Q: Late last week, the Senate Commerce Committee,
chaired by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), voted to spend $3 billion on
which of the following?
-
Relief for
victims of Hurricane Katrina;
-
Improving
homeland security; or
-
Subsidies for
people with old television sets.
A: Believe it or not, if you choose "c," you are
correct. Even more startling, this massive new spending program is
a part of the committee's contribution to the budget reconciliation
bill-legislation that was intended to showcase Congress's new
resolve on spending.
The subsidies are
tied to ongoing efforts to complete the long-delayed transition
from the existing analog television broadcast system to a more
advanced, digital, system.
Currently, U.S. broadcasters transmit in both modes, using
previously licensed frequencies for analog broadcasts and new
spectrum given to them for digital broadcasts. When the transition
is complete, the old frequencies are to be auctioned off and used
for a host of new telecommunications services. Most importantly for
congressional budgeteers, those auctions are expected to raise huge
amounts of revenue-$10 billion according to the Congressional
Budget Office and more than twice that amount according to some
outside estimates.
Crucially, the
legislation adopted by the committee yesterday set a firm
date-April 7, 2009-when the old frequencies will be returned. For
the vast majority of Americans, nothing will change on that date.
Some 85 percent of U.S. households receive television signals
through cable or satellite services, rather than broadcasts, and so
the broadcast conversion will not directly affect them. However,
those that do watch over-the-air broadcast signals will not have
any TV reception after that date unless they own a digital
television set or a set-top converter box for digital
broadcasts.
The new subsidy is
intended to address this issue. "We plan to provide a set-top
box…to everyone who needs a box," said Sen. Stevens early
last week. Specifically, the legislation provides for the federal
government to pick up almost the complete cost of the set-top
boxes, which it estimates to cost $50 to $60 apiece.
Consumers would be responsible for only a "co-pay" of
$10.
The converter box
subsidy is not a new idea. Proponents point to a similar, though
more limited, program employed in Berlin when that city moved to
digital television in 2003. Using subsidies to ease the transition
in the U.S. has immense political appeal. Lawmakers fear the wrath
of angry viewers suddenly unable to tune into their favorite
shows.
Ultimately,
however, subsidies are the wrong thing to do. There is no federal
entitlement to analog television, nor should there be one. Viewers
have been on notice of the transition for nearly a decade, and
there is no reason for those who have prepared for it to subsidize
those who have not.
Still, the real
surprise last week was not the subsidy itself, but its size. Even
many subsidy supporters imagined that it would cost perhaps a few
hundred million dollars. A study by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) this February estimated that the subsidy would cost no
more than $2 billion and as little as $463 million.
The Senate
committee's plan exceeds GAO's top-end estimate by a billion
dollars, which is real money even in Washington. Instead of a
limited, narrowly tailored program, the plan would provide set-top
boxes to everyone, with few or no limits. Aid is not targeted to
those in financial need-even the rich would receive subsidies for
their old televisions. Equally problematic, the subsidy would not
be limited to those dependent on over-the-air TV. Even households
with cable and satellite subscriptions would be eligible to receive
aid.
This is
significant; while only a small fraction of households have
only over-the-air reception, many more have extra TVs
stashed away in the spare bedroom or basement that are not
connected to cable or satellite service. Under the Senate plan,
these TVs will get set-top boxes courtesy of the federal
government-at a cost that probably exceeds the value of the TV sets
themselves.
Defenders of the
program argue that its costs will not fall on the taxpayer because
the money needed will be offset from the $10 billion or more
expected from the sale of the analog television frequencies.
Nonsense-money is fungible and every dollar spent, from whatever
source, means that one less dollar is available for deficit
reduction, other programs, or tax cuts. It is simply not free
money.
This week, the
House Commerce Committee is expected to take up the issue. That
committee's draft legislation, circulated last Friday, would create
a much smaller program, costing some $990 million. The House plan
calls for vouchers worth $40, leaving consumers responsible for the
rest of the cost. It also limits households to two subsidized
set-top boxes each. While an improvement over than the Senate plan,
the House subsidy is still too broad. Among other things, it should
require a showing of financial need by recipients and a showing
that the recipient has no subscription television service and is
dependent on over-the-air TV.
Or even better,
the House could eliminate this unnecessary subsidy completely.
James
L. Gattuso is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage
Foundation.