Is it time to drop public funding for PBS?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Renob]
Oh, so now you are saying that you only support popular constitutional things. OK. So in Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Supreme Court upheld segregation, you think that it was fine because it was both constitutional as well as popular with the majority? Or what about the Japanese who were detained in WWII? That was constitutional as well as popular.
[/quote]

This is beyond stupid. No, I would not agree with them. And I would argue against them. But I would not say the government cannot do those things, because they obviously can. You keep saying it’s not the role of government to provide funding for the arts. Well, sorry, but it IS. Because it’s happening. You may not like it, fine, but that’s your opinion. Why do you think it isn’t governments role? Because it benefits wealthy people? So what? It benefits poor people too, and society decided that’s a good thing, and a proper role for government. I disagree with Creationism for a lot of reasons, only one of which is because it’s unconstitutional.

You’re right, we do read it two different ways. Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court (apparently) agrees with me. I’m not saying the Supreme Court is always right, and they are infallible, and I don’t support their every decision. I’m not going to argue every wrongheaded decision they ever made. But I agree with them this time.

Well, fine. Making culture and education accessible only to the wealthy is, in MY mind, immoral.

All I can say is, I’m glad I don’t live in the world you want to create. It sounds horrible to me.

62

[QUOTE=villa]
Both constitutionally bad decisions. They happen. Unfortunately, that makes the argument very difficult, because people can always claim that what they feel should be unconstitutional is just wrongly decided at the moment as being constitutional. That doesn’t, however, mean that someone who decides that federal funding of the arts is constitutional also believes that segregation was ever a good thing.
[/quote]

True, but misselizabeth was saying that if the majority wants a certain course of action, then it’s proper for the government to do so. When confronted with the fact that creationism was supported by the majority, she then shifted tactics and said that if it was unconstitutional then it was wrong. So I’m merely trying to show her that she’s using faulty logic here. Something can be constitutional, desired by the majority, and still wrong.

No, it does not. The Constitution gives Congress the power to do certain things, listed in Article I, Section 8. Yes, the first clause mentions the “general welfare” among other items. However, that does not give Congress blanket authority to do whatever it wants. If that is the case, why would that article continue listing those things which Congress has the power to do? If the “general welfare” clause means, as you seem to think, “whatever the people want,” then there is no reason to list any more powers of Congress.

I think taxes are a necessary evil – both necessary and evil. There are certain things we need government for – common defense and police protection being at the top of the list. We certainly do not need it to provide Masterpiece Theater or Nova.

63

[QUOTE=Renob]
True, but misselizabeth was saying that if the majority wants a certain course of action, then it’s proper for the government to do so. When confronted with the fact that creationism was supported by the majority, she then shifted tactics and said that if it was unconstitutional then it was wrong. So I’m merely trying to show her that she’s using faulty logic here. Something can be constitutional, desired by the majority, and still wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but it’s not, in this case.

My other post has disappeared, but villa said everything I wanted to, but did it better. Oh well.

64

[QUOTE=Renob]

I think taxes are a necessary evil – both necessary and evil. There are certain things we need government for – common defense and police protection being at the top of the list. We certainly do not need it to provide Masterpiece Theater or Nova.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, ok. As long as you say we need government for them, and not for other things. That’s cool then.

65

[QUOTE=Renob]
There are certain things we need government for – common defense and police protection being at the top of the list. We certainly do not need it to provide Masterpiece Theater or Nova.
[/QUOTE]

Again I disagree. Societies need culture just as they need security. A society without artistic expression will die.

66

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Again I disagree. Societies need culture just as they need security. A society without artistic expression will die.
[/QUOTE]

I was not aware that PBS and NPR are the only expressions of culture in this nation. I was also unaware that they are the only outlets our nation has for artistic expression.

67

[QUOTE=Renob]

No, it does not. The Constitution gives Congress the power to do certain things, listed in Article I, Section 8. Yes, the first clause mentions the “general welfare” among other items. However, that does not give Congress blanket authority to do whatever it wants. If that is the case, why would that article continue listing those things which Congress has the power to do? If the “general welfare” clause means, as you seem to think, “whatever the people want,” then there is no reason to list any more powers of Congress.

[/QUOTE]

Article I, Section 8 gives the legislature the power to do a list of things, the first being “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

Later powers include establishing post offices, establishing lower courts, raising an army and a navy (though not an air force, textualists), etc.

The section concludes with a grant of legislative power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…”

Now, the argument many would make is that arts funding in general, and PBS funding in particular, are part of the General Welfare. If that is the case, then the constitution allows the legislative branch the right to tax for that purpose, and to legislate for carrying out that purpose.

You don’t think it is part of the General Welfare, that’s clear. You have a legitimate argument there, but what I don’t think you can do is pull the cop out of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment” as if that was a panacea against all government action.

68

Renob, are you completely against public education as well? Because that, to a large extent, is what PBS is. Just off the top of my head:
Nova, Nature, The Supreme Court series, Frontline, Freedom Files. Then there’s all the local programming. And ~20% isn’t insignificant. How would you feel if your salary was cut by %20 and your boss said ‘eh, its not that big of a chunk’. Why do you hate PBS so much?

69

[QUOTE=villa]
You don’t think it is part of the General Welfare, that’s clear. You have a legitimate argument there, but what I don’t think you can do is pull the cop out of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment” as if that was a panacea against all government action.
[/QUOTE]

No, I think a Tenth Amendment case can certainly be raised here. Basically, the Tenth Amendment says that if the Constitution didn’t give the feds the power to do it, then that power is reserved for the states. Since Article I clearly does not give the legislative branch any power to fund arts, this power, according to the Tenth Amendment, is reserved for the states.

I see what you are trying to say, though. It actually goes back to the argument made at the Founding that the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary. After all, if a power wasn’t expressly given to the federal government, then it could not legislate on it. So why even write the First Amendment, for instance, when Article I does not give the feds any power to regulate speech or establish a religion?

I bring up the Tenth Amendment in this context because miss elizabeth says she sees nothing in the Constitution forbidding the feds from funding the arts. Well, the Tenth Amendment forbids it. Article I does not authorize it, which is the same as forbidding it, but the Tenth spells it out clearly.

Actually, I am, but that has no bearing here.

What a bunch of crap. Yes, PBS has educational shows, but it can’t be compared to an educational institution. The History Channel has educational shows, too, and it is no more deserving of my tax dollars than PBS.

I don’t hate PBS. I just don’t want taxpayers to be forced to pay for rich people’s TV programming.

70

[QUOTE=Renob]
I was not aware that PBS and NPR are the only expressions of culture in this nation. I was also unaware that they are the only outlets our nation has for artistic expression.
[/QUOTE]

PBS and NPR (and other government funded arts and education programs) are often the only expressions of culture available to lower income people. For many children growing up poor, or in bad situations, they may be the first, and often only look at a life that is better than what they have.

71

[QUOTE=Renob]
What a bunch of crap. Yes, PBS has educational shows, but it can’t be compared to an educational institution. The History Channel has educational shows, too, and it is no more deserving of my tax dollars than PBS.

[/quote]

Actually, it’s not crap. Especially since telecourses are carried by PBS. Atleast they are in my locale.

So community college tele-courses are ‘rich people’s tv’? Documentaries are ‘rich people tv’? This isn’t programming aimed at the wealthy, it is programming that people interested in learning about the world watch.

72

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
PBS and NPR (and other government funded arts and education programs) are often the only expressions of culture available to lower income people. For many children growing up poor, or in bad situations, they may be the first, and often only look at a life that is better than what they have.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is often claimed by those who support PBS and NPR, although I doubt there has been any studies to actually back this up. As the demographic cites I found show, PBS is mainly viewed by affluent, college-educated people. I’m sure that some low-income people watch it, but they certainly don’t make up much of the PBS audience.

73

[QUOTE=Renob]
I know this is often claimed by those who support PBS and NPR, although I doubt there has been any studies to actually back this up. As the demographic cites I found show, PBS is mainly viewed by affluent, college-educated people. I’m sure that some low-income people watch it, but they certainly don’t make up much of the PBS audience.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp.html
According to the statistics PBS gives, almost half their audience hasn’t had any college education. If you add people with only some college, you’ve got a clear majority. A majority have a household income under $60, 000 , which isn’t wealthy in my book. 44% are earning under $40, 000, which is getting into broke. 22% are minorities, which is larger than their representation in the general population.

74

[QUOTE=Renob]
I was not aware that PBS and NPR are the only expressions of culture in this nation. I was also unaware that they are the only outlets our nation has for artistic expression.
[/QUOTE]

Strawman.

You said we need government to provide common defense and police protection Then you said we do not need it to provide Masterpiece Theater or Nova. This is a disingenuous argument. You are comparing a general principal with a specific example of another general principle. Do we need McGruff the crime dog? Does the army need a band? Are city police forces the only outlets our nation has for defense? No, there are state police, National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, etc. Is the Blythe, California Police Department the only means of security in this nation? No. Would the country survive without it? Yes. Does that mean we don’t need police?

The country needs security.

The country also needs art.

Supporting either is a legitimate function of government.

If we’re comparing apples, lets stick to apples, shall we?

75

[QUOTE=Renob]
However, if you say you want to go to the Super Bowl and do nothing to make that happen, I question whether or not you really want to do it. If people really want something, they will make the trade off necessary to get it. If they merely say they want something and make no effort, it’s a pretty clear indication that their desire wasn’t that strong.
[/QUOTE]

This is a very good argument. After all, it’s not like the Superbowl is ever held in a stadium that has less than one hundred and fifty million seats, which is about the size of the audience who watches the game on TV. Obviously, anyone who says they want to go to the Superbowl, but has never been, just doesn’t want it hard enough.

I am curious, however, as to why you’re bothering with the 10th ammendment argument. You’ve stated that you are opposed to funding PBS on the grounds that the government shouldn’t be paying for the arts, or subsidizing the interests of the wealthy. You say this is a matter of principle. Well, if that’s the case, why does it make a difference to you if it’s funded by the federal government or the state government? Either source of funding is a violation of your stated principles, what’s the point in dragging the discussion off-topic by arguing that it violates the Constitution? Even if the Supreme Court agreed with you, and the changes in funding required by your interpretation of the 10th ammendment were made law, you’d still have exactly the same problem on your hands: a government funded television station. Or rather, you’d have about fifty of them, assuming that each state-funded television station was a seperate corporate entity.

76

Another thread showing us why public television might be a valuable resource.

77

This seems to me like a completely absurd argument, considering how much taxpayer money is spent on all sorts of things that only a subset of taxpayers likes. We all pay for tourist facilities and hiking trails and beach maintenance in national parks, for example, even though not everybody uses them.

Getting back to the class-based argument, for example, we force taxpayers in general to contribute funds for things like air traffic control for general aviation, even though the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who use private aircraft are the upper-class wealthy. Should we demand that private aircraft not be allowed to use any government resources? How about yacht clubs and marinas?

After all, as miss elizabeth has noted, the percentage of non-affluent people watching PBS is quite considerable, even if the majority of PBS viewers tend to be better-educated and higher-income. If you really want to champion getting rid of tax subsidies for the leisure activities of wealthy people, PBS funding is probably not the most logical place to start.

78

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
This seems to me like a completely absurd argument, considering how much taxpayer money is spent on all sorts of things that only a subset of taxpayers likes. We all pay for tourist facilities and hiking trails and beach maintenance in national parks, for example, even though not everybody uses them.
[/quote]

I’m opposed to them, too.

Sure.

Well, this thread was about PBS, so that’s where I started. In an ideal world where I was dictator, I’d probably start elsewhere.

Miller, the Tenth Amendment thing was a bit of a side discussion relating to miss elizabeth’s notion that whatever the majority supports is the right thing for government to do, unless that is unconstitutional. You are correct that I’d oppose PBS funding no matter what level of government paid the bill.

79

[QUOTE=Renob]

Miller, the Tenth Amendment thing was a bit of a side discussion relating to miss elizabeth’s notion that whatever the majority supports is the right thing for government to do, unless that is unconstitutional.
[/QUOTE]

I never said that. My point was, this is a government of the people, and the people get to decide what the proper role of government is. The constitution guides this, but of course, even the constitution can be amended. You don’t get to say, “It’s not the role of government to fund the arts,” and have any sort of authority; you can’t use your conclusion as evidence. If the majority is for it, and it’s not against the constitution, then the government can (and often will) do it. It’s not perfect, and bad decisions are made, but for the most part it works.

80

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
I never said that.
[/quote]

Actually, you said this, “The policy of the government, in America, is whatever the people decide it is, through their elected representatives. So, when the majority supports something, it is the correct policy.” That sounds an awful lot like saying that if the majority wants it, it’s the right thing to do.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right or correct thing to do. The majority has often been wrong in the past.