Posted on 02/12/2018 11:51:36 AM PST by markomalley
No need to miss it; donate to keep it on.
PBS didn’t produce Barney.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But for patriots who enjoy PBS and NPR programming, consider this. The funding that Pres. Trump wants to stop should not be leaving the states in the first place.
In other words, since taxpayer funding to support PBS and NPR should still be available for these programs through state taxes, what Pres. Trump is basically doing is eliminating an unconstitutional middleman, the federal government.
Also, the states can always amend the Constitution for funding of these programs with federal taxpayer dollars.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
You and my father.
He listens to NPR. Once, I asked why he bothered with such dreck.
"The Better to Know My Enemies", he replied.
Fair Enough, sez me.
Sesame Street alone makes enough to cover this.
They think we have short memories.
These are is the same CPB and PBS that lambasted the notion of cutting funding for PBS because, their leader claimed in Congressional testimony, they
*received very little of their funding from the government.*
And, anyway:
Why are all taxpayers funding this in the first place?
“PBS Star Rick Steves Donating To ACLU On Inauguration Day”
Edmonds Washington Patch | 01/19/2017 | Neal McNamara
“. . . saying that the group will probably be busy during the coming Donald Trump administration. All day Friday, for every dollar you spend at his online travel store, Steves will donate $1 to the ACLU -—SNIP-— Steves also said in the blog post that he canceled his planned trip to the inauguration after it became clear Trump would become president. He endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.”
“As power shifts in Washington, Pubcasting Has Allies in Key Posts (NPR/PBS)”
current | November 30, 2016 | Patrick Butler
“Wikileaks: HRC’s Campaign Has Power Over When PBS Airs Its Stories”
thegatewaypundit.com | Nov 3rd, 2016 10:30 am | Jim Hoft
“Your tax dollars at work— Via Wikileaks — The Hillary Campaign calls the shots at PBS.Public television and radio stations like PBS and NPR got $445 million from the government in 2012.Via Wikileaks documents: . . .”
“PBS’s Gwen Ifill Stands By ‘Take That Bibi’ Tweet (liberal media is gloating over Israel’s “defeat”)”
Washington Free Beacon | September 2, 2015 3:48 pm | Adam Kredo
“Gwen Ifill, the host of PBS’s Newhour program, defended herself from criticism after taking heat for sending a tweet that many users interpreted as a shot against Israeli Prime Minister Benjain Netanyahu. Ifill retweeted a message from the State Department’s official pro-Iran deal Twitter account claiming that the recently inked accord would significantly reduce Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon. “Take that, Bibi,” Ifill wrote in a message sent with the State Department’s tweet. Multiple users on Twitter quickly pushed back against Ifill’s message, claiming she was unfairly targeting the Israeli prime minister and revealing a pro-Iran bias.”
“PBS News Anchor Gwen Ifill Mocks Israeli PM Netanyahu After Democrats Support Obama Iran Nuke Deal”
The Gateway Pundit | 9/2/15 | Jim Hoft
“Gwen Ifill, a star news anchor on the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System’s Washington Week and PBS Newshour, took to Twitter on Wednesday to mock Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
“Sesame Street Moving From PBS to HBO”
InvestorPlace | 08/14/2015 | By William White
“Sesame Street will be showing up on HBO first for the next five years. HBO will be financially backing Sesame Street for the next five seasons.”
YAY!
.
The Leftist spin, on how little PBS get from the govrnment, yet HOW IMPORTANT it is!1!1!
Same ol’crap, six years later, now:
“Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?
“From Sesame Street to Main Street, a look at how many tax dollars are spent on public broadcasting.”
by Suevon Lee Oct. 11, 2012, 12:36 p.m. EDT
Are Big Bird’s 15 minutes up yet? Last week, Mitt Romney pulled public broadcasting into the presidential campaign when he said he would “stop the subsidy” to PBS, despite his love for the furry yellow Muppet.
The remark launched endless Internet memes, fueled late night television jokes and spawned a satirical Obama campaign ad (which the Sesame Workshop, a private, non-partisan charitable organization, has requested the campaign pull). Given the recent flurry of attention, we thought it would be helpful to examine how much federal funding actually affects public broadcasting.
How large is the federal subsidy to public broadcasting?
It’s not exactly breaking the bank. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity created by Congress in 1967 to disperse funds to nonprofit broadcast outlets like PBS and NPR, is set to receive $445 million over the next two years. Per a statutory formula, public television gets about 75 percent of this appropriation while public radio receives 25 percent.
This amounts to roughly .012 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget – or about $1.35 per person per year. (Some global perspective: elsewhere in the world, Canada spends $22.48 per citizen, Japan $58.86 per citizen, the United Kingdom $80.36 per citizen, and Denmark, $101 per citizen.)
This sounds like a drop in the bucket. Why would Romney focus on such a small figure?
Because Romney’s approach is to target every government program he thinks is “not essential.” The candidate’s current spending plan not only calls for eliminating Obamacare and privatizing Amtrak, but deep reductions in subsidies to CPB and cultural agencies such as the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities – expenditures he says are “things the American people can’t afford.”
Public broadcasting also happens to be a popular target among conservatives, who’ve long portrayed it as an example of wasteful government spending (in the mid-90s, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed pulling federal funding from the CPB altogether).
Romney’s no exception on the campaign trail. As ABC News’ The Note reports, last week’s debate wasn’t the first time Romney has suggested Sesame Street seek outside advertisers to earn its keep. At a campaign stop last December, Romney told voters, “we’re not going to kill Big Bird, but Big Bird’s going to have to have advertisements, all right?”
How crucial is federal funding to public broadcasting?
Sesame Workshop’s executive vice president told CNN last week that the company receives “very, very little funding from PBS.” Indeed, the nonprofit generated nearly two-thirds of its $133 million revenue in 2010 from royalties and product licensing alone, according to its website. Its executives are also handsomely compensated: former CEO and president Gary Knell (who now runs NPR) earned $718,456 in executive pay plus $270,000 in bonuses in 2010. So, as the Washington Post points out, Big Bird doesn’t exactly depend on the federal government for survival.
PBS draws roughly 15 percent of its revenue from the CPB. NPR’s revenue mostly comes from member station dues and fees, with 2 percent coming from CPB-issued grants. Member stations, in turn, receive about 11 percent in federal grants. According to this CPB report, most revenue to both public radio and television (about 59 percent) consists of donations from individuals, corporate underwriters and private grants, followed by state and local support (roughly 20 percent).
But from a leverage standpoint, PBS says it’s pretty important. Each federal dollar local stations receive generates roughly six dollars from local sources as a type of bargaining chip, according to a coalition of public broadcasting stations, producers and viewers.
Are there downsides to scaling back federal funding?
Yes. While shows like “Sesame Street” may remain safe under Romney’s plan, its viewers in remote areas wouldn’t fare as well. Public television and radio stations in poor, rural areas depend the most on federal support to survive. So while large public television markets producing more than $10 million in annual revenue require just 10 percent of federal funds to get by, its counterparts in small towns like Bethel, Ala., or Odessa, Texas, may very well need up to four times that much to operate.
How many markets could be at risk today?
A CPB-commissioned study released earlier this year estimated 54 public television stations (31 in rural areas) in 19 states at “high risk” of going dark if stripped of federal funding. The study also found 76 public radio stations (47 in rural areas) in 38 states at “high risk” of going silent without federal funding.
Aren’t there other sources of news, culture and entertainment over the airwaves?
Yes, but public broadcasting has a specific mission of bringing a distinct brand of educational and cultural programming – free of commercial trappings – to a broad swath of the American public.
In establishing the CPB 45 years ago, Congress envisioned a broadcasting service that would encourage development of programming to address “the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities,” and which could be made “available to all citizens of the United States.”
In some areas of the country, public broadcasting still remains the only option, commercial or otherwise: at least 10 public radio stations around the country offer the only broadcast service, radio or television included, to their community.
Have there been prior attempts to defund public broadcasting?
Yes. In 2010, a flap over the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams (now a Fox News contributor) for comments he made about Muslims heightened the cries to cut NPR off from federal grants. Last year, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to block NPR from receiving such grants.
Today, conservatives also argue that the smorgasbord of media offerings renders the form of public television obsolete. As the National Review recently put it, “If PBS doesn’t do it, 10 million others will.” Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, arguethat the right to watch commercial-free TV “does not strike me as a basic human right” and that if “private funders feel it’s important for South Dakotans to watch Big Bird, they can make that happen with their own tax-deductible contributions.”
Can public broadcasting turn to alternate forms of funding?
Yes, but with varying degrees of success. In recent years, budget cuts have forced states to decrease funding for public broadcasting, the New York Times reported early this year. CPB also notes that revenue from individual donations went from $373 million in 1999 to $349 million in 2005.
CPB claims private advertising isn’t a solution — and at least one independent analysis estimated it could even lead to net losses by raising operating costs and diminishing support from corporate underwriters or private foundations. According to the report, “a shift to a commercial advertising model would lead to a chase for ratings and move public broadcasters off their fundamental role in lifting the educational and informational boat for all Americans.”
What’s the Obama administration’s stance?
In 2010, the president’s bipartisan deficit budget commission proposed cutting funding to CPB to reduce the federal deficit. But the campaign was quick to seize on the issue with its Big Bird ad. First lady Michelle Obama followed suit, telling Virginia voters this week, “We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance a budget.”
The candidates aside, what does the public think?
A March 2011 poll shows that more than two-thirds of the public opposes eliminating government funding for public broadcasting. A more recent poll indicates that 55 percent of voters oppose such cuts to public television.
So, he makes about what an executive secretary makes in Manhattan.
Or a cop or janitor in California.
From the article I quoted above:
Michelle Obama told a crowd in Virginia:
“We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance a budget.”
—
chanelling her inner Hillary, or is that the way a Harvard-educated lawyer really speaks to folks?
He proposed that a long time ago. Also defunding NEA. Why are they still taking our tax dollars?
Then who did?
YES!!!
Yes, and of the people they crap on, 90% are us citizen taxpayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.