Reply
Fri 9 Jun, 2006 09:42 am
GOP Takes Aim at PBS Funding
By Rick Klein
The Boston Globe
Thursday 08 June 2006
House panel backs budget reductions.
Washington - House Republicans yesterday revived their efforts to slash funding for public broadcasting, as a key committee approved a $115 million reduction in the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs.
On a party-line vote, the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees health and education funding approved the cut to the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. It would reduce the corporation's budget by 23 percent next year, to $380 million, in a cut that Republicans said was necessary to rein in government spending.
The reduction, which would come in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, must be approved by the full Appropriations Committee, and then the full House and Senate, before it could take effect. Democrats and public broadcasting advocates began planning efforts to reverse the cut.
A similar move last year by Republican leaders was turned back in a fierce lobbying campaign launched by Public Broadcasting Service stations and Democratic members of Congress, in a debate that was colored by some Republicans' frustration with what they see as a liberal slant in public programming.
Still, Republicans say they remain adamant that public broadcasting cannot receive funding at the expense of healthcare and education programs.
Republicans are looking for ways to save taxpayers' dollars, amid fiscal conservatives' concerns over the budget deficit.
"We've got to keep our priorities straight," said Representative Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the appropriations panel that approved the cut." You're going to choose between giving a little more money to handicapped children versus providing appropriations for public broadcasting."
Democrats accused Republicans of trying to gut a bastion of children-oriented television to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy that have been backed by the Bush White House.
"Dick Cheney and the Republicans have decided to go hunting for 'Big Bird' and 'Clifford the Big Red Dog' once again," said Representative Edward J. Markey , a Malden Democrat who led the successful effort to reverse the cuts last year. "PBS is right at the top of their hit list - always has been and always will be, until they can destroy it."
Most of the savings would come by eliminating subsidies for educational programs and grants for a number of technological upgrades.
Jan McNamara, a PBS spokeswoman, said the digital upgrade would have to be funded with money that is now being used for other programs, forcing almost all areas of public broadcasting to feel a pinch.
Paula Kerger, PBS's president and chief executive, said in a statement that the cuts would force the network to "drastically reduce the programming and services public television and public radio can provide to local communities."
The literacy television program "Ready to Learn" would be eliminated, she said, as would the online teachers' resource "Ready to Teach."
The cuts could force smaller public-radio stations in rural areas - which rely almost exclusively on federal money for operations - to close altogether, said Kevin Klose , NPR's president. "The impact of today's decision could resonate in every community in America," Klose said.
John Lawson, president of the Association of Public Television Stations, said Republican leaders are contradicting their own goal statements by seeking to cut funding for public broadcasting on the day the House voted to increase fines for indecent television content. "These cuts are targeted to inflict maximum damage," Lawson said. "I guess we'll have to start ringing phones on [Capitol] Hill again."
The cuts are included in a $142 billion spending bill covering domestic social programs in health, education, and labor. Even with the cuts to public broadcasting, the bill would spend $1 billion more in total than is being spent this year on those programs, and $4 billion more than President Bush had requested for those areas of spending. Student loans and research grants to local hospitals are among the areas that would see funding boosts.
The same appropriations subcommittee called last year for an even more drastic cut of $223 million from public broadcasting programs. At the time, Republicans attacked the PBS for programming they said represented out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints, highlighting in particular a "Postcards From Buster" episode that featured lesbian couples and their children in Vermont.
But, in a defeat for House leaders, 87 Republicans joined unanimous Democrats in bucking an attempt to cut funding from the stations.
Markey expressed confidence that supporters of public broadcasting would have more than enough votes to stop a cut again this year. Their arguments will carry particular force in an election year in which moderate Republicans fear being portrayed as callous to the demands of their constituents, he said.
Regula also seemed resigned to seeing that sequence of events repeat itself, though he maintained that he was right "on principle."
"They've got a bigger megaphone than I do," he said. "They'll trot out Elmo and Mickey Mouse and Lord knows who else, and I'll be out there kind of by myself."
While I have mixed feelings about this,I can understand it.
Sesame Street makes millions of dollars every year in licensed products.
Why do we need to finance them when they are already a "for profit" enterprise?
Public broadcasting was originally intended to provide service, and thereby information, to locales that could not otherwise get it.........eskimos, navajos,, and other middle of nowhere dwellers. It has obviously been hijacked into a vehicle for propaganda, which, although entertaining, is outside of the original purpose.
All that money gets plowed back into "technology centers" and educational outreaches, as well as sponsoring local history etc.
Wheres this propoganda that youre talking about?
lessee , "reigning" in govt spending by cutting a measly 130 million is total Bullshit. One F22 costs between 120 and 200 million bucksand were gonna build over 300 of them , and all the weapons manufacturing GOP teat-sucking lobbyists have got their kneepads on when visiting their bought and paid-for legislators. SOmebody do some cost comparisons. What other crapolla that Congress is supporting costs 130 million. How bout that damn bridge to nowhere in ALaska, or anti-missile missiles for a nonexistent ICBM race. How about Nuclear submarines?? were building 2 new ones , for phuckkin what??
We are subsidizing Western US "sub-lbituminous coal as an answer to reducing merdury emissions , but not requiring any retrofitting of power plants. All the Western coal comes from Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah. The cost of that donut to Cheneys "labia lickers" is about a coupla Billion. Gimme a break.
Its political payback pure and simple. Army COE cant build a levvy worth a damn but congress can "save our souls " from the evils of liberal ized media by pinching funds.
well said farmerman. Hat's off.
farmerman wrote:All that money gets plowed back into "technology centers" and educational outreaches, as well as sponsoring local history etc.
Wheres this propoganda that youre talking about?
lessee , "reigning" in govt spending by cutting a measly 130 million is total Bullshit. One F22 costs between 120 and 200 million bucksand were gonna build over 300 of them , and all the weapons manufacturing GOP teat-sucking lobbyists have got their kneepads on when visiting their bought and paid-for legislators. SOmebody do some cost comparisons. What other crapolla that Congress is supporting costs 130 million. How bout that damn bridge to nowhere in ALaska, or anti-missile missiles for a nonexistent ICBM race. How about Nuclear submarines?? were building 2 new ones , for phuckkin what??
We are subsidizing Western US "sub-lbituminous coal as an answer to reducing merdury emissions , but not requiring any retrofitting of power plants. All the Western coal comes from Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah. The cost of that donut to Cheneys "labia lickers" is about a coupla Billion. Gimme a break.
Its political payback pure and simple. Army COE cant build a levvy worth a damn but congress can "save our souls " from the evils of liberal ized media by pinching funds.
So you admit that PBS is a liberal setup? If that is so then why should the public pay for liberal propaganda?
Quote: Its political payback pure and simple. Army COE cant build a levvy worth a damn but congress can "save our souls " from the evils of liberal ized media by pinching funds.
How you get your conclusion is beyond me Baldimo , perhaps if I put quotes around everything from "save our souls" to the end of that sentence.I figured that most of you were smart enough to catch my drift. Apparently not.
If I had to choose, Id look to pulling out as much discretionary pork that the GOp has put in its agenda for innefective programs and military non starters. Were funding teaching Creationism with tax dollars but true education is getting cut by one F22.
How bout if we cut 2 F22's from the budget and restore PBS? PBS is the best bang for the buck we have in this country, the fact that you dont like some of the commentators is something that we all must bear. I have to take specific right wing cable stations with my conficatory cable bill, I dont bitch even though I know that Hannity and O Reilly are spinmeisters for the administration. (and they arent even good at that) .
How bout if we remove the ceiling freom Social Security taxes . I wouldnt mind and neither would most other Americans. This would take Social Security out of the red for almost ever.
How about removing the proposed sheltering of estate taxes from recipients who had nothing to do with the acquisition of that wealth? Statistics show that, with the exception of the Waltons who have lobbied 200 mil for the repeal of the estate tax, most very wealthy people dont mind paying additional SS taxes and estate taxes.
Farmerman pretty much hit the nail on the head.
It's been demonstrated that people who rely on PBS and NPR as their primary news source have been the
least likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq war.
There is absolutely no excuse for the repeated attempts to cut funding for such important programming.
Link 1
Link 2
JustanObserver wrote:Farmerman pretty much hit the nail on the head.
It's been demonstrated that people who rely on PBS and NPR as their primary news source have been the
least likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq war.
There is absolutely no excuse for the repeated attempts to cut funding for such important programming.
Link 1
Link 2
Your going to use 3 year old stats? Come on don't you have anything better then that to prove your "point".
Baldimo wrote:Your going to use 3 year old stats? Come on don't you have anything better then that to prove your "point".
Baldimo, you must REALLY have no argument at all if that's the best you can do.
Yeah, the stats are three years old. They're also the result of a valid study that demonstrate one
very significant reason why a large percentage of the population supported the Iraq war...
because they were misinformed.
It also demonstrates that PBS has done an impressive job of preventing misinformation to its viewers. I doubt that has changed significantlly in the past three years. And now, the administration is trying to cut funding to a main source of information that has shown its listeners are among those who are best informed of the news.
If you can find something that says otherwise, have at it. Otherwise, either make a
real argument agaisnt it, or STFU.
Baldimo wrote:JustanObserver wrote:Farmerman pretty much hit the nail on the head.
It's been demonstrated that people who rely on PBS and NPR as their primary news source have been the
least likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq war.
There is absolutely no excuse for the repeated attempts to cut funding for such important programming.
Link 1
Link 2
Your going to use 3 year old stats? Come on don't you have anything better then that to prove your "point".
how old are the stats you war worshippers use to defend the invasion of Iraq?
I listen to NPR as much as possible. Very informative, educational, and non- biased.
They don't just report the news, they have lots of great programming including a Saturday morning call-in program for people having trouble with their car.
During the last fundraiser, which ended a few weeks ago, NPR got enough support in our area to cut 3 days off of its telethon. That tells me there is strong support for public braodcasting in a very red state. It also tells me the government isn't supporting public broadcasting 100%, so what's the gripe?
Truth be told, it's just another attack on media in an attempt to control what messages are sent to citizens. That should make all of us support public broadcasting. Eventually, there will be a Democrat back in the Oval Office. Do the likes of Baldimo and other right wingers want a Democrat controlling the free public airwaves and what can or cannot be reported?
Re: GOP Takes Aim at PBS Funding - again
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
"We've got to keep our priorities straight," said Representative Ralph Regula, an Ohio Republican who is chairman of the appropriations panel that approved the cut.[snip]
Regula also seemed resigned to seeing that sequence of events repeat itself, though he maintained that he was right "on principle."
"They've got a bigger megaphone than I do," he said. "They'll trot out Elmo and Mickey Mouse and Lord knows who else, and I'll be out there kind of by myself."
Damn straight it's about priorities.
Who knew Minnesota was so interesting.
Regula knows who butters his bread, and toasts it too
Quote:Congressman arranges national site for wife
APPROPRIATIONS: The move raises eyebrows among government watchdogs in the wake of the earmark debate.
BY MATT STEARNS
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON - Some guys give their wives jewelry or flowers. Ralph Regula gave his wife a national park.
Regula, a Republican congressman from Ohio, is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee. In 2000, his subcommittee created the First Ladies National Historic Site in his district in Canton, Ohio.
Regula's wife, Mary, is the founding president of the nonprofit National First Ladies' Library, which operates the historic site for the National Park Service. She draws no salary.
The historic site is due to Mary Regula's inspiration, said John Debo, the superintendent of Cuyahoga Valley National Park, which includes the first ladies site.
Over the years, Ralph Regula's subcommittee has inserted more than $4.5 million in special ``earmarks'' for the first ladies site into federal spending bills. That includes $800,000 to buy a mansion that once belonged to President William McKinley and his wife and $2.5 million to help renovate a nearby bank building that his wife's group owns.
snip
Quote:The first ladies site operates with a remarkable degree of autonomy from the National Park Service, even though the service pays about 70 percent of the site's operating costs. Mary Regula's group picks up the rest.
In fact, Mary Regula calls too many shots, charges the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
She used an acquaintance who had no formal training in historic preservation rather than Park Service professionals to oversee historic interpretation at the two buildings, Park Service officials said. She discouraged Park Service involvement in her plan to install an interactive exhibit, according to an e-mail obtained by PEER.
National First Ladies' Library Director Krider said Mary Regula ``is the driving force, has the vision'' and had pushed the Park Service to compromise when it wasn't used to doing so. Krider acknowledged that compromise hasn't always been easy.
It's easier when you're the wife of a congressman, responded Jeff Ruch, the executive director of PEER.
``On the one hand, you've got the National Park Service telling all its park units they're going to be subject to objective standards and strict economies, and then that doesn't apply to favored little units,'' he said. ``If you're running a park that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors and can barely make ends meet, you've got to wonder who's running the railroad.''
Forget NPR, my wife needs a park.
Dude, yer brilliant.
squinney wrote:I listen to NPR as much as possible. Very informative, educational, and non- biased.
They don't just report the news, they have lots of great programming including a Saturday morning call-in program for people having trouble with their car.
During the last fundraiser, which ended a few weeks ago, NPR got enough support in our area to cut 3 days off of its telethon. That tells me there is strong support for public braodcasting in a very red state. It also tells me the government isn't supporting public broadcasting 100%, so what's the gripe?
Truth be told, it's just another attack on media in an attempt to control what messages are sent to citizens. That should make all of us support public broadcasting. Eventually, there will be a Democrat back in the Oval Office. Do the likes of Baldimo and other right wingers want a Democrat controlling the free public airwaves and what can or cannot be reported?
Did you miss the release of the apoligy that NPR did after the Bill O' interview? When was the last time you heard anything right wing on NPR? I listen every now and then and didn't hear a word. While it isn't as blantent as Air America it is still there.
If NPR is doing so well how come they don't just go on their own and give up the govt money? Is it because without govt money they would fail like most left wing radio?
If the left is so hell bent on cutting back on govt spending then why don't they agree to let the govt cut back on funding for NPR and PBS? It would cut back and every little bit counts when you are drawing tight the purse strings.
You could cut the entire PPBS budget and that would pay for 4 F-22's (another bit o pork snack) also the two remaining attack subs would cover PBS for the next hundred fifty years . PBS doesnt command such a budget that would have any affect anywhere . Were spending almost 2BILLION a month in Iraq, and thats all PR .
Lets critique the GOP sponsored barbeque(cause thats all thats even getting in) Whats that bridge in LAska costing?,I gess if we dont stop building Mr Stevens bridge to send money to New Orleans, its some fat chances to get some more to NPR.
I really think that the Righties are afraid of different ideas. They, like the Borg, need to have one mind and one body. Disunity will be punished.
Baldimo wrote:If the left is so hell bent on cutting back on govt spending then why don't they agree to let the govt cut back on funding for NPR and PBS? It would cut back and every little bit counts when you are drawing tight the purse strings.
How can you possibly say that with a straight face?
The amount of money that can be used to support PBS for a YEAR is barely what we spend in a few DAYS for the Iraq war, or military spending in general (which is more than what the next few countries behind us spend combined).
The return on what is spent on PBS (including informing people so well...see my post on the first page) certainly justifies such spending.
Bush has found a classy man to head toward PBS's board of directors.
From Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/warren-bell/
NPR... not biased? Neither is Fox news....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace