Congressional Republicans Ready to Cut CPB Funding

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The church gets a deal like that and they seem to manage.

Maybe you are not paying attention. The American church as we have known it is dying. From out here in Hooterville I drive 22 miles to be a part of one that may be surviving in the traditional sense.

What does seem to be surviving is the church-gone-Las Vegas with a live band and dancing Gospel Babes fronting the show. But once again, this is a product of your beloved cities. You don't "manage" with 200 to 300 member in one of those operations. You need a flock somewhere between 3,000 and 20,000 to pull that off. Out here in Hooterville some of them "seem to manage" with their hybrid of "Hard Rock Cafe meets the Original Bob Wills Texas Roadhouse Music" concept.

So do outfits like the United Way and the Red Cross and they just keep raking in the bucks.

In the city? Out here in Hooterville and Mayberry, we don't have either of those organizations. Now my version of Hooterville is nestled up close to one of Americas big cities, so at fund raising time both of those groups do find a way to put in their annual appearance here.

I've noticed that the American city-centric culture is not at all bashful about coming out and inviting the youngsters of Hooterville and Mayberry to join the military and wander off to some pretty tacky parts of the world in the name of "Saving the Bacon" for you folks who live where God intended people to live. And your not bashful about gathering up Mayberry's National Guard Unit for multiple trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. And when they come home injured and need the medical care a veteran is entitled to, you expect them to maybe drive 100-150 miles to a big-city-based Veterans Administration facility which means to get in line for 9:00 O'clock sign in they have to drive the night before and pay a hotel bill out of pocket.

But heaven forbid that you might have to spend 7-cents or $1.07 or maybe $7 of your annual tax bill on enabling Public Radio to exist out here.

Is this thread really the biggest problem you and I have to deal with today? I'm lucky. I get the big-city NPR station on the days the wind blows the right direction and sun spots are not doing the hoochy-koochy. But the folks over the next ridge north of me are just S-O-L.

 

[MattParker]

It's interesting to hear the case for using taxes to support public radio in Hooterville and Mayberry, since any tax support for public radio would be expressly unconstitutional under Article I, section eight of the constitution of the Confederate States of America.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It's interesting to hear the case for using taxes to support public radio in Hooterville and Mayberry, since any tax support for public radio would be expressly unconstitutional under Article I, section eight of the constitution of the Confederate States of America.

I just pulled up Article 1, section 8 and read it through a coupe of times.

I didn't find anything that looked very "expressly" there to be harvested.

Apparently no sharp lawyer has ever found anything there that looked very "expressly" and succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to announce to all of us that "Matt's view shall henceforth be the law of the land."

Maybe you can tell us where to find the secretly hidden code language in Article 1.

 

[Kelly Watts]

I worked for several years in a small market COMMERCIAL TV station. We had no where near the money to spend on equipment and programming that the nearby PUBLIC TV station did. What really FROSTED me was listening to the G.M. of that PUBLIC TV station cry that he only had "X" amount of programming dollars, which was about 10X what we had. P.B.S. has some good points, but with the days of limited TV reception behind us it is time to slaughter the cow.

 

[MattParker]

It's interesting to hear the case for using taxes to support public radio in Hooterville and Mayberry, since any tax support for public radio would be expressly unconstitutional under Article I, section eight of the constitution of the Confederate States of America.

I just pulled up Article 1, section 8 and read it through a coupe of times.

I didn't find anything that looked very "expressly" there to be harvested.

Apparently no sharp lawyer has ever found anything there that looked very "expressly" and succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to announce to all of us that "Matt's view shall henceforth be the law of the land."

Maybe you can tell us where to find the secretly hidden code language in Article 1.

...nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry...neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Matt: Maybe you are more of a Mayberry guy than I realized. The language you just quoted appears in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and has been picked up by the Tea Party for some on line stuff.

I've read through Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution several times now and searched Google high and wide and I don't find the language that you are clinging to.

 

[MattParker]

Matt: Maybe you are more of a Mayberry guy than I realized. The language you just quoted appears in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and has been picked up by the Tea Party for some on line stuff.

I've read through Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution several times now and searched Google high and wide and I don't find the language that you are clinging to.

I know where it's from. That's what I said in the earlier post you quoted. The CSA kept most of the Philly version but did come up with some interesting improvements. Of course, the Loyalists have a far better system up North and they didn't have to fight a revolution or a civil war in the process. They just had all their property stolen by the so-called "patriots" in the name of "liberty" (and no taxation, that one didn't quite work out).

 

[DonTheTrucker]

But heaven forbid that you might have to spend 7-cents or $1.07 or maybe $7 of your annual tax bill on enabling Public Radio to exist out here.

The old "7 cents a day" trick may work to get people to spend $3000 on pinstripes and floormats for a new Buick, but it doesn't work when the money is being taken from the citizens without asking.

I don't care if it's one cent every 100 years, it's still too much. Why should one group of radio stations be favored over another? You may think that playing classical music or sleep-inducing talk shows is worth paying for. Great. You par for it. Stop taking my money to do it. I'd rather spend that $1.07 on cookies at McDonalds.

 

[MattParker]

But heaven forbid that you might have to spend 7-cents or $1.07 or maybe $7 of your annual tax bill on enabling Public Radio to exist out here.

The old "7 cents a day" trick may work to get people to spend $3000 on pinstripes and floormats for a new Buick, but it doesn't work when the money is being taken from the citizens without asking.

I don't care if it's one cent every 100 years, it's still too much. Why should one group of radio stations be favored over another? You may think that playing classical music or sleep-inducing talk shows is worth paying for. Great. You par for it. Stop taking my money to do it. I'd rather spend that $1.07 on cookies at McDonalds.

Don, I can't tell if your objection is philosophical or preferential. Would it be OK if the government funded a station you liked and listened to?

In my case, I like and listen to public radio. I think they can stand on their own. CPB was a good experiment. It's time to end it.

 

[TheBigA]

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.

Actually no, because every President since LBJ has approved the CPB appropriation. And the ones who have spent us into debt are the ones heralded as the champions of small government. So obviously there's something wrong there.

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

No. Public broadcasting and CPB were created by an Act of Congress. The current proposal simply defunds those things. Replacing federal money, especially along the lines you’re talking about, will require a new Act of Congress, or at the very minimum, new regulations from the FCC.

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.

And yet the founding fathers clearly wanted it to be a federal concern, and very early in history of the country, the federal government got involved in education. If we are to be a unified country, we all need to learn and know the same things.

To say local taxes go up because of federal programs ignores the fact that local teacher salaries go up, the retirement roles increase, and more benefits need to be paid. That is a local or state concern, and the local governments are unable to handle those obligations without federal help. The states ASKED for federal involvement, not the other way around.

I remember how the Gulf states reacted after Katrina. The Constitution didn't require the federal government to help those states out. I don't live in the Gulf, and I could complain that my taxes were helping people in another region. But those states requested federal assistance. The government actually couldn't come in without their request. Same with the recent snow emergencies in the Northeast. Same thing with regards to some aspects of federal involvement in education. The states allowed the wolf into the henhouse. They're ill equipped to operate without federal aid. Same also with public broadcasting.

I'm selfish because I resent getting back less from the federal government than I pay in?

No, if that’s what you were saying, it wouldn’t be selfish. You have stated clearly that you use the free services of public broadcasting without paying any membership, so you are getting more than your $2 worth. Where you become selfish is preventing OTHERS from getting THEIR free services.

 

[TheBigA]

The old "7 cents a day" trick may work to get people to spend $3000 on pinstripes and floormats for a new Buick, but it doesn't work when the money is being taken from the citizens without asking.

But they DO ask. Perhaps they didn't ask YOU, but they asked your Representatives.

Every year, CPB goes to the Hill and asks for a new appropriation. And for over 40 years, they got it. They're currently funded through 2013. Thank you.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Don, I can't tell if your objection is philosophical or preferential. Would it be OK if the government funded a station you liked and listened to?

No, it wouldn't. It's purely philosophical. I know there are people who like all sorts of radio and TV stations. The government shouldn't be singling out certain ones and giving them money, no matter who they are. Add on top of that the fact that we're almost at the point of bankruptcy, and cutting this funding is a no brainer.

And like I said before, in return for cutting the money, the restrictions on fundraising should be eased or eliminated altogether. I don't want these stations to go out of business. I want them to stop depending on my tax dollars to stay in business. I have a feeling that they'd be just fine without that small percentage of their total budgets.

 

[TheBigA]

The government shouldn't be singling out certain ones and giving them money, no matter who they are.

The government singles out certain people and gives them money. Singles out certain states and gives them money. Singles out certain countries and gives them money. Why should radio be ignored? You're putting radio at a disadvantage after Bahrain.

Add on top of that the fact that we're almost at the point of bankruptcy, and cutting this funding is a no brainer.

Oh stop with the drama. The United States government won't be going bankrupt. They just print more money, and everyone's happy. Lots of people standing in line to buy US debt. In fact, I just gave some US Savings Bonds as gifts.

And like I said before, in return for cutting the money, the restrictions on fundraising should be eased or eliminated altogether.

But that's not what's happening. Money is just being chopped, and various agencies are being left to fend for themselves. No one is discussing easing restrictions. They're just cutting CPB's appropriation. Have a nice day.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

The government singles out certain people and gives them money. Singles out certain states and gives them money. Singles out certain countries and gives them money. Why should radio be ignored? You're putting radio at a disadvantage after Bahrain.

So 10 million wrongs make a right. Gotcha. As long as you get your grant each year, you don't question where it came from.

Oh stop with the drama. The United States government won't be going bankrupt. They just print more money, and everyone's happy. Lots of people standing in line to buy US debt. In fact, I just gave some US Savings Bonds as gifts.

Are you this financially ignorant? Really? Why don't we just print enough money to give every $10 billion a year salary for doing nothing? If printing money is all it takes to get out of financial trouble. Then we could all have 50,000 watt blowtorch stations to work at and own.

Here's a little advice. I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to insane rantings from someone who hates NPR, but I'm going to try to teach you something anyway.

Government does not produce ANYTHING. All it does is consume. The idea is for it to consume as little as possible, while providing the protections it is supposed to. These protections are purposely limited by our Constitution to the bare minimums to keep us safe from invasion, promote free trade and protect our civil rights to life, liberty and property. Once government steps outside those bounds, it starts taking valuable production from the economy. Since government by definition doesn't produce anything, anything it takes out of the economy is not replaced.

So sorry to break it to you, but there is absolutely NO economical justification for government supporting media outlets.

I don't care if it's $1 or $1 billion. It's not permitted.

And yet the founding fathers clearly wanted it to be a federal concern, and very early in history of the country, the federal government got involved in education. If we are to be a unified country, we all need to learn and know the same things.

So Jimmy Carter was one of the Founders? Do you honestly think no one here actually reads history? I'll even be generous and acknowledge the original DoE from 1867. That's still not the Founders, who were all dead by that point.

If this is the sort of teaching that the federal government is supposed to be doing, we're doomed.

 

[TheBigA]

So 10 million wrongs make a right. Gotcha. As long as you get your grant each year, you don't question where it came from.

I don't get any government grants, so don't aim at me.

So sorry to break it to you, but there is absolutely NO economical justification for government supporting media outlets.

Sure there is. Employment, for one. Thousands of people are employed in the public broadcasting industry. And these people provide a service, especially in radio, that isn't duplicated by commercial operators. In fact, back in 1966, the reason commercial operators were so happy to give up a portion of the FM band to public radio was so it didn't have to provide a bunch of money-losing programming. So its existence actually helps commercial broadcasters make more money.

I don't care if it's $1 or $1 billion. It's not permitted.

Of course it's permitted. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 permits it. No one has seen fit to challenge that law, so it stands.

So Jimmy Carter was one of the Founders? Do you honestly think no one here actually reads history? I'll even be generous and acknowledge the original DoE from 1867. That's still not the Founders, who were all dead by that point.

How about Thomas Jefferson? Is he a founder? He proposed the constitutional right to an education as part of the original Bill of Rights. In fact, most democratic countries have such a right. Jefferson made sure to include it when he wrote the Virginia State Constitution. I know a few things about history.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

How about Thomas Jefferson? Is he a founder? He proposed the constitutional right to an education as part of the original Bill of Rights.

You do realize that the failing of that amendment led to the great public school system we enjoyed up until the last 30 years or so, right? No Child Left Behind ring a bell?

 

[SML]

How about Thomas Jefferson? Is he a founder? He proposed the constitutional right to an education as part of the original Bill of Rights.

You do realize that the failing of that amendment led to the great public school system we enjoyed up until the last 30 years or so, right? No Child Left Behind ring a bell?

Hmm, 30 years ago. Oh yeah, I remember now. Reagan cut the funding for education! What a commie he turned out to be!

 

[Silkie]

How about Thomas Jefferson? Is he a founder? He proposed the constitutional right to an education as part of the original Bill of Rights.

You do realize that the failing of that amendment led to the great public school system we enjoyed up until the last 30 years or so, right? No Child Left Behind ring a bell?

Hmm, 30 years ago. Oh yeah, I remember now. Reagan cut the funding for education! What a commie he turned out to be!

Presidents neither originate spending nor originate spending cuts. That is a power reserved to the House of Representatives. At least according to the Constitution.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Presidents neither originate spending nor originate spending cuts. That is a power reserved to the House of Representatives. At least according to the Constitution.

A technically accurate answer, but for practical purposes, a totally wrong answer.

We elect presidents that we believe can establish desired administration policy, and can then exercise leadership that gains the confidence of Congress who will then go through the technical push-ups you are describing.

When congress does not get things done, we tend to blame the president for anything that happened or did not happen on his watch. Democrats today blame George W Bush for things that only congress could have done. Republicans blame Bill Clinton for things only congress could have done. We blame certain things on Ronald Reagan that only congress could have fixed. etc. etc. etc.

If Mr. Obama hopes to get re-elected, he has to find some way to not only convince a Democratic Senate to work on, he has to be sharp enough to convince a Republican House to also work on "his plan".

Most of us cannot remember who was our congressman 30 years ago, but if he/she screwed up we will certainly blame the President of that era for the problem... who we WILL fremember.

It's the American way. ;D

I came away from the November 2010 elections with the understanding that Republicans gained many legislative seats because THE PRESIDENT had failed to generate sufficient new jobs. (The president gets the credit, the president gets the blame.) I came away with the understanding that our newly elected legislators along with the properly chastened and warned incumbents understood the votes had said: "We want only ONE thing before you move on to anything else: JOBS. JOBS. JOBS."

So why are we talking about CPB Funding in this thread and everybody giving their pet view of public broadcasting: Because Congress is currently fixated on cutting funds for public broadcasting, cutting funds for Planned Parenthood, cutting funds for implementation of the new Health Plan.

The hell with jobs! We have to take care of IMPORTANT business first!

It's a terrible, terrible, terrible system we live under. But it still the best in the world.

 

[Silkie]

If Mr. Obama hopes to get re-elected, he has to find some way to not only convince a Democratic Senate to work on, he has to be sharp enough to convince a Republican House to also work on "his plan".

Or, since Democrats legislated his plan, which got him a "shellackin'", he might want to consider being convinced, as President Clinton did, even if he did have to go along kicking and screaming the whole way.