The Inalienable Right to a Remote [63% of households in "poverty" have cable TV or satellite dish]

The Washington Post ^ | December 8, 2005 | George F. Will

[grundle]

Feeling, evidently, flush with (other people's) cash, the Senate has concocted a novel way to spend $3 billion: create a new entitlement. The Senate has passed -- and so has the House, with differences -- an entitlement to digital television.

If this filigree on the welfare state becomes law, everyone who owns old analog television sets -- everyone from your Aunt Emma in her wee apartment to the millionaire in the neighborhood McMansion who has such sets in the maid's room and the guest house -- will get subsidies to pay for making those sets capable of receiving digital signals.

by April 2009 broadcasters must end analog transmissions and the government will have auctioned the analog frequencies for various telecommunications purposes. For the vast majority of Americans, April 2009 will mean . . . absolutely nothing. Nationwide, 85 percent of all television households (and 63 percent of households below the poverty line) already have cable or satellite service.

All Americans -- rich and poor; it is uncompassionate to discriminate on the basis of money when dispersing money -- will be equally entitled to the help.

The $990 million House version of this entitlement -- call it No Couch Potato Left Behind -- is (relatively) parsimonious: Consumers would get vouchers worth only $40 and would be restricted to a measly two vouchers per household. The Senate's more spacious entitlement would pay for most of the cost -- $50 to $60 -- of the converter boxes. But there is Republican rigor in this: Consumers would be required to pay $10. That is the conservatism in compassionate conservatism.

Yet Americans have such an entitlement mentality, they seem to think that every pleasure -- e.g., digital television -- should be a collective right, meaning a federally funded entitlement.

[MichiganConservative]

Where are the REPUBLICANS on this CRAP?

Tom Delay said there's no more fat to trim from the budget.

[SuperSonic]

From the Heritage Foundation:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded, according to the Census Bureau and other various government reports. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

• According to the Census Bureau and other various government reports, nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

• According to the Census Bureau and other various government reports, 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. The most dramatic effect of the 1996 welfare reform has been on child poverty, particularly among black children.

• Since welfare reform, over 1.2 million black children have been lifted out of poverty. Six black children have been made better off and lifted out of poverty for every black child whose economic condition has worsened.

• Since welfare reform, the poverty rate among black children has dropped by one-fourth, falling from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 30.0 percent in 2001.

• For the 25 years prior to welfare reform, the percentage of black children living in poverty remained virtually unchanged. But due to welfare reform, the black child poverty rate is currently at its lowest point in U.S. history.

• Overall hunger in America has declined. In 1995, 4.1 million households had at least one person who experienced hunger at some point during the year. By 2002, the number had fallen to 3.8 million households.

• Hunger among children has declined substantially since the mid-1990s. The number of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 and 2002. According to the Agriculture Department, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children. By 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000.

[Sir Gawain]

It will be better once Republicans become the majority in the House and Senate and also have the White House. Oh wait...

[Marxbites]

I read somewhere that America's so called poor on average live in larger square footage homes than Europe's middle class.

Marxist divide and conquer caste system demagoguery

[bmwcyle]

If they just earned a livable wage. /sarcasm

[Alberta's Child]

I remember a radio interview I heard years ago with John Mellencamp. His song "Pink Houses" was written after he took a long road trip all over the Midwest. The one thing that stood out in his mind was the recurring scenes of tiny towns and small pastel-colored houses ("little pink houses for you and me") in run-down areas that had seen their better days . . . and almost every one of those houses had a big, expensive car parked in the driveway and a giant satellite dish on the roof.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

You are so right, my sister is a welfare mama. She always gets her nails done and her hair styled. She of course has the newest cell phone. Can someone please tell me why people who do not WORK need to get their hair and nails done. Once a year I get a manicure as a special treat to myself. The whole welfare program needs to be "revamped" and yes I have lots of ideas.

[nmh]

"Tom Delay said there's no more fat to trim from the budget."

I can't express my reply to THAT or I'll be banned from FR.

Let me break it to you gently ... that's OUTRAGEOUS!

[Marxbites]

Right here, but not sure I take the End Times scenario of other posters seriously, but I sure do my post!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1536055/posts

[An Old Man]

"This is just corporate welfare for the content producers who want to stop people from being able to save and replay TV."

Another opportunity to make money! Every time, without exception, that the government gets involved in something another opportunity to profit from their involvement appears.

Ain't this a great country!

Semper Fi

[pepsi_junkie]

Where in the constitution does it say 'The right to Cable TV'.

The Romans called it Bread and Circuses. Give the masses some entitlements to keep them distracted and out of the politicians way. However, they discovered it made them slaves to the people. Let some Roman senator try to take away their free bread and see him torn to pieces.

This is a bit different in that Congress didnt give people television, but taking it away from them would result in an entirely new congress being voted in. Thus they need to take our money and use it to buy their own jobs from the voters. And term limits are a bad idea why?

[nmh]

I suppose it's a good secular writeup but ultimately God is in control ... and lets us make foolish choices. Prophecy reiterates much of what we see going on today - what's good is evil and evil is good - all part of prophecy. I don't blame one particular group, like the CFR. Eventually all groups will unite against what we should hold dear to us. Now they're splintered ... in time there will be ONE and then they'll be a show down.

[SuperSonic]

[BureaucratusMaximus]

# Overall hunger in America has declined. In 1995, 4.1 million households had at least one person who experienced hunger at some point during the year. By 2002, the number had fallen to 3.8 million households.

# Hunger among children has declined substantially since the mid-1990s. The number of hungry children was cut by a third between 1995 and 2002. According to the Agriculture Department, in 1995, there were 887,000 hungry children. By 2002, the number had fallen to 567,000.

How in the hell can they measure this? I'm hungry for lunch right now...am I counted?

[twinzmommy]

Gah can I puke now?

We've been electively tv-free for 4+ years now.

By tv-free -- no antennas, no cable, no dish. We do have sets with dvd players and vcrs. But as for network or cable tv. . .no way in hell.

*boggles*

This reminds me of the time I was in line at the grocery store and the woman in front of me paid in food stamps. Walked outside (after I paid) and she was parked next to me -- and getting into her brand new Oldsmobile.

Pissed. Me. Off.

[MineralMan]

"Let us also consider that the new technology will also make each reciever 'addressable' which means no more anonomynity. "


Darned right! And there's a tiny little camera in every cable box, too, so Big Brother can keep an eye on you.

Sorry, but this is all a little silly. You have a PC connected to the internet and you're concerned about anonymity? Forgive me, but you've already abandoned that.

[jimbergin]

"This reminds me of the time I was in line at the grocery store and the woman in front of me paid in food stamps. Walked outside (after I paid) and she was parked next to me -- and getting into her brand new Oldsmobile."

All of these posts remind me of a good friend (she seems quite conservative) who works for H&R Block from late Dec to the end of April each year. Then she promptly applies for, and gets, unemployment insurance! Somehow this has never seemed right to me!

[MineralMan]

"I hope He comes soon ... and then they can have what they reaped with NO Restrainer. DO you think it will be soon, as I hope?"

You're sure eager for that, aren't you? I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

[epaul]

If you have satellite or cable service you will NOT need one of these tuners. They are only for people who use antennas.

[Looking4Truth]

anonomynity.

I guess that my dumb ass needs to find a dictionary.