Trump budget plan could privatize CPB, cause uncertain future for NPR/PBS

[TheBigA]

I think it's philosophical. There's far less of a need now for the Public Broadcasting construct than there was when it was conceived.

It doesn't matter. The law is the law. You want to change it? Repeal it. But they don't have the votes.

There are a lot of places where the public station is the only station with live staff, the only station providing news coverage and educational programming, and the only station that allows local volunteer involvement, even with all the additional commercial stations in the market. If you read the Public Broadcasting Act, you'll see that the circumstances that led to its creation 50 years ago still exist today, especially with the consolidation of radio. Sure, there are some places, like big cities, where they can exist without government funding. But there are a lot of rural areas where they can't. That's why a lot of rural Republicans in the deep south support continued funding.

My point is that I think public radio could succeed on its own without federal funding because there is so much redundancy.

Once again, you're talking about a big city. The majority of stations are in rural areas where there's only one public station. Also, redundancy is a major issue in government. There are lots of examples where they have multiple departments doing the same thing. That's a real place where cost cutting could take place. But they've never been able to get it done.

 

[joebtsflk1]

I don't think it will have much impact on Public Radio stations. But I wish it would. Some of these organizations need a wakeup call and a lesson on spending money. In my state IPR has no fewer than 6 signals covering Des Moines, 4 of which are duplicates. They have 5 signals covering the Quad Cities, 3 of which are duplicates. That is ridiculous. The cost of purchasing and operating all these stations is absurd.

Of the signals you mention in Des Moines, only one provides true market coverage, 90.1 WOI-FM. All the rest are failed commercial rim-shotters bought on the cheap, except their Des Moines translator-Mitchellville parent, the Mitchellville station existing only as a full power translator of KUNI.

 

[umfan]

I guess I'm curious why you think there wouldn't be the votes to curtail CPB funding. I think it's more likely than not that the funding will be cut. Further, the Public Broadcasting Act need not be repealed to cut the funding to even a nominal level, it simply needs to be part of the annual budget legislation.

If CPB funding is eliminated or even significantly cut, it stands to reason that some of the smaller stations would cease to operate, but I agree with justgladtobe here, that many, if not most, of the stations would be able to sustain themselves as their donors would step up and they could cut costs.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess I'm curious why you think there wouldn't be the votes to curtail CPB funding.

Because of everything I've already said in this thread. Republicans want to transfer money and power to the states. Give local public broadcasting authorities the funding to serve local audiences. Plus the appointee for the Director of Management & Budget is from South Carolina, where they have a strong state-owned public broadcasting authority. He's seen it in action. He knows that it works. So while he is all for cutting the federal bureaucracy, and he may question the size of CPB and its DC-based staff, he won't have any problem with them giving federal money to local districts.

If CPB funding is eliminated or even significantly cut, it stands to reason that some of the smaller stations would cease to operate,

But that's the problem. Most of the Representatives come from smaller districts where that federal money is what keeps local public broadcasting alive. The bigger, more powerful stations are in Democratic areas, like Boston, DC, and San Francisco. Perhaps they could talk about a change in the way CPB funds local stations, based on need rather than other factors. But that wouldn't change the fact that these Congressmen want to cut the size of federal government, while transferring it to state control. That's exactly the system the Republicans created for public broadcasting during the Reagan administration. While you may have heard some sabre rattling about cutting this department when the tea party got into Congress a few years ago, they quickly learned the rest of the story, and you haven't heard anything about this issue since. In the meantime, Congress has advance funded CPB for two more years, so even if they made any cuts, it would have no effect for a few years.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm curious why do you think the new Congress and administration, with so many priorities on its list, will instead focus attention on a relatively small appropriation that follows their mantra of turning money and power to local districts? Other than the article in the OP, which comes from the progressive thinking Media Matters, are any conservatives talking about public broadcasting? I haven't seen it anywhere. This sounds like progressives firing up their base in anticipation for some battle that might not happen.

 

[umfan]

How much attention would it require? As the annual budget is prepared, reduce the line item for CPB. Not much effort at all and it would fire up the base.

 

[TheBigA]

How much attention would it require? As the annual budget is prepared, reduce the line item for CPB. Not much effort at all and it would fire up the base.

The base doesn't care. This isn't the issue it may have been 6 years ago. No one is talking about it at all. Planned Parenthood is a much bigger priority. Those who may have been opposed 6 years ago now understand this is funding for their district, and are no longer talking about defunding. They were always a small minority anyway. The majority of Republicans, especially those from the south and Midwest, are in favor of funding. Public broadcasting is huge in Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Indiana. It will continue to get federal funding because the states want it. You have to pick your battles, and this year's battle, already signaled by the Speaker, is Planned Parenthood.

 

[umfan]

http://www.gopusa.com/the-end-of-taxpayer-funded-public-broadcasting/

Momentum is building to cut or eliminate funding for NPR and CPB. Two bills to accomplish this have been introduced in the House.

 

[TheBigA]

Momentum is building to cut or eliminate funding for NPR and CPB. Two bills to accomplish this have been introduced in the House.

Two bills from the same guy. Doesn't sound like "momentum building" to me. As many have said about the budget, these two bills are DOA.

Sure, federal funding for many things are threatened. But it don't mean a thing until something gets signed.

Let me add that if Ken Burns is left wing, then the target should be General Motors, because that's where he gets the bulk of his money. Not Congress. And we all know how left wing General Motors is, right?

 

[umfan]

Not sure I agree with the talk about Ken Burns, but if other, far more useful programs face cuts, then it's going to be hard to CPB/NPR to be spared.

 

[TheBigA]

Not sure I agree with the talk about Ken Burns, but if other, far more useful programs face cuts, then it's going to be hard to CPB/NPR to be spared.

I have no reason to believe that ANY programs will be cut. This is the same Congress that has voted for these programs year after year. Nothing has changed in Congress. The Republicans have been in the majority for years. No reason to believe they've changed. They haven't. For years, previous presidents have seen their budgets DOA. This one will be no different.

The money for CPB has already been appropriated 2 years in advance, and it will take 60 votes to cut it after that. Plus it will take a rewrite of the Public Broadcasting Act to "privatize" CPB. Congress can't just say a public agency is now private.

 

[TheBigA]

People wonder how CPB continues to get its appropriation, and the answer is because the state governors (many of whom are Republican) want it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/u...ernors-say-no-thanks.html?mabReward=A2&recp=1

 

[umfan]

When nothing else is on the table they want it, if it becomes a choice between that or something their states actually need, their priorities will almost certainly change.

 

[TheBigA]

When nothing else is on the table they want it, if it becomes a choice between that or something their states actually need, their priorities will almost certainly change.

Keep in mind that this money means local jobs. Local jobs mean votes. Jobs are something every state needs. That's why this is something they actually need.

There has to be a reason why the Republican Congress has voted for this every year. Because their Republican governors want it.

 

[Silkie]

So, is there competition in public conduct with Greece over austerity measures at $20,000,000,000,000.00? The prior administration suggested all of the things we could forego in our homes and lives in order to accommodate signature legislation. Perhaps those who want the corporation for public broadcasting could make donations when PBS stations are asking for money; or donate to the foundations that fund them. Consider the number of people who would donate just $5 and what it amounts to.

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps those who want the corporation for public broadcasting could make donations when PBS stations are asking for money; or donate to the foundations that fund them. Consider the number of people who would donate just $5 and what it amounts to.

You're right, and people do that every day. They get tote bags and other gifts for their donations. But this CPB funding is based on very specific legislation, and it takes another repeal & replace to change it. It's not something that just happens voluntarily. This particular legislation was worked out by the Reagan administration in the 80s. That's why it's set up as funding for the states, not as federal funding for NPR or PBS. It's a very Republican idea.

 

[umfan]

The funding is provided by the Federal Government and there is no requirement that any specific funding level be provided or even that funding be provided. You keep referring to this legislation as if that would somehow prevent funds not being appropriated for CPB and that simply isn't accurate.

As to these 'local jobs', the local PBS affiliates would still operate. They're fond of saying what a small part of their total budgets the CPB funding is, so eliminating it should be no problem for them to absorb.

 

[TheBigA]

The funding is provided by the Federal Government and there is no requirement that any specific funding level be provided or even that funding be provided. You keep referring to this legislation as if that would somehow prevent funds not being appropriated for CPB and that simply isn't accurate.

The legislation is predicated and based around federal funding that is disbursed by a federally-funded agency known as CPB. Read the legislation. The idea of "privatizing CPB," which has been put forth, is contradictory to the intent of the legislation, and there is no mechanism in the legislation that would allow for such "privatization." The operating funds have to come from somewhere. If you want to eliminate the CPB, that won't happen by simply defunding it.

There are no specific funding levels in the Constitution for the Supreme Court or the Congress either. Nothing that states all of these government offices be built on Capitol Hill, these magnificent palaces paid for with taxpayer money. Most of the Congressmen have multiple offices. Those offices have staffs. None of it is required in any legislation. Yet it all gets funded. If Congress wants to save money, the quickest and easiest way to do it is to economize in their own place.

As to these 'local jobs', the local PBS affiliates would still operate. They're fond of saying what a small part of their total budgets the CPB funding is, so eliminating it should be no problem for them to absorb.

Depends on the station. Certainly for stations in blue states like California, Massachusetts, New York, and the District, it won't be a problem. But in red states, like South Carolina, Kentucky, and Texas, where the public stations are owned by the state governments, it creates a problem for the Republican governors. That's what happens when one party controls as much as it does. This is why the government grew so big when the Democrats controlled all these areas. One hand washes the other. That's how self-government works. If you want the reps in a state to vote for your program, you have to vote for theirs. It's easy to blame Democrats for causing the problem, but once they're gone, then it's up to Republicans to make government work. The governors expect federal funding to support services in their state. They will convey that to their reps in DC. That's how it all works.

 

[TheBigA]

It strikes me that this is what happens when you have government run like a business. If that business is successful, then you have no problem. But when you have government with trillion dollar deficits, then government is run like iHeart and Cumulus, where they fire people, shut down services, and operate sloppily, causing the people to associate them with negative things. Imagine a government run the way iHeart runs, firing staff every year around the holidays. That's what this is. Sure, it's a way to cut costs. But it's also a way to attract a bad reputation. When the government depends on the people it supposedly serves for votes and revenue, that's no way to run a business.

"Drain the swamp" is a wonderful battle cry. But it's different when you attach people and families to it. That's what's happening. There's a reason why people in other countries speak with disdain about their government. This is why.

 

[Silkie]

You're right, and people do that every day. They get tote bags and other gifts for their donations. But this CPB funding is based on very specific legislation, and it takes another repeal & replace to change it. It's not something that just happens voluntarily. This particular legislation was worked out by the Reagan administration in the 80s. That's why it's set up as funding for the states, not as federal funding for NPR or PBS. It's a very Republican idea.

So, the Republicans can count on your vote in the next election?