly rural, male, non-college-educated base. After a while, however, you run out of white evangelicals. That is precisely what is happening at an unexpectedly speedy pace.
Regarding the collapse of religion, she added:
Considering how reliant they are on white Christians – evangelicals in particular – Republicans are unlikely to survive outside deep-red confines when they lose 12 points in the pool of the most reliable Republican voters. Republicans have created a zero-sum game wherein the increasingly racist and radical appeals to white Christians needed to drive high turnout alienates a substantial segment of the growing nonwhite and/or unaffiliated electorate. They are doubling down on a diminishing pool of voters as they crank up fierce opposition among the fastest-growing segments (millennials, nonwhites) of the electorate. Soon, the math becomes impossible outside of highly gerrymandered congressional districts and rock-ribbed conservative states.
In other words, the GOP possibly seems doomed because it cannot live without bigoted white born-agains – yet those Puritans are slip-sliding away, year after year. If her forecast is correct, Republicans may be dragged from power as their fundamentalist base recedes.
A year ago, a Pew survey found that one-third of young adults raised in white evangelical households quit the faith. Religion scholar Diana Butler Bass said: “The percentage of white evangelicals is declining… a shrinking demographic.” So many have left hidebound religion that they’ve created an online movement called “Exvangelicals.”
Newsweek reported:
“Only 10 percent of Americans under 30 identify as white evangelicals. The exodus of youth is so swift that demographers now predict that evangelicals will likely cease being a major political force in presidential elections by 2024.”
Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute echoed:
“If current trends hold steady, 2024 will be a watershed year – the first American election in which white Christian voters do not constitute a majority of voters.”
As for now, remaining fundamentalists are intensely loyal to the GOP, and vote in extremely high numbers – while “nones” tend to have low political commitment and vote meagerly. Presumably, born-agains will give powerful support to Donald Trump in the 2020 election. But it seems likely, eventually, someday, that the GOP base will erode. Jones of the PRRI summed up:
“There will ultimately be a breaking point to just how overrepresented this group can remain as the demographics continue to shift.”
I can’t wait for the dying albatross around Republican necks to take its toll.
–end–
James Haught, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is editor emeritus of West Virginia’s largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette-Mail.
=================
Dear Editor:
Please consider this informative and cogent commentary by Dr. Patrick Hiller of the War Prevention Initiative. For PeaceVoice, thank you,
Tom Hastings
~~~~~~~~~
Instead of real-time commentary, eight common-sense reason for not going to war with Iran
By Patrick T. Hiller
843 words
In the wake of the assassination of Iranian military leader Major General Qasem Soleimani and nine other people by a U.S. drone strike in Iraq, tensions between the United States and Iran are at their height. The immediate threat of war is real. Real-time news and expert commentary across the nationwide spectrum of media outlets probably have the heads of American citizens spinning. When things are moving so fast, perhaps it is best to move away from the ever-changing and confusing real-time commentary about what should happen and what will happen. Let’s look for the obvious reasons for not going to war with Iran. Here are eight:
First, Iranians are not our enemies. We must start looking at Iran as a country with 80 million people who are not our enemies, instead of an entity reduced to “bad guys” who need to be “eliminated.” If war starts, civilians will bear the brunt of it and we must do everything in our power and in our respective spheres of influence to prevent that from happening.
Second, war is destructive. War means introducing weapons, conducting air strikes, and sending combat troops. It is the use of deadly force on a massive scale. Wars are by nature destructive. There is violence, death, and suffering. In other words, we are talking about a complete oxymoron when declaring the intention to defend life and make us more secure, while actively taking lives.
Third, the human costs of war are too high. Approximately 800,000 people have been counted as direct war deaths in major war zones in the post 9/11 wars. That’s almost the population of Indianapolis, Charlotte, or San Francisco. According the Brown University’s Costs of War Project, “war deaths from malnutrition, and a damaged health system and environment likely far outnumber deaths from combat”. In addition, 21 million people are war refugees and displaced persons. That’s the population of Florida.
Fourth, the economic costs are too high. Through fiscal year 2019, the US has spent or obligated almost six trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The National Priorities Projects estimates that taxpayers in the United States are paying $32 million every hour for the total costs of war. These tax dollars could be used to pay elementary school teachers, create clean energy jobs, jobs supporting high poverty community, providing better VA medical car, providing low-income healthcare, and many other domestic trade-offs.
Fifth, the assassination and further acts or war against Iran are illegal. As Yale Law Professor Oona Hathaway argues, the attack on Soleimani was missing both domestic and international legal authorization. At home, Congress is the only branch of government authorized to declare war. The representatives of the American people were completely cut out and denied their authority by the Trump administration. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council would have had to approve the use of force. The Trump administration initiated and act of war without any approval.
Sixth, war makes us less secure. Or how would you explain Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell’s prayers with “all American diplomats, personnel, and brave servicemembers serving in Iraq and the Middle East”.
He certainly doesn’t display any confidence about their security. Or how would you explain the State Department’s urgent request for all Americans to immediately leave Iraq after the US drone attack? Retired Army Colonel and US diplomat Ann Wright lists 36 bases with US military forces in 14 countries that are neighbors with Iran as targets for retaliation. One thing is certain, the Iranian government will consider a calculated response proportionate to the killing of Soleimani. When it happens, and how it will happen is unclear, but it will be opposite to the positive developments toward common security that came with the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal.
Seventh, wars are often based on lies and provocation. The US has a history of both. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used to falsely justify war against Vietnam. Iraq was invaded in 2003 under the false pretext of Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction. The Washington Post is tracking the President’s claims and has found more than 15,000 false or misleading claims since assuming office. Now we should believe and trust in President Trump and his claim that this assassination took place to prevent war? Even without considering the domestic pressure of an impeached President, it would be foolish believe someone who lies about everything as long as it is politically expedient.
Eight, going to war with Iran is immoral. The assassination of Soleimani and nine others was murder. War with Iran would be nothing other than murder on a large scale. Much of the debate right now revolves around General Soleimani being a “bad guy.” We don’t have to disagree with that assessment while still advocating for diplomacy and peaceful approaches and certainly rejecting his targeted assassination. If war starts, civilians more than combatants will die and suffer. Large-scale killing, wounding, impoverishing, making homeless, orphaning, and traumatizing of people is immoral.
This brings me back to point one: Iranians are not our enemies.
~~~
Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, served on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association (2012-2016), member of the Peace and Security Funders Group, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.
