Our congress can't justify renewing the SCHIP program, but they can justify 1.5 billion (thats billion with a b) to help subsidize the cost for people convert their analog television to digital? I shake my head in disappointment once again. I saw this a couple days ago and did that partial eye-brow raised look, then went on with my day.
Of course, after 3 days, my attention had strayed elsewhere, until that catastrophe of an event happened to jump back into my life. MSNBC has decided it was an important enough event to have not one, but now a second article about it. Its a television-watching meltdown! According to this article, the US government is giving people $40 coupons to go buy these analog-to-digital converters. That is what your tax dollars are going towards! I'm honestly just in complete disbelief. Since when did your television become the government's, let alone the 300 million people who are paying for it, problem? John Locke said the point of have an institution to govern over a people was to protect their property. As was pointed out in lancekate's blog, the government is already treading all over the constitution's toes, but can an institution really have lost its worthwhile to the point that they're setting aside money so people can watch their TV's?
In the next few decades, I think we're going to be coming to an interesting crossroads: who is going to start drawing the line between entitlement and a bonus and where exactly that line of obligation lies. If the government keeps up silly antics like this, who knows what people are going to grow to expect. "I want a new Hollister jacket. Government, give me money to go buy a new Hollister jacket!" Granted, thats definitely an exaggeration, but look at what this is. It's like nothing we've seen before. Cities giving people money to buy hybrid cars has a purpose -- environmental impact. But what greater benefit are we getting out of giving people money so they can watch their televisions? Is this their purpose? My home state is neck-deep in immigration trouble, and congress is too busy appropriating money for this? What has happened to our country?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Considering the reason for going digital is to leave analog for emergency, police, fire departments and the like it sounds good to me. If the government is smart they also need to temporarily cap the prices on digital TVs. I know that is against capitalistic policies, but prices are going to sky rocket soon because everyone will be forced to upgrade or buy the box.
One reason they are subsidizing them though if for a good cause. If they didn't help buy the box more people would just say "the hell with it" and go out to get a mega sized digital TV (as most people will probably do anyways), but where do all the analogs go? There will be such a huge wave of waste and hazardous materials involved that many dumps and even recycling plants won't be able to keep up with the demand.
Personally, I think the money is better spent to help dispose and recycle of the old TVs properly or just do something to keep the prices low enough that a discount gov't voucher isn't needed.
Think about it...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tomorrowtoday
The $1.5 Billion is not being funded by taxes.
The move to digital broadcast TV is a move to free up bandwidth being wasted by outdated analog broadcasts. Some of the bandwidth becoming availiable will be auctioned off creating $6 to $9 Billion in revenue which will pay for the subsidy ($40 coupons) being given to people that own analog TVs that will not function without a converter box, or paid cable subscription.
In adition to the Bandwidth to be sold there will be aditional frequencies for emergency services, and as many as five times as many local broadcast channels.
Do you favor remaining analog? How about switching over and screwing all of the people (almost exclusively poor) that rely on free broadcast TV? The solution they chose is about the best compromise for everyone. Now, if they had just set aside some of this for adhoc WiMax free networks.....
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
They know they're going to be making money, so they turn around and spend it? Is the national deficeit even a second though anymore? There are so many other programs that that money could go towards (even if you don't agree with SCHIP, I'm sure theres some other government-funded program up on the congretional chopping block that you believe could use 1.5 billion dollars).
I just don't think it's the government's job to be going in and paying for people to buy little boxes so they're tv-watching enjoyment isn't interrupted. Maybe they see it as they owe it to people since they're the ones making the change, but again I disagree in that television is a luxury, not something that people won't live without. If the government was suddenly going to change their policy about energy and everyone who didn't use solar panels wasn't going to get energy anymore, I could see congress passing a bill to appropriate funds to help people switch, but remember exactly what a television is: entertainment. I don't believe the government should be setting aside funds for people's entertainment. That is the essence of my disagreement.
Not exactly. Television is a comunication device. Taking the current service from the poor to save money is not the right solution. This nation awards monopolies to cable companies, and phone companies. Would you favor just giving those rich private companies the windfall of forcing people to subscribe if they didn't want to just throw out their TVs?
Protecting the helpless seems to be a higher value to me than saving money. Since this program is going to benefit the general fund, not deplete it I can't see a BETTER solution. I agree with the Ideal you support, just do not agree with who should pay the price to achieve it.
There has NEVER been a case of extra income to our government doing anything but increasing spending. So I see the choice as WHAT not IF. They will spend it on something. The actual debt is Trillions when you include SSI and Medicare/Medicaid obligations. Will we ever even try to erase it?
A Fact is always better than an Ideal.
http://www.progressiveu.org/065925-a-fact-is-always-better-than-an-ideal
People with analog televisions don't have to throw out them out: they go and buy a $60 box that converts the signal to digital. There are no forced cable subscriptions, and I have a feeling they're going to switch those public access channels over to digital also, so the poor will continue to be able to watch those channels.
In perspective, $60 really isn't that much, especially when you consider what its going to. I have a feeling that if these people can afford a television and the time to sit around and watch it, they can probably find it somewhere in their budget to buy that box. And if you want to argue that all important weather advisories come over tv, may I also remind you that, in most cities, they're also pasted on the front page of the newspaper (so you can see it without buying it). They're played on the radio and towns in immediate danger of natural disasters have some sort of public annoucement system in place.
And, believe it or not, occasionally some of the money the government gets does go towards the national debt. Not all, but some. I'm betting that more money will go towards that cause if they have 9 billions dollars to pull from as compared to the 7.5 left after their subsidy.
"People with analog televisions don't have to throw out them out: they go and buy a $60 box that converts the signal to digital. There are no forced cable subscriptions, and I have a feeling they're going to switch those public access channels over to digital also, so the poor will continue to be able to watch those channels."
The converter box is what the coupon helps cover. All of the analog channels public and private will cease to broadcast, and switch. I would agree with you if you argued against those tax payer funded public stations. It is giving rich corporations something (multiple digital channels, wireless spectrum) to profit from that HURTS poor people in the process that I do not like. Members of congress and the FCC got these vouchers to help poor people. The media and cell phone companies have been working them for this change for years.
---
"And if you want to argue that all important weather advisories come over TV, may I also remind you that, in most cities, they're also pasted on the front page of the newspaper (so you can see it without buying it). They're played on the radio”
You're right these are also valuable communication tools. TV is just one. I read that they are working on a cell phone notification system as well. None of these life saving methods should be lost.
---
"And, believe it or not, occasionally some of the money the government gets does go towards the national debt.”
Not. It has happened accidentally in the 90s when the stock market took off and they suddenly had a surplus. They figured out how to spend it pretty quick. If the government KNOWS that they have a chunk of money coming they have never used it to pay down debt in modern history. The best example I remember was in the late 80s when the cold war ended. Suddenly the 300 Billion defense budget was looking excessive, and close to 100 billion in savings was coming. The federal budget deficit had been averaging close to that number for a few years, and they already knew that Social Security was approaching a crisis, but there were Dozens of proposals to spend the 'peace dividend' as they called it.
Go, democratic congress, in a generation where less people read and the US is known as the world capital of stupid. Way to go.
P.S The national debt would automatically disappear.
I think the SCHIP program is a horridly bad move. Before I get calls for hating children or how I like to watch sick people suffer, one only has to look at the VA program to see that the government providing or paying for healthcare does NOT work well. I have no problems with Charities taking up collection plates or providing healthcare for the poor (I wish that they would, Charities have a MUCH better efficiency rating when it comes to the use of the dollar than the government does, with all the red tape and administrative costs of Government versus your average charity.)
However, I do agree that a subsidy to help television stations update their signal is silly. As is the requirement to change your signal type. That isn't someplace the federal (or even state) government belongs.
Well, regardless of whether is SCHIP or not, that's 1.5 billion dollars that not going towards something of national use. Go ahead and replace SCHIP with fill-in-the-blank-proposition.
That's an interesting angle to it I really hadn't thought of. Not only do people have to change the signal coming in on their tv's, but broadcasters have to change the kind of signal the'yre putting out. I hope the government is paying them for whatever analog space they free up.
The other funny part about that article is that it makes it sound like all the freed-up space is going towards the greater good (fire stations, police, ect.), but then it goes on to say that they're actually selling the space to cell phone companies and the like. I'm curious as to just how much of this is going towards 'the greater good'.