Television goes first

Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2011 | Paul Jacob

[Kaslin]

When cutting family expenditures to balance the household budget, thereby avoiding the repo man and the bankruptcy judge, one has to set priorities.

Does the mortgage come first? What about saving for college? How does swapping that leaky legacy faucet for a Price Pfister designer model stack up against continuing to pay those regular life insurance premiums or making the car payment?

Of course, for dysfunctional families, perhaps alcohol or drugs or cigarettes would, pathetically, rank at the very top. Even lacking a popular social disease, some folks might prefer a new gadget or cable TV or a new video game before buying health insurance or school supplies or fixing a broken appliance.

Sad to contemplate, certainly, but, in some cases, no doubt true. In these instances, as much as we profoundly disagree with the choices made, it is at least their money.

But what about when it is our money?

National governments have to set priorities as well. Eventually, at least. (Mr. Obama, please take note.)

Actually, the federal government is piling on debt at such a frightening pace that it is nearly universally acknowledged to be unsustainable. Now both Democrats (save the Obama Administration) and Republicans are looking to make cuts.

Sure, the Democrats’ offer teensy-weensy cuts — only roughly one-tenth the spending reductions House Republicans are proposing. But regardless of the level of sanity regarding the magnitude of the budget problem vis-à-vis the minuscule budget tightening put forward, any level of spending cuts will necessarily induce a discussion of priorities.

This past week, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to defund (i.e. stop subsidizing) National Public Radio, slicing $50 million dollars from an appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Republicans claim, rightly, that $50 million is $50 million in savings. This is a point many congressional Democrats don’t seem to understand . . . along with missing the principle of addition: $50 million in savings enough times equals billions.

Republicans complain that NPR has a very liberal bias. Right again. (Same for PBS.) The evidence is not merely the recent gotcha video of an NPR exec callously dismissing a large portion of the country as “crazy.” One also notices the bent when looking at the demographics of NPR’s audience.

But I oppose National Public Radio for the same reason I opposed the Bush Administration spending public money compensating columnists to write favorable opinion articles. A free press is undermined when government controls or competes with private media. State-run, state-owned or state-subsidized media is a bad idea, whether in Egypt, Iran, China or these United States.

In addition to saving precious dollars, zeroing-out funding for public propaganda is a positive for freedom. For Democrats and most progressives, having a government-funded media news source is essential to block “corporate influence.” Never mind that “corporate” media aren’t terribly “conservative” — consider the “right-wing” MSNBC.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) warned Republicans they would face a “razor blade-sharp reaction from the American people as they find . . . there is radio silence.” Silence? (Well, maybe, static hiss.) Of course, even NPR officials say they raise enough private funding to manage without the public subsidy.

Others simply hate commercials — as if NPR’s plugs for outfits that give them money don’t count as commercials. But the fervent desire for fewer commercials is at least understandable.

What’s not understandable is the over-riding issue lost in jabber about whether some of us have to listen to commercials: If we cannot cut funding for radio or TV programming, where should the cuts be made?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) argued that NPR “programming is vital to over 27 million Americans.”

Vital?

Forget that there seems already to be a healthy abundance of TV and radio news and entertainment. Even if there were not, is NPR more necessary for life than food, shelter, medical care and education?

What school kid should get shortchanged, what medical treatment refused, what soldier denied better equipment, before we risk the possibility that a local radio station might go out of business?

Should we risk financial meltdown to make certain “Car Talk” gets its piece of the borrowed federal pie?

If we can’t deny ourselves the luxury of lavishing funds on someone’s favorite TV or radio program, we will not survive.

In that case, we’ll need all the diversionary entertainment we can get.

[Fido969]

"We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"

[tflabo]

I have Dish Network basic service for $27 month. If not for a few christian channels I sometimes watch I would dump it too if I wasn’t employed.
Also have Verizon FIOS and landline costing $77 month which is a rip off. Same would apply.

[Graybeard58]

I’ve got HD cable and flatscreens in every room including my auto shop.

Only 4 people live here and I added a fifth small flat screen next to my computer only to quickly learn that I'm not much of a "multi tasker" anymore. I can't be on the comp and pay attention to the tv at the same time, so the newest one gathers dust.

Dontcha know that it's the epitome of freeperdom to claim not even to own a tv?

[Radix]

"...because States will need to be much more self-sufficient if the dollar becomes unstable or worthless.

As if that could ever happen.

I really liked your entire post a lot.

Thanks.

[antiRepublicrat]

AT&T is the only provider for which you need an attorney review their deals and monthly invoices.

I never quite understood the "TV in the bathroom" thing.

[wintertime]

My husband and I are sitting here laughing and laughing. Very cute!

We ditched cable completely 4 years ago when we moved.

Actually, we ditched the TV about 20 years ago but then our condo wired the building and it was part of the condo fee so we did have cable for a few years.

Now we watch netflicks and Hulu.

[Repeal The 17th]

No, we are doomed as a species.

[Chickensoup]

Hi there. I am the epitome...23 years and no tv.

Although you will be heartened to know that I am considering converting a room into a home theatre. Still no broadcast though.

[nascarnation]

I’m a bad FReeper for sure.

I have CNBC and FoxBiz on all day during the week

and a lot of sports on the weekends

[jwalburg]

No TV since 1978. When others were asking “Who shot JR?” we were asking, “Who IS JR?” and then we found out he was only Captain Nelson from I Dream of Jeanie with a makeover. We watch Hulu and Netflix, too. And Stumble Upon video. We grew up saturated with TV but haven’t missed it over these 30 plus years.

[rawcatslyentist]

Foolaide dispenser.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“...because States will need to be much more self-sufficient if the dollar becomes unstable or worthless.”

>As if that could ever happen.

Truthfully, I’m foreseeing a real economic oddity, a currency split in the dollar.

To explain, right now it is obvious that parts of the government and the FED believe they can “print” as much money as they want to with little or no repercussions. For them, money is just numbers on a computer. However, some of the markets, like “derivatives”, have gone far beyond even this, in creating money out of thin air, supposedly a factor beyond the entire GDP of the world.

In effect, a man has walked into a casino, makes a bet and loses it, but instead of paying off, he doubles down, using his debt as a weird form of collateral. Then he keeps losing, and doubling, until his wager is more than the value of the casino. But he keeps wagering for 10x and even 100x the value of the casino. Both his and the casino’s theory is as long as they agree to his doubles, they can accept his bets forever.

Obviously, something has to happen to upset the apple cart.

Well, that is one situation. But the other situation is just as odd.

Real money. Paper money and coins. If you took every bit of it that exists, it is still less than 5% of the value of America’s daily retail sales.

The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing has only two high security printing offices in the US, one in Forth Worth and the other in Washington, D.C. Working at 100% capacity, they can barely maintain this level of 5% paper currency. The vast majority of the bills they print are $1 bills.

The highest denomination bill they print is $100, and so few of them that they *can’t* even print $500 bills, because nobody could make change for them. There aren’t enough $100 bills to do so.

So no matter what, paper money and coins are in effect 95% deflated right now. Only because the public accepts the notion that their virtual money can be redeemed as paper money, that virtual money is *equal* to paper money, has stopped our vast amounts of imaginary virtual money and our real money from splitting already.

What could break this confidence? Either a problem with virtual money, in which retailers decide they no longer will accept credit or debit, or bank checks, or anything but cash; and/or there is a “cash run” on the banks, emptying every bank branch in the US within an hour, and leaving people with lots of virtual money that nobody wants.

And here’s the zinger. Only paper money and coins are “legal tender”. No virtual instrument is legal tender, good for debts, public and private. Only the real thing.

Nobody has to sell anyone anything. But if they have already sold something, by law, cash must be accepted as a means to resolve that debt.

Bottom line: It would be very, very good to have “mattress money” at home, in a safe place. Banks can have holidays, and virtual instruments might be invalidated, so only cash in hand is guaranteed to be yours, when you want it.

[Radix]

I shall never forget my visit to the “Bureau of Printing and Engraving” when I was 14 years old or so. That was just about at the time of the Chicago Democrat Convention that we all have heard so much about.

They were printing money. It was amazing. I so wanted to work there because someday I might just be able to obtain some for myself.

Since then I have followed Courses in Economics and Finance and lots of stuff especially back in my University Daze.

Nowadays, I just read a lot.

I recognize that I cannot offer much to you regarding these insights, but I am quite appreciative of what you are posting (at least on this thread.)

I do read a lot, and I may at times be clearly ignorant, but I am not stupid.

Feel free to Ping me whenever you are sharing your poignant insights.

[Publius6961]

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) warned Republicans they would face a “razor blade-sharp reaction from the American people as they find . . . there is radio silence.” Silence? (Well, maybe, static hiss.) Of course, even NPR officials say they raise enough private funding to manage without the public subsidy.

If there is NPR radio silence, and 300,000,000 paid for it, but never listened to it, would they notice it?
Same with PBS.

[familyop]

"Of course, for dysfunctional families, perhaps alcohol or drugs or cigarettes would, pathetically, rank at the very top."

...or keeping manufacturing plants out of your neighborhood.

"Actually, the federal government is piling on debt at such a frightening pace that it is nearly universally acknowledged to be unsustainable."

Revenues without heavy manufacturing are unsustainable.

--familyop, from I Told You So Hill

[familyop]

And BTW, all television (as all television is now) needs to go.

[Richard Kimball]

It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.

[Ophiucus]

No, we aren’t.

[Cronos]

something we can agree on — the wife and I have lived without tv for years now and we have so much more time. yes, dvds sometimes, but the rest of the time is spent on talking, reading, playing musical instruments, listening to music, going out, walking, sports, dancing etc.

[Cronos]

a suggestion — get rid of cable completely. No television broadcasts at all. The news via the net and radio is better and you can choose. Entertainment? Pick a book, play a board game, play some sports, talk to family.