End Government Funding For Public Broadcasting

[The Voice of Reason]

I read in this morning's Democrat & Chronicle newspaper about the state legislature's efforts to reduce spending in New York. One idea I have is to eliminate government funding and grants for public broadcasting.
Now before some of you start saying "here he goes again", I am not opposed to public broadcasting. I think it offers some great programs that commercial radio stations don't.
Instead I truly believe that public broadcasting should be funded by private individuals and corporations and not taxpayers. Instead I would encourage people to support public broadcasting by donating during and after pledge drives.
Yes I have spoken out in the past about the high salaries paid to certain executives and will continue to do so. But that's no reason to eliminate quality programming just because a few people are pulling down big bucks while most employees are paid far less but actually perform the work needed to keep these stations on-the-air.
There are a few people on here, like Bob1370 and maybe even Fybush (both who work for public radio) who may disagree with me. On the other hand doesn't it make sense for individuals to donate to public broadcasting and thus have their contributions deducted on their income taxes, versus having to pay taxes for a service some people don't use? Maybe more people would donate to public broadcasting which then would allow these stations to carry more local programming like 1370 Connection, Need to Know, The Roundtable, and others.
When Lyndon Johnson first started government funding for public broadcasting back in the 1960s, those dollars were supposed to be used as "seed money" to get more stations operating. Well today many of these stations not only are performing a service, but some of them make a great deal of money by generating shows used on other networks (example the History Channel). WGBH is one example of what I am talking about.
During an episode of "The West Wing" one of the lead characters said that just 63 cents per each taxpayer goes towards funding public broadcasting. Well if you add up that 63 cents for each taxpayer in the United States, and here in New York, that ends up to cost millions of dollars. It's time that public broadcasting stands on its own, with the support of course of people who actually use that service.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

If government funding of public broadcasting is in fact 63 cents per taxpayer, it's probably the most efficient use of my tax dollars in the entire budget. I'd call that a bargain.... the best I ever had.

 

[Bob1370]

Here's another misconception many people have...membership money people send to subscribe to their public broadcasting station, the revenue stream that provides by far the majority of PBS and NPR station operating revenue, does NOT come with a tax deduction receipt.

Money paid to buy ad time on a commercial station, however, is 100% tax-deductible for the business that purchases it.

I don't for a moment suggest that commercial ad revenue should be taxable (and some states like Florida have tried to do that, by attempting to impose a sales tax on it). That would be a bad idea.

But people should be aware of where the real tax deductions come from, and where they go, in our business.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

Here's another misconception many people have...membership money people send to subscribe to their public broadcasting station, the revenue stream that provides by far the majority of PBS and NPR station operating revenue, does NOT come with a tax deduction receipt.

I've seen you state this here before, and you are wrong, at least so far as making it as a blanket statement. Donations to 501(c)(3) broadcasters are tax deductible less the value of any premium received. And I have received a letter from more than one public broadcaster in acknowledgment of my donation explaining this.

Also, a quick call to WXXI this morning confirmed that donations to WXXI Public Broadcasting Council are indeed tax deductible less the value of any thank you gift.

 

[Philip_Airtime]

A couple of things here. First, a response to this statement from Voice of Reason:

"On the other hand doesn't it make sense for individuals to donate to public broadcasting and thus have their contributions deducted on their income taxes, versus having to pay taxes for a service some people don't use? "

I pay a helluva lot in federal taxes. And I dare say most of the money pays for services I don't use or are opposed to. But I accept that because that's the way it works. So, I don't buy that argument.

I will point out that government support of public radio stations has been steadily declining over the years. Listener and corporate support now accounts for much of the average public station's budget.

I'd also like to address Bob1370's comment that public stations don't give receipts which can be used by members to claim a tax deduction on their income tax. I can't testify as to the policy at WXXI. But I do know that in Buffalo, at least one of the public stations provides receipts. I claim my tax deduction, and I have a receipt to prove it.

I'm not going to get into the argument over whether government funding to public stations should be eliminated. That's been debated here in the past. All I'll say is that I agree with "JustPastBuffalo" that the miniscule amount each taxpayer provides each year is definitely worth it for what public broadcasting provides.

 

[aaronread]

"On the other hand doesn't it make sense for individuals to donate to public broadcasting and thus have their contributions deducted on their income taxes, versus having to pay taxes for a service some people don't use? "

I pay a helluva lot in federal taxes. And I dare say most of the money pays for services I don't use or are opposed to. But I accept that because that's the way it works. So, I don't buy that argument.

Agreed. And to bring the point home a little more...here's another example: I don't have any kids, nor will I (at least not anytime soon) so why should my tax dollars go to fund local schools? I'm not old, either, so why should my tax dollars help fund any senior citizen programs in my town? And, not to get too hippie-dippy on everyone, but I don't support the Iraq war and never have...and it's supposedly costing every household in America $100/month. I'd sure like to have an extra $1200 in my pocket every year, ya know? Certainly public radio brings a lot more benefit to my daily life than any war does. But I digress. Point is, for better or for worse, I don't get to cherry pick every line item in the federal budget because I accept that some things I pay for will benefit me, and some won't - but will benefit my neighbor - and that's what lets us function as a society.

Getting back on topic, I've noticed that any time someone claims that pubradio needs to stop receiving what meager federal assistance it gets...they never say anything about lifting the FCC underwriting restrictions. Those rules make it pretty damn hard for us to compete for the limited ad dollars out there. Mind you, I don't want those rules lifted...I think they're the only think keeping Cellino & Barnes from penetrating every blankety-blank corner of our lives. That and the HUUUU-GE Hyundai guy. Ugh.

I also don't often hear about the "big boy" commercial radio outfits routinely figure out ways to lower their tax burden to the point where they're effectively taking a helluva lot more money away from the federal government than public radio is. But I'm digressing again...

 

[SirRoxalot]

63 cents a year? Heck, I'm willing to raise it to 65 cents. If the proposal passes, I'll feel like I've really gotten my 2 cents worth.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

The money has to come from somewhere.
Wouldn't the station go dark if it relied solely on public donation?

 

[fybush]

(Big honkin' disclaimer right off the top here: I speak only for myself and not for ANY of my various employers, WXXI very much included. That said

There are a whole bunch of misconceptions floating around here.

First, as several posters have noted, my distinguished colleague Mr. Smith is indeed mistaken about the tax-deductibility of membership donations. They are indeed deductible, with the exception of the value of any premium gifts received, and the member services department of your local public broadcaster will gladly provide those values upon request.

Second, the original point of this thread concerned STATE funding, and that's almost nonexistent, at least in the case of WXXI. It's my understanding that there are no operating funds coming to State Street from Albany. The bills for NPR and PRI programming and the costs of producing local programming are (again, to the best of my understanding) borne entirely by members and underwriting.

What limited state funding coming to WXXI and other public broadcasters is used for very specific purposes, primarily instructional programming on TV. Inasmuch as the WXXI licenses are held by the Regents of the State University of New York, it seems to me entirely appropriate that those signals be used (at least some of the time) for educational purposes, and if those purposes fit with the broader goals of the SUNY system, I'm fine with state money being used there. (We're talking pennies a year for the average state taxpayer, in any event.)

Because WXXI's licenses are held by the SUNY regents, WXXI employees are eligible for insurance and retirement benefits through TIAA/CREF and the state employee pension plan. I don't know much about this; as a part-timer, I don't get those benefits.

I know of at least one other specific use of state funds at WXXI: the "OnStage" live-music broadcasts on radio and TV are produced with the help of a grant from the money that came from then-AG Spitzer's payola settlements with the record companies and commercial broadcasters. That's not taxpayer money, exactly, and beyond that I have little comment to offer.

Circumstances are different in other states, of course. Some - South Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin and Mississippi come to mind, for instance - have statewide public radio and TV systems that are heavily funded directly by state government. Others - Iowa, Maine, Washington State - fund their statewide networks through the state university system. New York isn't like that.

As for federal funding, that's another story. Again, there's no federal money going to programming and operating expenses on the local radio side. Some NPR and PRI programming is funded, in part, by CPB grants, and that's ultimately taxpayer money. CPB also provides grant money to some public broadcasters (I'm not sure if WXXI is among them) to cover the expenses of the digital conversion on TV and radio. I think that all adds up into that 63 cents a year figure. Still seems like a pretty good bargain to me.

 

[audio4tv]

Getting back on topic, I've noticed that any time someone claims that pubradio needs to stop receiving what meager federal assistance it gets...they never say anything about lifting the FCC underwriting restrictions. Those rules make it pretty damn hard for us to compete for the limited ad dollars out there. Mind you, I don't want those rules lifted...I think they're the only think keeping Cellino & Barnes from penetrating every blankety-blank corner of our lives. That and the HUUUU-GE Hyundai guy. Ugh.

I also don't often hear about the "big boy" commercial radio outfits routinely figure out ways to lower their tax burden to the point where they're effectively taking a helluva lot more money away from the federal government than public radio is. But I'm digressing again...

Then non-commercial stations would have to pay FCC regulatory Fees, taxes of all kings, and likely, lose any support from the government. Then all the stations would be, commercial stations! You can't have it both ways, which I think many people miss.

 

[Mark Giardina]

"Because WXXI's licenses are held by the SUNY regents, WXXI employees are eligible for insurance and retirement benefits through TIAA/CREF and the state employee pension plan. I don't know much about this; as a part-timer, I don't get those benefits."


Scott-

The insurance and retirement benefits at WXXI are excellent. The company kicks in around 3% while the employee can add as much as they want. What I used to do is take my yearly raise, when we got one, and put it into TIAA-Cref. Over the years I ended up with a nice nest egg, which I moved to my own personal IRA after leaving the station.

However WXXI employees do not get a state pension; that is for government workers.
The policy is that government workers have to mandatory contribute 3% of their pay for 10 years before the government agency one works for steps in and starts contributing that amount for employees.

So, if things work out as I hope, by the time I retire the government would have paid just one or two months into my retirement, which will come to around $100.00.

Another thing about state pensions that most people may not be aware of is the money in this plan is taxed by the federal government each year. And if someone moves out of New York and draws their state pension, they also have to pay state taxes.

New York does offer what is called a Deferred Comp Plan, where an employee can put aside money from their check into another retirement program. This plan is designed so that an employee can decide where to invest their money, while the state pension system doesn't give one the option of where their retirement monies are invested.

 

[aaronread]

Because WXXI's licenses are held by the SUNY regents, WXXI employees are eligible for insurance and retirement benefits through TIAA/CREF and the state employee pension plan. I don't know much about this; as a part-timer, I don't get those benefits.

Ummm...I was under the impression that WXXI's licenses were held by the WXXI Public Broadcasting Council, not the SUNY Board of Regents. Which means they would not qualify for state employee benefits at all...although WXXI could certainly CHOOSE to offer benefits that are as good as, or even better, than the state does (I would be surprised if they do...very few businesses do). Is the WXXI PBC just another layer of management between the station and the state?

Then non-commercial stations would have to pay FCC regulatory Fees, taxes of all kings, and likely, lose any support from the government. Then all the stations would be, commercial stations! You can't have it both ways, which I think many people miss.

Filing fees and taxes are small potatoes compared to the earning power of raw commercials vs. non-comm underwriting. The loss of government support, mostly via CPB and PTFP, is not small potatoes, of course...it'd be huge. But that was already established; the point was that if you're going to take away federal funding from non-comm stations, you have to give us the means to make up that lost revenue ourselves. And my counterpoint is that you'd also destroy the entire dynamic that makes public radio what it is. Get rid of federal funding alone, and we'd go out of business from lack of funds. Get rid of federal funding but let us air commercials, and we'd inevitably end up sounding just like every other commercial station. Either way, you're killing off NPR as we know it.

 

[Red1]

WXXI is eligible to participate in TIAA-CREF because it's charter is educational. If you remember WXXI used to be Rochester Area Educational Television Association (RAETA). Employees are NOT employees of the state and do not receive state pensions or any other state benefits.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Employees are NOT employees of the state and do not receive state pensions or any other state benefits.

I thought I explained that already. ;D

 

[Radknowski]

Ummm...I was under the impression that WXXI's licenses were held by the WXXI Public Broadcasting Council, not the SUNY Board of Regents.

You are correct sir, according to the FCC database: http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=74218

Licensee: WXXI PUBLIC BROADCASTING COUNCIL
Service Designation: FM 'Full Service' FM station or application

 

[dampier]

To complain about public broadcasting funding in NY State as a reason for why this state is in such a mess is like trying to solve the budget deficit by unplugging the governor's water cooler at night.

As others have noted, government funding for the arts in general continues to decline. The overwhelming majority of this state's money is going to cover things like health care and Medicaid, increased costs for infrastructure, and excessive borrowing. And it will continue to be that way until the Legislature of this state stops playing the usual games of ignoring the other party's proposals and allowing only three people to essentially have the only power in this state. I won't spend more time here dwelling on the non-broadcasting aspects of the state budget, but until people in this state stop worrying about the tiny partisan squabbles and get a razor sharp focus on the big dollar items, and demand action on them, it's going to be more of the same.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Government vs. Big Corporate

To complain about public broadcasting funding in NY State as a reason for why this state is in such a mess is like trying to solve the budget deficit by unplugging the governor's water cooler at night.

That's good. I may have to steal that...

As others have noted, government funding for the arts in general continues to decline. The overwhelming majority of this state's money is going to cover things like health care and Medicaid, increased costs for infrastructure, and excessive borrowing.

Worse yet, the State Assembly and Senate don't have to fund the programs that they mandate. They dump the funding on the counties, then dole out state tax revenues via the crony system instead of based on need. I'm ready for a NY State Constitutional Amendment that forces the legislature to fund any program that they put into law. Then state lawmakers would feel the taxpayers' wrath directly instead of being able to blame high taxes on "inefficient county government".

It's like big corporate radio controlling the programming and setting unrealistic budgets for local stations, then blaming local management for not hitting their revenue targets.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Allow me to clarify a misconception some people have pertaining to my post. If you carefully read my first sentence I said I was reading about plans by the state to cut spending. That is when I came up with this topic about government funding for public broadcasting. I didn't say that state spending for pub-radio/TV be cut, but I meant all government funding.
I'm aware that government funds for public broadcasting are not what they used to be and that stations have to rely more on private donations. That's the way the system should be anyways. As for the 63 cents per taxpayer, I pointed out that was a statement made by an actor during a TV show (the West Wing). That doesn't mean it is actually true. The cost to taxpayers could be higher, or lower. That's something I will check out for my own personal satisfaction.
I also stated, several times, that I support the concept of public broadcasting and believe that people should donate to their local stations as a counter-balance to the dribble that is currently being featured on commercial television, IE: Reality shows.
I will however not deviate from my firm belief that some pub-broadcasting executives are paid way too much money and receive excessive perks, especially when these are the same people who go on the air and hint that popular programs might face elimination unless the public ponies up during pledge drives. Of course promote the fact that NPR/PBS offer shows that no other network does, but enough with the chicken little approach to fund raising. I find that hypocritical considering how much of those public dollars raised goes into the pockets of a few executives. Shall I bring up the United Way scandal of a few years ago as a reminder?

 

[aaronread]

In 2005, it was widely quoted as being about $1.30 per taxpayer per year. I suppose that amount has dwindled a little bit as the overall federal budget grows.

I will however not deviate from my firm belief that some pub-broadcasting executives are paid way too much money and receive excessive perks, especially when these are the same people who go on the air and hint that popular programs might face elimination unless the public ponies up during pledge drives.

Wow, that's funny...I said the same thing about the school systems' administrators and property tax override proposals when I lived in Massachusetts. To hell with more money for those durn overpaid principals, if the football team and arts programs are so popular they can just hold another bake sale.

By that logic, you should not buy gasoline because some of the top executives are really paying themselves too much, and they all receive massive government subsidies. $14.5 billion in August 2005, if I recall correctly. Oh yes, and if you cut their subsidy, they scream chicken little about how it's not profitable to spend some of the $39 BILLION dollars in annual profits towards oil exploration. :

 

[JohnGault]

In a perfect world...

There wouldn't be so many tax breaks for businesses
There wouldn't be so many shelters and loopholes for the extremely wealthy
There wouldn't be so many bailouts for greed, because "we have to protect the system"
There wouldn't be so many legal ways to lie and mislead consumers

In a perfect world, there would be no need for Public Radio or TV because responsible programmers would make sure these views were represented. Good luck with that. Unfortunately the profit motive plays to cheap reality TV, and bombastic right wing dogma.