I don't like Romney or Big Bird

[Bill Mattocks]

I am getting a little frustrated with this whole Romney versus Big Bird thing. I think all of you know that I refuse to vote for Romney. But I also do not want tax dollars spent on PBS or NPR. I don't hate them (despite my title above). I wish them all well. I even grew up watching PBS and enjoy listening to NPR. I have no problems with them. I just don't want tax dollars spent supporting them. They're not going to go under without federal tax support, they get most of their funding elsewhere anyway. And the amount of money we give to them via tax dollars is very small; it won't fix our deficit, it won't patch any holes in our budget. It's mostly symbolic. But that doesn't change anything. We should not be funding them with taxpayer dollars.

I may not be voting for Romney, but I support cutting funding for PBS and NPR. Big Bird needs to get his bird food from other sources than my wallet.

 

[elder999]

Yes, speaking of Big Bird, here's a friend of his:


"The name's Herring, Red Herring.":lfao:

NPR get's very little funding from the gov't., as you said:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

NPR get's very little funding from the gov't., as you said:

The point really isn't how large a percentage PBS and NPR get. The point is that they should not be getting any at all, IMHO.

Why should they?

I said I am not interested in forcing either of them off the air - and I'm sure taking away their federal tax dollars would not do that.

And I fully realize that saving that money would not make a dent in our deficit. I completely get that.

But the argument "Well, it's not very much money," is not a logical or valid reason to keep funding them. If we were giving an equivalent amount in tax dollars to NAMBLA, for example, should we just keep doing it because it's not very much money?

Specifically, why should taxpayer money be given to PBS and NPR?

 

[elder999]

The point really isn't how large a percentage PBS and NPR get. The point is that they should not be getting any at all, IMHO.

Why should they?

Because supporting the arts has been a job of "government" since before the Medicis.

How do you think we got all those wonderful Greek and Roman ruins?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Because supporting the arts has been a job of "government" since before the Medicis.

How do you think we got all those wonderful Greek and Roman ruins?

The National Endowment for the Arts was established in 1965 by act of Congress. I don't see a Constitutional mandate for it or a historical precedent that is even as old as I am. No particular reason it has to continue to exist.

And frankly, if we're going to spend public money on such things, I'd sooner see more of it going to NASA or medical research and less of it on 'art'. Art will somehow survive; as noted, they get relatively little of their money from the taxpayer directly.

 

[HammockRider]

PBS and NPR both help educate the public. We have public schools and libraries because someone somewhere along the line thought educating the public was a good idea.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

PBS and NPR both help indoctrinate the public.

Fixed that for ya.

We have public schools and libraries because someone somewhere along the line thought educating the public was a good idea.

Fair enough. Then the public gets to decide what they 'educate' us with, also. Schools have school boards, libraries are overseen by the municipality that funds them.

If PBS and NPR are national entities intended to educate the public, then the public gets to decide what they have to say.

Reasonable?

 

[Steve]

Fixed that for ya.



Fair enough. Then the public gets to decide what they 'educate' us with, also. Schools have school boards, libraries are overseen by the municipality that funds them.

If PBS and NPR are national entities intended to educate the public, then the public gets to decide what they have to say.

Reasonable?

Bill, I think your position to this point has been reasonable and consistent. I understand the valid concerns you have over public funding. I get that.

But could you please point to some content on Sesame Street with which you have a problem? What content would you add that you believe would better represent what "you" have to say? Other than, perhaps, a libertarian muppet? Oh wait. That's Oscar the Grouch!

 

[WC_lun]

You know it really isn't even that NPR or Big Bird is the point. People are losing sight of the criticism here. Cut funding to NPR and that makes up less than .001% of the deficit. Meanwhile, Mr Romney is promising to lower taxes, change medicare, change social security, get rid of Healthcare reform, and increase defense spending which all require money to do. When asked repeatedly for specifics, his response is NPR, which is niether high up on dollars recieved, nor going to cover even a pittance of the debit side of his equation.

Sure we can have the discussion on whether NPR and similiar programs should recieve government funding. However, if we are talking how to offset the spending that Mr Romney plans, the discussions should include far, far, greater programs than NPR. "Trust me" or "it would take too long to explain the math" are not adequete substitutions for real specifics.

 

[punisher73]

I saw the PBS/NPR comment as the tip of the iceburg. It's govt programs that tax dollars are funding that have nothing to do with the function of the federal govt as it is laid out in the Constitution. For example, recently our city got a federal grant for around $350,000 to build a structure on an overpass that the city could hang artwork from. It could only be spent on this. I'll tell you that the $350,000 could have gone to ALOT better uses in making our city better than for drivers to look up while going under an overpass for a split second and look at art.

That is NOT the job of the federal government, I don't want my tax dollars going to fund things like that and I think that those types of spending need to be cut out of the budget.

 

[Tgace]

For all the money spent on education, what has the return on our dollar's been? I'm not convinced that money is the real solution to our educational system woes....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But could you please point to some content on Sesame Street with which you have a problem? What content would you add that you believe would better represent what "you" have to say? Other than, perhaps, a libertarian muppet? Oh wait. That's Oscar the Grouch!

The point is not that I object to any content on PBS (leaving aside my criticism of NPR as being liberal-biased). I'm not saying I would change a thing.

What I'm saying is that the taxpayer, who partially funds PBS, does not currently have any say or oversight of the programming. Objectionable or not.

Either we fund it and have say over what it produces and airs, or we do not fund it and it produces and airs what it pleases.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You know it really isn't even that NPR or Big Bird is the point. People are losing sight of the criticism here. Cut funding to NPR and that makes up less than .001% of the deficit. Meanwhile, Mr Romney is promising to lower taxes, change medicare, change social security, get rid of Healthcare reform, and increase defense spending which all require money to do. When asked repeatedly for specifics, his response is NPR, which is niether high up on dollars recieved, nor going to cover even a pittance of the debit side of his equation.

Sure we can have the discussion on whether NPR and similiar programs should recieve government funding. However, if we are talking how to offset the spending that Mr Romney plans, the discussions should include far, far, greater programs than NPR. "Trust me" or "it would take too long to explain the math" are not adequete substitutions for real specifics.

Yeah, it really is the point. The point is not Romney. The point is cutting government spending.

We mention PBS and NPR, which get government funds (tax dollars) and there are two primary objections.

1) They provided useful and education services which benefit all.
2) They are such a drop in the bucket that they won't affect the overall deficit at all, so why cut them?

The first point is easily dealt with. Simply because something is education and provides a benefit to the public is not and has never been a reason to mandate government financing of it. And, in cases where the government does pay for it, the government also controls or provides oversight of it. Simple as that; one or the other. Nobody gets free tax dollars and then gets to do whatever they like. PBS and NPR are not an exception to the rule, they are not special.

The second is an attempt to distract. When I work on my family budget, I don't say "Oh, I won't cut out the money we spend on chocolate bars, because that's such a minor part of our grocery bill." Nonsense. Everything is on the table, and the things I can live without go first.

The bucket is made of drops, if you look at it that way. No, we will not balance the budget by cutting out our contribution to PBS and NPR. On the other hand, it will reduce the content of the bucket by those droplets. That's low-hanging fruit. Easy to remove, and then move on.

Think about it. The entire notion that the reason to keep funding something that is that it doesn't represent an overall fix is ludicrous on its face. If that's the best argument anyone has, it's far, far, from enough. It's not even an argument; logically it doesn't hold together for even a cursory inspection.

As I've said on numerous occasions, I don't like Romney and won't vote for him. But he is right that funding for PBS/NPR and frankly the entire National Endowment for the Arts has to be cut completely. Gone. I don't care who does it. Obama, Romney, or Professor Harold Hill.

And as I've also said, the budgets of PBS and NPR are clearly not dependent upon government dollars; they'll take a hit, but they won't cease to be if the government stops funding them. All the more reason to stop funding them. Anyone who wants to make up the difference with tax-deductible donations is of course free to do so and I'd encourage it.

 

[Carol]

The point is not that I object to any content on PBS (leaving aside my criticism of NPR as being liberal-biased). I'm not saying I would change a thing.

What I'm saying is that the taxpayer, who partially funds PBS, does not currently have any say or oversight of the programming. Objectionable or not.

Either we fund it and have say over what it produces and airs, or we do not fund it and it produces and airs what it pleases.

I think the average taxpayer has more say over the content of a public broadcasting station than they do over the content of a classroom in a public school.

Between the accessibility of local stations, the opportunity to produce content or submit material for production, the chances to work or volunteer at a station, the public file, the ombudsmen -- there are a lot of opportunities for the public to have a say in the content, and the station operators work take local interests very seriously. Like many non-profits, its also a place where a inexperienced person -- or even a hobbyist -- has the potential to get involved in the broadcast industry and see it from the inside.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think the average taxpayer has more say over the content of a public broadcasting station than they do over the content of a classroom in a public school.

Not even close. Every public school is subject to the local school board, made up of elected members of the community. They make the rules, along with the state and according to law. Show me the elected citizen members of the PBS board. Show me the state control of content.

Between the accessibility of local stations, the opportunity to produce content or submit material for production, the chances to work or volunteer at a station, the public file, the ombudsmen -- there are a lot of opportunities for the public to have a say in the content, and the station operators work take local interests very seriously. Like many non-profits, its also a place where a inexperienced person -- or even a hobbyist -- has the potential to get involved in the broadcast industry and see it from the inside.

No, that's way off. The public does not have the right to change or veto programming; they have no elections for public office that oversee or control PBS. Schools do.

 

[Carol]

OK, that's true, the avenues are different than a school board. Do you also support such oversight in other areas of government, such as Civilian Review Boards for LE agencies?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OK, that's true, the avenues are different than a school board. Do you also support such oversight in other areas of government, such as Civilian Review Boards for LE agencies?

Yes, but more importantly, the city government is directly elected by the citizens and accountable. The rest are just employees. The NPR and PBS boards are not elected by the public.

 

[Carol]

Yes, but more importantly, the city government is directly elected by the citizens and accountable. The rest are just employees. The NPR and PBS boards are not elected by the public.

Gotcha...and I appreciate the discussion So, where would you draw the line as to what should be regulated by a board?

For example, do you regulate National Public Radio because NPR receives government funding but not New Hampshire Public Radio because NHPR does not receive any such funding?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Gotcha...and I appreciate the discussion So, where would you draw the line as to what should be regulated by a board?

For example, do you regulate National Public Radio because NPR receives government funding but not New Hampshire Public Radio because NHPR does not receive any such funding?

If they don't get taxpayer dollars, they're free to do as they please.

EDIT: I have to add, that this comment is not unusual to me. I get that a lot. If you don't want taxpayer dollars funding public radio then you must HATE public radio! No, I do not hate public radio. It has a liberal slant I could do without, but I like public radio, I listen to public radio, I enjoy public radio. This isn't about me looking for a backdoor way to silence public radio. It should live and be well. Just not on the taxpayer's dime.

 

[WC_lun]

I can appreciate your thoughts on this Bill. I don't wholeheartedly agree with them, but if NPR did not get public funding, I wouldn't be crushed either.