Congressional Republicans Ready to Cut CPB Funding

[Mark Giardina]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budg...licans-put-npr-pbs-chopping/story?id=12915626

With all of the proposed cuts in the budget and the huge deficit, I wonder if this time the Republicans and Tea Party will get their way?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budg...licans-put-npr-pbs-chopping/story?id=12915626

With all of the proposed cuts in the budget and the huge deficit, I wonder if this time the Republicans and Tea Party will get their way?

Like Obama says, times are tough and cuts have to be made. If the president plans to cut military spending, plus programs for the poor, along with Pell Grants, then it's time to pull the plug on federal funding for NPR & PBS.

Let those who watch or listen to public broadcasting pony up their own money instead.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

What's new? They've been trying this crap off and on for years. If it was a ween-off instead of a cut-off, it would hurt stations less. That's not on the agenda though. It's all about trying to punish NPR for it's poor handling of Williams' dismissal, which was handled as poorly as it possibly could have been. What the panderers that are trying to win brownie-points with their core voters don't realize is that all it will do is hurt music programs and other fringe programs on NPR affilate stations. Morning Addition, Talk of The Nation, shows like Diane Rheem, etc. won't be going away. There might be less local coverage of local politics, many times of speeches from local republican canidates and politicans. Again, it's a witch hunt that won't do anything positive, regardless of what political side a person is on. There are some people within the public radio system that would actually welcome the cut, if there was enough time allowed (maybe a 3-5 year wind-down)as it would free them from the entanglements of getting federal monies. As with most federal things, at times it's more trouble than it's worth. What will be real interesting is to see how the stations' audiences will react to the republican-lead cut to the station funding, if it passes. Before it's over with, the audience may decide to vote with their pocket book and more than replace the missed money in larger market stations. Again, that's not what those that wish to cut funds want to see. There's an old saying that goes something like this: "Be careful what you wish for..."

 

[MattParker]

The public radio people can't have it both ways:

• When people complained about public radio being tax-supported, they said government money is only a small portion of our revenue.
• Now that there's a serious move to end federal funding, they say public radio will die without it.

Commercial radio has had their income cut, too. Once-major advertisers have cut back or stopped buying radio time altogether. People lost their jobs. People in a lot of fields have been losing their jobs lately. What is so "special" about people working in public radio that they should be immune from an economic downturn that affects others.

There is a lot of fat and waste in public radio. Do they need satellite links and outside studios for all those news interviews when Skype to somebody's office sounds almost as good? Do they need a board op and a director to tell the board op when play a cut? Do they need fancy buildings in prime locations with state of the art equipment? Do executives need such lavish salaries? Do they need so many layers of management?

I say this is not about whether I like or dislike public radio. It's not about whether or not public radio is liberal. It's about whether they need the money and what the government's priorities for where taxpayers' money goes should be. If much of the population has to tighten their belts, where does public radio get off saying it's too important to do the same?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

The public radio people can't have it both ways:

• When people complained about public radio being tax-supported, they said government money is only a small portion of our revenue.
• Now that there's a serious move to end federal funding, they say public radio will die without it.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has thought this. NPR will be fine without federal money.

 

[SML]

The public radio people can't have it both ways:

• When people complained about public radio being tax-supported, they said government money is only a small portion of our revenue.
• Now that there's a serious move to end federal funding, they say public radio will die without it.

Commercial radio has had their income cut, too. Once-major advertisers have cut back or stopped buying radio time altogether. People lost their jobs. People in a lot of fields have been losing their jobs lately. What is so "special" about people working in public radio that they should be immune from an economic downturn that affects others.

There is a lot of fat and waste in public radio. Do they need satellite links and outside studios for all those news interviews when Skype to somebody's office sounds almost as good? Do they need a board op and a director to tell the board op when play a cut? Do they need fancy buildings in prime locations with state of the art equipment? Do executives need such lavish salaries? Do they need so many layers of management?

I say this is not about whether I like or dislike public radio. It's not about whether or not public radio is liberal. It's about whether they need the money and what the government's priorities for where taxpayers' money goes should be. If much of the population has to tighten their belts, where does public radio get off saying it's too important to do the same?

OK, so let me get this straight. Public radio is wasteful because they have board ops and staff to make sure programming go on the air as scheduled? OK, sure, so automation can handle that. Except when a a real person needs to be at the radio station and can break in to the robo programming to inform the audience that there is something going on. Humans keeping an eye on operations costs $$. Welcome to the real world. Your argument reminds me of the "efficiency" of much of commercial radio. Weather emergency? Civic emergency? There isn't anybody at the station, so nobody will hear anything from them. Might as well just listen to your iPod.
Matt, when you talk about a board op and a director making sure the programs are being done properly, you are speaking about NPR and morning Edition, ATC, and others where a production staff actually produces the program, and not most of the local public stations out there. Network and local are different animals. But even NPR has reduced the news staff and they now run their own control boards and play the actualities. If anything, the network has been doing more with less for many years. I don't know what planet you are on, but public stations have been cutting expenses, and trying to be more efficient for years. They do quite a bit with very little. Many non-commercial community stations in the US depend on volunteers that outnumber staff by a 10 to 1 ratio in many places. Or maybe you are one of the Brenda Pennell camp that says that "volunteers cost stations too much money". Good grief.... The real casualties of this witch hunt will be the local stations in smaller communities, who get CSG grants to support local programming and don't even contribute to NPR.
The real reason that many on the Republican right hate NPR and PBS (and public broadcasting in general) is because they can't control them. They can't influence the programming. The NPR reporters ask tough questions, and spend minutes and hours (instead of seconds) covering politics. So the only thing they know to do is cut off what little funding is dribbled to them through the local stations via the CPB community service grants, which go to local stations to support programming that THEY choose to run on their stations.
Yes, NPR would survive, but it would diminish in importance and effectiveness, because the local stations would not have enough $$ to send them, and cut programs that are too expensive, a la cart. And NPR would then not have enough resources to cover the various bodies of government, business, and much of anything else that requires out of the beltway travel. For the Republican congress, this would be win-win, mission accomplished, and remove the spotlight on their efforts. It is all very clever, don't you think?

And yes, it has been going on for quite a while. While walking into one of the first meetings of the 1995 Congress, Newt looked at an NPR reporters name tag, waved his finger at him and said "oh yeah, NPR, we are going to zero you out". Nice guy, don't you think?

 

[Silkie]

The President made the first suggestion. There are areas where they agree on some things, you know.

 

[TheBigA]

It's about whether they need the money and what the government's priorities for where taxpayers' money goes should be. If much of the population has to tighten their belts, where does public radio get off saying it's too important to do the same?

Because it's a domestic use of taxpayer money. If your premise is about government priorities, then the very simple way to set those priorities is to pass a law that taxpayer money can only be spent on things that directly benefit US taxpayers. That means no more foreign aid, no more moreign spending, no more trade deals that benefit foreign companies, and no more stationing of American troops on foreign soil unless they are paid for by those foreign governments.

I think if all those things are followed, they can spare $400 million for some radio and TV stations.

You continually make this statement that they don't need the money, and you justify that opinion with a handful of rich stations in major markets. But you ignore the larger part of the system that DOES need the money, and will be destroyed if the money disappears. This movement in the House is NOT about priorities. It's simply about politics, and a handful of Republicans who want to zero-out NPR. That's all it's about. And all the facts clearly prove it. To believe otherwise ignores the obvious.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

We're 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. TRILLION WITH A "T".

We can't afford ANYTHING that isn't necessary. The "arts" and broadcasting aren't necessary. Balance the budget, and then we'll talk about this.

ribute to NPR.
The real reason that many on the Republican right hate NPR and PBS (and public broadcasting in general) is because they can't control them. They can't influence the programming.

You do realize that the exact same thing could be said about the left and conservative media outlets like talk radio and Fox News, right?

 

[TheBigA]

We can't afford ANYTHING that isn't necessary. The "arts" and broadcasting aren't necessary. Balance the budget, and then we'll talk about this.

The debt and balancing the budget are not the same thing. You can balance the budget and still be trillions in debt. Which is what all the current proposals do. So don't create some fiction that eliminating arts and public broadcasting will erase 14 trillion dollars in debt. Because it doesn't even begin to work on that number. It's just selective defunding by people who simply hate arts and public broadcasting, regardless of the governments financial status.

 

[MattParker]

Because it's a domestic use of taxpayer money. If your premise is about government priorities, then the very simple way to set those priorities is to pass a law that taxpayer money can only be spent on things that directly benefit US taxpayers. That means no more foreign aid, no more moreign spending, no more trade deals that benefit foreign companies, and no more stationing of American troops on foreign soil unless they are paid for by those foreign governments.

I think if all those things are followed, they can spare $400 million for some radio and TV stations.

You continually make this statement that they don't need the money, and you justify that opinion with a handful of rich stations in major markets. But you ignore the larger part of the system that DOES need the money, and will be destroyed if the money disappears. This movement in the House is NOT about priorities. It's simply about politics, and a handful of Republicans who want to zero-out NPR. That's all it's about. And all the facts clearly prove it. To believe otherwise ignores the obvious.

We are not talking foreign aid or anything else. Even if the government had a surplus of cash, money should not go to public radio. It's not about politics. I don't hate NPR. It's not about any of the red herring issues you bring up. None of them matter any way.

Public radio doesn't need the money. You keep saying there is a "handful" of stations that don't need the money. I don't buy it.

Public radio can not be really independent when it takes government funding, which always has strings attached.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio doesn't need the money. You keep saying there is a "handful" of stations that don't need the money. I don't buy it.

Show me the "facts" on which you base that view. I'd like to see detailed budgets of all public stations and how much waste and innecessary spending there is. I think you'll find that this information is online and readily available.

Public radio can not be really independent when it takes government funding, which always has strings attached.

It is my experience that all money has strings attached. But the government system eliminates the typical strings by placing a series of intermediaries between the government and the stations. In fact, any "defunding" of public broadcasting would not take effect for two years. The goal isn't for public broadcasting, or ANY broadcasting to be independent, but rather to be responsive to the needs of the people. Some government money has strings attached, and it's likely that will not change, even if the standard CPB grants disappear.

 

[TheBigA]

And before you ask ME to prove you wrong, let me point out that every year, CPB takes the very information I'm discussing and presents it to the various appropriations committees in the House. So the members of these committees know very well that public radio needs the money, and they know exactly what this is about.As a result, they've increased the appropriation every year for almost 15 years. Which is why, as I've said before, this move to defund public broadcasting won't happen.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

The debt and balancing the budget are not the same thing. You can balance the budget and still be trillions in debt.

But you can't get out of debt and run a deficit. It just isn't possible. We have to cut a LOT of stuff, and there are priorities. Unfortunately for public broadcasting, they're low on that list. Defending our country and having decent roads are more important than this week's Prairie Home Companion. It sucks for the people who produce that show and work with it, but that's life. The rest of us have to live within our means, it's time the government did too.

The good news is, if the government gets responsible with spending, the economy will turn around, and the good people that listen to public radio can donate more money.

I'd also totally support lifting all the stupid rules regarding fundraising by public broadcasters. If they're to fend for themselves, they shouldn't be shackled down.

 

[TheBigA]

Defending our country and having decent roads are more important than this week's Prairie Home Companion.

Maybe you don't know, but maintenance of roads come mostly from state and local budgets, funded by local gas taxes. So don't make it sound like one has to choose between roads and radio. That's not true.

The good news is, if the government gets responsible with spending, the economy will turn around, and the good people that listen to public radio can donate more money.

And if you put wings on pigs they can fly. Look, this government will not get responsible with spending. After all the hoo ha, all the regular programs, including public broadcasting, will get funded. And the Republicans will get lots of money to name more things after Ronald Reagan.

I'd also totally support lifting all the stupid rules regarding fundraising by public broadcasters. If they're to fend for themselves, they shouldn't be shackled down.

That's great. Let me know when you get elected to Congress.

 

[MattParker]

@BigA: Highway funding is 90% federal; 10% state. Since you twist facts to suit you, I see know reason to believe your claims that most public radio stations need federal money. Especially since public radio stations have long claimed federal money is only a small part of their budgets.

Someone complains about the money going to public radio and you change the subject to money going to something else. Someone offers reasonable suggestions about how public radio might be financed differently or more effectively, you cynically dismiss those suggestions ("you're not in congress," "it will never happen"). All you do is obstinately defend the status quo.

The stations in my market and in nearby markets have: Fancy new buildings in prime locations. State of the art equipment and facilities. Highly paid executives. And enough money left over to start up for-profit subsidiaries. These stations reach most of the US population. I don't care about Hooterville Public Radio and all those boondocks stations you claim are out there. If they can't get support from their communities and local underwriters maybe they don't deserve to continue. You keep wanting to talk about other ways the federal government throws around money (making the argument if they waste money on that, they should throw some at public radio, too): I am sick of surcharges to my phone bill for rural phone service. I am sick of surcharges for universal broadband. I am sick of covering the higher costs of rural mail and rural roads. I am sick of paying farmers for losing money or for not growing something. So don't expect a lot of sympathy if Mayberry Public Radio wants continued access to the federal teat.

If your mindset is typical of people in public radio, I think we know what their problem is.

 

[TheBigA]

@BigA: Highway funding is 90% federal; 10% state.

You're talking about construction. My post clearly said maintenance. Didn't it?

Since you twist facts to suit you, I see know reason to believe your claims that most public radio stations need federal money. Especially since public radio stations have long claimed federal money is only a small part of their budgets.

Don't believe me. But as I clearly said, the CPB shows budgets to Congress every year during appropriations hearings. The facts don't lie, and Congress knows it. Except the handful of freshmen who've never attended hearings before. So while they are ready to cut funding, the majority of Congress is not. Regardless of what you believe.

The President of the US sees the big picture. He knows we have to cut the debt, but he knows we can't cut domestic services. His budget not only retained the full CPB appropriation, but included an increase. While also meeting the goals of cutting costs and balancing the budget. But a small group of freshmen Republicans don't like his budget. They feel they know more than the President. I'm pretty sure they will lose.

Someone complains about the money going to public radio and you change the subject to money going to something else. Someone offers reasonable suggestions about how public radio might be financed differently or more effectively, you cynically dismiss those suggestions ("you're not in congress," "it will never happen"). All you do is obstinately defend the status quo.

Because no one in Congress is talking about replacing federal money. They're just talking about elimination. That is the dicussion on the table. Not how it could be financed differently. That discussion is irrelevant to this topic, and useless when made on message boards. The reason I talk about money going elsewhere is the claim is made that the country is in debt, and we have to cut somewhere. Then why aren't the budget cutters showing the public the bigger picture? Why are they only cutting domestic spending? Seems like taxpayers are getting screwed here, not just in public broadcasting, but in school lunch programs and other domestic programs on the chopping block. I can't understand why there is no outcry to these legislators cutting domestic programs that affect millions of people, while they approve tax breaks that help the rich. Makes no sense to me at all. If we're broke and we need to cut the debt, the quickest and easiest way would be to fix the tax system.

The stations in my market and in nearby markets have: Fancy new buildings in prime locations. State of the art equipment and facilities. Highly paid executives. And enough money left over to start up for-profit subsidiaries. These stations reach most of the US population. I don't care about Hooterville Public Radio and all those boondocks stations you claim are out there.

That's a very selfish approach, not caring about the millions of people who also pay taxes, but will likely lose their services, while you can sit back and continue to freeload off the money and work of others. The reason you pay for poor or rural people is because you can. On the one side, you feel it's fine to screw the entire country because of a few rich public stations. Then on the other, you personally resent paying surcharges for poor and rural people. You pay because you can. Since you feel the rich stations can exist without federal money, you can exist just fine by supporting the poor.

The reason you pay for rural America is because those people have representation in Congress too. They get a vote. And in the Senate, their vote is worth as much as yours.

But as I have said, this entire selfish discussion is moot, because the facts are on the table, and at the end of the day, Congress will do what it's always done, and vote in favor of the status quo you dislike. And they'll do it because they, like you, are selfish.

 

[MattParker]

The highway trust fund, funded from gas taxes, also covers maintenance.

I get it: The president see the big picture. But only when it's a president you like and/or a president with whose positions you happen to agree.

It's up to the stations to replace federal money; not congress.

School lunch programs: Another boondoggle. Tax subsidies for people too irresponsible to send kids off to school with a PB&J. Education, and anything related to it, is no business of the federal government. Under the constitution it is strictly a local concern. Every year, school taxes go up to fund federally mandated programs (and bureaucrats hired to manage them). Every year, academic performance goes down.

I'm selfish because I resent getting back less from the federal government than I pay in? These rural districts and fly-over states keep electing the same people year after year, based solely on their ability to deliver pork. And I'm selfish? These rural habitual consumers of tax money sound like the selfish ones to me. They get more back than they put in and then go to their tea bag rallies to complain about taxes.

If anybody is selfish here, it's public radio and the people who work in it. Selfish because they feel an entitlement to money taken from other people.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't care about Hooterville Public Radio and all those boondocks stations you claim are out there. If they can't get support from their communities and local underwriters maybe they don't deserve to continue. You keep wanting to talk about other ways the federal government throws around money (making the argument if they waste money on that, they should throw some at public radio, too): I am sick of surcharges to my phone bill for rural phone service. I am sick of surcharges for universal broadband. I am sick of covering the higher costs of rural mail and rural roads. I am sick of paying farmers for losing money or for not growing something. So don't expect a lot of sympathy if Mayberry Public Radio wants continued access to the federal teat.

If your mindset is typical of people in public radio, I think we know what their problem is.

I live in Hooterville, just down the road from Mayberry. I paid my dues (taxes if you prefer) for a lifetime while living in the congested city that congress won't come to grips with (can you say public transportation?).

Out here in Hooterville we make it possible for you to have chicken and beef and bread on your table because the restless natives here do their farming. And the Hooterville farmers are as angry about Federal farm programs as you are: most of that money goes to big corporate "factory farms" which are owned by the hedgefund dudes who live in the big city just down the street from you, Matt.

Out here in Hooterville we are quite steamed that the current political climate of the U. S. passes all kinds of laws that make it not only desireable but almost necessary for power companies, phone companies, banks, insurance companies and other to pull most of their facilities out of Hooterville and move all the significant jobs to the big city. We can no longer go down and meet with the president of the bank and encourage him to be a supporter of the Mayberry NPR station. We can talk to a "bank manager-clerk" who tells us anyone who can discuss such a request for a donation is now four states away, in the big city.

I'm really heartbroken that it is so upsetting to you that maybe 7-cents a year comes out of your pocket so public radio can function out here in the Hootervilles of America. The next time a second-assistant vice-president of the bank is in town to restock the ATM machine, I'll ask if they would like to joint venture with me. I will contribute 3-1/2 cents toward making you whole again if the bank from four states away will fund the other 3-1/2 cents.

SARCASM MODE OFF:

Matt: I laid the Southern Red-Eye gravy on pretty thick to help you see just how childish the whole political atmosphere of America has become. My father ran his cattle farm until age 82. If you want to talk about the follies of the American farm program... we can have an extended conversation. Or maybe we could talk about the political World War III that seems to have erupted in Wisconsin where big city money has been sent out to whip Hooterville and Mayberry into shape.

If you are going to have a hand in killing public radio as a concept, you need to get it done now. At the rate they are going, with more and more citizens discovering this hidden treasure in their midst every day, your ability to "drown NPR like a baby in a bathtub" will be long gone if you do not act quickly. (Apologies to Grover Norquist for doing a re-mix and mash-up of his most famous statement.)

 

[MattParker]

I say po-tae-to and you say po-tah-to.
I say make public radio self-supporting and you say kill public radio.

I guess you don't think public radio as a concept can survive on its own. I do.

Cut CPB funding and what's left?
* Listener contributions - tax deductible.
* Underwriting - tax deductible.
* Non-profit status - they don't pay taxes.

The church gets a deal like that and they seem to manage. So do outfits like the United Way and the Red Cross and they just keep raking in the bucks. Again special treatment for public radio (and some other artsy groups). Public radio has been described as a fund-raising organization with a satellite dish. Not only do they get all those tax-exempt benefits, they get taxes, too.

Do we really need public radio? About as much as we need a danz station.