PBS support

[Babadem]

I do not think this is new I mean I beleive it has happened before and yet somehow PBS has managed to continue to produce and provide high quality programming throughout its lifetime.

This was back in 2006, wehter it happened or not I do not know, GOP takes aim at PBS funding - The Boston Globe

A year before funding was cut yet they managed to keep going, PBS funding slashed - TV.com

I guess I am optimistic that they will manage to continue but make no mistakes about it most of the funding will keep coming from the public pledges so keep them coming folks. (look who is talking , he who has never pledged not a penny!, lol)

Thanks for the links. If PBS is to be cut it will not be because the current President requested the cut. Every year The GOP always threaten cut-of f PBS funding due to one reason or the other.

 

[Babadem]

Some if not all of their funding SHOULD be eliminated.

I use to do a lot of work for the local PBS and every year they would upgrade their equipment because they HAD TO spend the money. So what did they do with their old equipment (stuff that was working great?) Did they give it to a local public access station or maybe a college? No they took it out to the parking lot and DESTROYED it with sledge hammers.

To make matters worse the head of our local PBS who is always begging for money takes home over a million a year. There is something wrong with that.

And from the time I worked with them that was the culture of PBS that I saw. A lot of waste. A Lot...

@ the red highlighted:
Don't tell me that was literally done!!

 

[hd fan]

Skyscanner my answer is YES, if and only if, the love of polka, hip hop and rap music makes you a better human being. That is the big issue here.

 

[TNGTony]

My last post on the topic since anything more I would just be repeating myself. I am just hoping people actually read the post and use their left brain (psychology/physiology not a political remark) to sift through the information.

Amazing how 162 MILLION dollars is not "a huge number" when it's someone else's money.

once again, 162,000,000 (the entire amount the NEA gets) divided by 300,000,000 = .54¢. Your share cannot buy one can of coca-cola in most places. It is not a lot of money when compared to the total 2010 budget which is $3,552,000,000,000. Let's put it another way: 162 million is one one thousandth (1/1000th) the amount the US paid in INTEREST on the national debt in 2010. PBS gets the largest chunk of NEA spending which is where the 33¢ per person in the US was derived.

For 162 MILLION dollars, if people want culture, let them go to the theater or the opera or to a foreign film festival and pay for it themselves.

You need to brush up on your history. The reason for the NEA's founding in the first place and for PBS and NPR's existence was because NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD IT! And the NEA makes it possible for orchestras, symphonies, ballet troupes, art museums, playhouses, theaters and other cultural attractions to EXIST in the first place.

President Eisenhower (R) (1953-1961) saw that commercial radio and TV were not picking up the slack. This was even before the time of the "vast wasteland" of broadcasting (Newton Minnow, 1961). Eisenhower set into motion what would become the NEA, President Johnson (D) (1963-1969) founded the Nat. Endowment for the Humanities and the NEA so that those who would not or could not be exposed to cultural educational and historical programming could do so for free and without having commercial concerns color the programming.

It was President Nixon (R) (1969-1975) that presided over the formation of PBS. When Nixon took office, the NEA/NEH budget was about $6 million (1970 dollars-about $32.5 million 2010 dollars). In 1974 the NEA'a budget grew to nearly $40 million a year (About $187 million 2010 dollars). Nixon said this would "bring arts to millions of patrons, help financially strapped museums and orchestras, induce more private philanthropy, improve writing skills, redress the balance between the sciences and the humanities, and bring the lesson of history to bear on racial and generational tensions."

This need (which was exactly what Johnson said when he founded the NEA/NEH) has not changed. Only the memory of how things were before the existence on this organization has. Also keep in mind that 1972/73 was the time of the oil embargoes, and a severe recession and rampant inflation.

In case anyone has missed it, America and indeed the rest of the world is in a huge financial crisis.

Okay. That is this session of Congress' reason. But identical arguments have been made each and every year that deficits become the political hot potato. NEA is the first thing they look at. 0.06% of the budget is the first thing they look at. Again, when a $50,000 household needs to save money, cutting a $15 year expense is not the first priority.

I'm not anti-culture or anti-PBS, I'm anti-irresponsible spending. Our government should learn what every housewife on a budget knows: If you spend more than you have, you will get into financial difficulty, and you can't "spend your way out of trouble" or somehow "stimulate" yourself into a better financial position with the continued irresponsible use of credit without unpleasant consequences. Somehow we've gotten the mindset "I can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left". Pull PBS or any other nonessential government-supported porker kicking and squeeling away from the breast of the American taxpayer, and it will find another way to survive. Tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

There's a lot in that last statement and once again 0.06% of the national budget is not the cause of this, but okay. Let's say we cut all "non essential" federal spending.
Serious question here, you don't have to answer it and I do not want to have this thread closed because it turns political, but ask yourself what is non-essential?

Should we close the national park system? Not sell the property, just no longer fund the NPS and close the parks to the public. No services. Leave them as wild areas with no management. Their budget in 2009 was $2,924,000,000 or nearly 19 times more than the NEA. Look at the savings. This is even after the $20 admission fee was put into place years ago and mineral rights being sold in certain parks. Now imagine the money the US could get if the property was leased for development? How much would the Hilton pay to lease a spot next to the Grand Canyon or Old Faithful? Just one lease deal would more than cover 10 years' worth of NEA funding.

I wager that more people became familiar with the national park system watching Ken Burns' documentary than visited national parks that year. (on average PBS had 133 million viewers each month - 1.6 billion clicks on the turnstile each year . In 2009 the national park service had 275 million clicks on their turnstiles)

--NOTE: I am not for closing the national park system either

 

[Skyscanner]

My last post on the topic since anything more I would just be repeating myself. I am just hoping people actually read the post and use their left brain (psychology/physiology not a political remark) to sift through the information.



once again, 162,000,000 (the entire amount the NEA gets) divided by 300,000,000 = .54¢. Your share cannot buy one can of coca-cola in most places. It is not a lot of money when compared to the total 2010 budget which is $3,552,000,000,000. Let's put it another way: 162 million is one one thousandth (1/1000th) the amount the US paid in INTEREST on the national debt in 2010. PBS gets the largest chunk of NEA spending which is where the 33¢ per person in the US was derived.

You need to brush up on your history. The reason for the NEA's founding in the first place and for PBS and NPR's existence was because NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD IT! And the NEA makes it possible for orchestras, symphonies, ballet troupes, art museums, playhouses, theaters and other cultural attractions to EXIST in the first place.

President Eisenhower (R) (1953-1961) saw that commercial radio and TV were not picking up the slack. This was even before the time of the "vast wasteland" of broadcasting (Newton Minnow, 1961). Eisenhower set into motion what would become the NEA, President Johnson (D) (1963-1969) founded the Nat. Endowment for the Humanities and the NEA so that those who would not or could not be exposed to cultural educational and historical programming could do so for free and without having commercial concerns color the programming.

It was President Nixon (R) (1969-1975) that presided over the formation of PBS. When Nixon took office, the NEA/NEH budget was about $6 million (1970 dollars-about $32.5 million 2010 dollars). In 1974 the NEA'a budget grew to nearly $40 million a year (About $187 million 2010 dollars). Nixon said this would "bring arts to millions of patrons, help financially strapped museums and orchestras, induce more private philanthropy, improve writing skills, redress the balance between the sciences and the humanities, and bring the lesson of history to bear on racial and generational tensions."

This need (which was exactly what Johnson said when he founded the NEA/NEH) has not changed. Only the memory of how things were before the existence on this organization has. Also keep in mind that 1972/73 was the time of the oil embargoes, and a severe recession and rampant inflation.

Okay. That is this session of Congress' reason. But identical arguments have been made each and every year that deficits become the political hot potato. NEA is the first thing they look at. 0.06% of the budget is the first thing they look at. Again, when a $50,000 household needs to save money, cutting a $15 year expense is not the first priority.

There's a lot in that last statement and once again 0.06% of the national budget is not the cause of this, but okay. Let's say we cut all "non essential" federal spending.
Serious question here, you don't have to answer it and I do not want to have this thread closed because it turns political, but ask yourself what is non-essential?

Should we close the national park system? Not sell the property, just no longer fund the NPS and close the parks to the public. No services. Leave them as wild areas with no management. Their budget in 2009 was $2,924,000,000 or nearly 19 times more than the NEA. Look at the savings. This is even after the $20 admission fee was put into place years ago and mineral rights being sold in certain parks. Now imagine the money the US could get if the property was leased for development? How much would the Hilton pay to lease a spot next to the Grand Canyon or Old Faithful? Just one lease deal would more than cover 10 years' worth of NEA funding.

I wager that more people became familiar with the national park system watching Ken Burns' documentary than visited national parks that year. (on average PBS had 133 million viewers each month - 1.6 billion clicks on the turnstile each year . In 2009 the national park service had 275 million clicks on their turnstiles)

--NOTE: I am not for closing the national park system either

Tony, my last post on this also as I have already made my position clear, and yes, I do hope people use whichever side of their brain necessary to process this information without letting emotion get in the way of rational thinking.
Again to clarify, I am not anti-PBS, culture, arts, science, or nature, I am against funding of these things using tax dollars. I will assume your numbers are correct on budgets, etc; the numbers aren’t the total point anyway.
It doesn’t matter if my “share” is .54 or not, it’s not a “share” if I’m forced to pay it. This is not personal, just a rhetorical question, but Who are you or anyone else to determine what my "share" is? I cannot pay .54 less than the IRS says I owe without getting into trouble. The fact that I am forced to pay for someone else's entertainment is partly what I object to. Forcing me to pay for something you enjoy but I might not, [although I do enjoy it and would pay out of my pocket of my own free will to enjoy it] sounds suspiciously like “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” to me. [quote Karl Marx].
Marxism aside, PBS is not a need, it is, in its distilled form, entertainment. You can call Nova and Nature educational if you wish [and they do have educational aspects], but bottom line, they are entertainment, and I can get the same entertainment and “education” watching “Animal Planet” or some similar commercial programming. Cultural and arts programming is available on the air also.
Do they have an enriching effect on those who enjoy them? Of course, but they’re not the saviors of the nation they are portrayed to be.
I don’t really need to brush up on my history, I was around when Eisenhower was president before PBS, and I clearly remember that our country was a great nation even without PBS. In fact [not blaming this on PBS], the moral fabric of our country has degraded since the days of PBS.
I don’t accept the premise that PBS makes a person better, it just entertains those who gravitate toward that kind of programming. There are those who believe that all a human being needs to be “good” is more money, equal opportunity, and exposure to the “right things and right people”. The fact is, you can take a criminal and expose him [or her to be politically correct] to all the PBS programming they can stand and it won’t change a thing. If it could, the prison system in our country would be using it to “rehabilitate” prisoners, and we could expect a lower rate of recidivism than we’re seeing. [I can see where constant exposure to Barney might have an effect, I’m just not sure what it would be in someone who already has issues with society]
I do not want to see the kind of programming that PBS airs go away, I am simply saying it will not go away if there is a real demand for it, and I believe there is. The American people are the most generous people in the world, and they will step in wherever there is a need or to fund something they enjoy. Others should not be forced to pay for someone else’s entertainment any more than I should expect you to pay for my car repairs.
This post is over nothing. Even if this topic were not based on rumor, the fact is, congress doesn't have the fortitude to make tough decisions, if they did, our country wouldn't be in a financial crisis in the first place. I love the quote by the late President Reagan: "Congress is like a baby, an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other end."
Part of the problem is that there are so many special interests, all screaming for federal dollars, who feel their pet project is worthy. Patrons of the arts want PBS, environmentalists and nature lovers want national parks; all worthy things to be sure, but the government [read you and me] has no business taking money they [we] don‘t have to [forcefully] fund them. See the problem? So many interests, so few dollars, so much debt.
Many are not sensing the gravity of the situation we’re in. Foreign countries, notably the Chinese have “purchased our markers” so to speak. They are now even telling us how much money we can print, they are literally starting to direct some of our financial affairs, with more demands to come. The Russians and Chinese, knowing that our dollars are not worth the paper they are printed on, are demanding that the world monetary standard be based on some currency other than dollars. We are one hiccup away from total financial ruin and this will become painfully aware to all of us if we don’t come to the realization that we can’t continue on like it is not happening.
Pardon me for quoting from the Bible: “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.“ Our debtor nation is now the servant of our soon-to-be Chinese masters. We must stop the bleeding caused by spending more than we have, and I’m sorry but 162 million dollars for NEA, or any other worthy but nonessential cause is a pretty severe cut in my opinion. Yes, a drop in the bucket compared to our staggering national debt to be sure, but many drops will fill the bucket or drain the bucket, depending on whether there are any leaks.
Understandably, no one wants their project cut, but unless we set aside our personal interests for the overall good of the country, we cannot take measures to get ourselves out of trouble. I for one am convinced that my personal interests during this time of crisis is secondary to the good of the country, and I am also convinced that, unfortunately this is a minority view. This is the “I problem”; I want what I want, when I want it, as often as I want it because I deserve it, I like it, and I don’t care about the consequences. This seems to be the prevailing attitude today.
Clearly you feel strongly about PBS but truth is, if the government cut funding for national parks and PBS today, someone would step in to support them by choice, rendering federal support needless.
ss ><>