Opposition to Tyranny of S.786 Grows Stronger

[donsutherland1]

The June 23, 2005 issue of the Ellsworth American, Maine's largest weekly newspaper revealedthat S.786 would not assure the survival of NOAA Weather Radio:

Does that mean the broadcasts and online forecasts currently offered by the Weather Service would be halted?

Santorum Press Secretary Robert Traynham couldn’t give assurance that the weather radio so vital to Maine marine interests wouldn’t be at risk if the bill passed. “In all likelihood, if the product was available before the non-competition policy was revoked in December 2004, it would be available upon passage of the act,” he wrote. However, he didn’t specify whether that “product” would be delivered by NOAA weather radio or some other medium.

Opposition to this modern-day "Townsend Act" on the exchange of weather information continues to grow stronger. The July 2005 issue of BoatUS magazine, published by the Boat Owners Association of the United States, condemns S.786 and calls for the defeat of Senator Santorum.

"Meanwhile, three really big boos for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) who is up for re-election in 2006 and was facing a battle even before he introduced a bill, S. 786, that would restrict NOAA’s broadcasting to emergency weather and permit private companies like AccuWeather (reportedly a Pennsylvania company) to use NOAA’s information to provide “non-emergency” weather information for a fee," the magazine opines, "Prudent mariners rely on NOAA’s weather forecasts. It’s not much of a stretch to say that abiding by weather forecasts is an essential part of safe navigation. But even now, not enough boaters listen to weather forecasts as it is. Can you imagine the disruption that such legislation might cause if suddenly you had to pay a monthly fee such as those for cable TV or Sirius satellite radio? Tens of thousands of boaters would do without or might rely on less reliable weather forecasts."

Finally, it urges, "It’s time to deep-six ill-conceived ideas like this and relegate those who propose them to the dust bin of history."

Just as the American colonists fought against the tyranny of "taxation without representation" some two centuries ago, the 21st century American public is now increasingly rising against Senator Santorum's bid to "tax" public safety by reducing the public's access to weather information. The Senate should take history's cue and dump this bad legislation into the Potomac River, just as Bostonians hurled the British East India Company's tea into Boston Harbor.

In 2006, Pennsylvanians should elect a new Senator who will truly represent them and serve their needs. When an incumbent refuses to protect arrangements that are "the most wholesome and necessary for the public good" and instead places the desires of special interests ahead of the public welfare, his constituents have the freedom to exercise the right to "abolish" his tenure. In embracing special interest demands at the expense of the public good, Senator Santorum has ceased to represent the people who elected him. Now, the moment for the people of Pennsylvania to replace him is drawing nearer. In 2006, that time will arrive.