Don't be surprised if we soon see Big Bird of Sesame Street on the
corner holding a sign that says "will work for pledges." Romney promised
to eliminate funding to PBS. How musch does PBS drain on the budget?
Even right wing source like MRC News bulletin shows that PBS is not
burden to the budget.
Noel Sheppard
Oct. 4.2012
The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one
one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of
funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the
loss to the American public would be devastating. [...]
A nuclear air craft carrier costs more, the Nimitz class carriers are about 675 million. New Ford Class carriers
will cost 9 billion. So for the price of one of the older style carriers each year we can fund PBS. So why the big urge to get rid of it?
Right
wingers have hated PBS for decades. PBS is the ny source of counter
information that actually speaks with authoritative research and
counters what Republican Presidents have done. It's the bastion of
liberal knowledge so republicans hate it. Shows like Frontline and Bill
Moyers are Just about the only journalistic efforts that really expose
the corruption in American politics. Getting rid of PBS would be a major
step toward controlling the news and information.
Nixon tried to cut funding of PBS in
retaliation for WGBH of Boston and their failure to report favorably
upon his campaign. One of the people who helped save it was Mr. Rogers
(yes the really nice guy). Here are some quotes:
- "We deal with such things as the inner drama of childhood. We don't
have to bop someone over the head to make drama...We deal with such
things as getting a haircut. Or the feelings about brothers and sisters,
and the kind of anger that arises in simple family situations. And we
speak to it constructively."
- "We've got to have more of this neighborhood expression of care.
This is what I give. I give an expression of care everyday to each
child to help
him to realize that he is unique."
- "And I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear
that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great
service for mental health."
Rogers's address to the hearing was really moving even the chairman commented on it.
(see Video)
Alternative Soruces of Funding for PBS
a research document by CPB (summary p 45)
A
reduction or elimination of CPB funding will put a 63% (251) of radio
stations and 67% (114) of television stations in the public broadcasting
system at risk:
–19% (76) of radio stations and 32% (54) of TV
Stations that currently operate at a minimum practical cost level, and
would be at a high risk of closing
–44% (175) of radio stations
and 35% (60) of TV stations have a history of operating deficits and
would suffer reduced effectiveness or closure under increased financial
pressure
These numbers are expected to increase over time:
–Under
an optimistic scenario, an additional 3 TV stations and 2 radio
stations would not be able to cover minimum practical costs in 2015
–Under
a pessimistic scenario, an additional 5 TV stations and 17 radio
stations would not be able to cover minimum practical costs in 2015
If
Romney is willing to but PBS funding when it is inexpensive compared to
other projects, how safe will social programs such Social Security
Disability be? If he uses the opportunity to knock off a major source of
information that might expose corruption in government, what does say
about the kinds of things he might pursue as policy? What does that say
about his commitment to an informed citizenry?
No comments:
Post a Comment