Spending Restraint

Spending restraint? We don't need no stinking spending restraint!

After reading this article today, all I could think to say is "what?!?" Congress wants to take your and my money and spend it so people's TV sets work? A television is not required to live in America, or anywhere else for that matter. What's the point of forcing broadcasters to go entirely digital and then paying to make consumers' TV sets backward compatible? Is there a national security requirement that US citizens consume their entertainment in digital format? If not, why legislate something that the market will demand on its own? If people don't want a service, they will stop paying for it. If enough people stop buying it, then it will cease to exist. Let the people decide for themselves what they want to purchase. The really sad thing is that a Republican introduced this measure.

Segue here
Senator Stevens (Alaska) also figures into the next article about the lack of spending restraint.

Senator Cogburn (R-OK) introduced an opportunity to exercise spending restraint. It's gone now. Senator Stevens indicated that he would resign if the Senate actually spent money in some kind of coherent manner. That's two victories for the price of one. However, only those senators seeking the presidential nomination voted in a sound fiscal manner. Iowa Senators Harkin and Grassley voted to keep the pork. Strangely, the Senators from Louisiana and Mississippi also voted to keep the pork rather than spend it on rebuilding from the damage inflicted by hurricane Katrina.