Were I an American taxpayer, so would I. As a British taxpayer, where it is relevant here, so do I.

I think you hold your legislators to too low a standard. Moreover, if you're comfortable with government spending large sums, on a utilitarian basis, or merely because it oils the wheels, that's hardly a compelling argument for compelling other taxpayers who disagree to stump up. Is there any point at which expenditure aimed at buying votes becomes too great even for you to stomach? And isn't buying votes, ahem, corrupt?

I'll give you this much, however: you've done a better job than did Nancy Pelosi of articulating your support for millions in STD prevention in an economic pump-priming bill. On the other hand, since she has to run for office, maybe she's embarrassed to admit to spending hundreds of millions in order to buy legislative votes. It's not called 'pork' for nothing.

I don't know a huge amount about American private health insurance, but I'm pretty sure that in a free market for such insurance the premia you would pay would reflect the risk you yourself pose. If you're underwriting teenage STDs I suspect it's because government regulation requires you to. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but you're overall very easy with the idea of government impositions on your goodwill particularly where, as here, said imposition is underpinned by nothing more pressing than whether a girl has a good time. And if you are happy to be obliged to subsidise teenagers through your health insurance, then justifying further spend on prevention is an indictment of that prior consent.

If it's any consolation, here in Britain we have healthcare free at the point of demand. Condoms and abortions are made freely available to girls below the age of consent, and in spite of their parents' wishes. Yet teenage and young adult STD occurrence has gone through the roof in the last decade.

But putting aside all questions of coercion and obligation and legislative policy in the name of the 'common good', surely if you want USD330m of STD prevention funded by the taxpayer, you ought to argue for it on its own merits, rather than burying it a mammoth so-called bailout.