# Now the Republicans are going after Public Broadcast Funding **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 17, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739 "2005-06-17T19:30:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/181 "2005-06-19T03:39:27Z")
And I suppose if the Dems lose again in the next election, this will give the left wing loonies another thing to blame instead of looking at their candidates and policies. It’s not fair!! It’s not fair!! ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/182 "2005-06-19T03:45:45Z")
So remind me. The 'states that are net donors of federal funds: how did they vote? And the net recipients? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/183 "2005-06-19T03:54:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And I suppose if the Dems lose again in the next election, this will give the left wing loonies another thing to blame instead of looking at their candidates and policies. It’s not fair!! It’s not fair!! Well, it hardly matters, does it? Since they are only fated to be crushed by the Libertarian Party’s rise to world domination. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/184 "2005-06-19T03:56:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You think Ayn Rand went to Heaven? By now, she’s got God locked in his bedroom crying his eyes out in boredom from listening to her recite all of the objectivist heroes’ strong-jawed soliloquies she never got to write in life. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/185 "2005-06-19T06:06:54Z")
I just wanted to pop back in and say thank you to **Bricker** for understanding where I was coming from. And with that, I’ll be backing out of the thread, as others have already stated much more eloquently and succinctly all that I feel remaining the rest. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/186 "2005-06-19T06:51:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > And I suppose if the Dems lose again in the next election, this will give the left wing loonies another thing to blame instead of looking at their candidates and policies. It’s not fair!! It’s not fair!! I’m not a loonie for _any_ wing, but I still can’t regardthis as anything but blatant political hotdogging. Trim wasteful goverment spending? Yes, _please_. Going after public broadcasting is rankest political symbolism, nothing more. That’ll show those pointy-headed, effete parasites sucking the public teat. What the fuck happened to that ‘big tent’? You know, the one with room and principles to spare for just a whole buncha folks? Bah. Same old cynical political bullshit, spread wide to cover the lack of thoughtful, substantive reform that might actually dislodge a few deeply entrenched parasites. When in trouble, survey the herd, then name some of them ‘enemy’. Attack, loudly and with maximum hoopla, as a diversionary tactic. Hope like hell all the possible targets left standing are too cowed to point out uncomfortable truths. It’s a tactic both parties have used–and it purely _sucks_, no matter the political rationale–but the GOP happens to be in power right now. Responsiblity is the flip side of power. Can’t have one without the other. This is a drunk crook scrambling to finger a scapegoat when an audit goes sour. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/187 "2005-06-19T11:44:01Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Then quit talking about the cost of public services as if they are comparable to groceries and popcorn at the movies. Last time I checked, the cashier charges everyone the same for these goods. Not even you believes the same concept should carry over to taxation, so maybe you shouldn’t act like you do. OK. I was frothing at the mouth yesterday while writing, and perhaps that made my commentary a bit hard to follow. The same concept carries over BY ANALOGY to taxation, but not by direct application. As I have since clarified, I do not contend that each person should pay the exact same dollar amount. > [@](#): > > Under a fixed percentage tax system, the rich will still pay more than the poor. This reality shows that the supposed fairness of a flat tax is mostly based on arbitary standards. So what if you’d pay the same percentage as Joe the Janitor? The bottom line is that you’ll still be investing more money into the military, the roads, the schools, etc. than Joe who chips in mere pennies. Oh no, the horror!!! THE THIEVES ARE TAKING MY MONEY AT GUNPOINT!!! As I acknowledged above and will acknowledge again below, there is at least some rationale for the wealthier paying more dollars into the system. > [@monstro](#): > > Actually, each person does not enjoy societal benefits equally. > > A rich person who lives in a rich neighborhood will enjoy the benefits of regular trash collection, well-maintained parks, street cleaning, good public schools, clean air and water, and swift police action. > > A poor person who lives in poor neighborhood will have, comparatively speaking, crappier streets, fewer parks, crappier public schools, more polluted air and water (we can’t put a factory on the _good side of town_!), and more questionable law enforcement. > > A poor person is also more likely to utilize food stamps, public housing, public school, mass transit, and publically-subsized health care. > > So no, we can reap different benefits of society, depending on our socioeconomic class. And that is the rationale. I agree. > [@](#): > > Reading the quote above, one would easily get the impression that you’re for everyone paying the same amount in taxes, regardless of income. If you meant that we should play the same proportion, you should have said so from the beginning. Yes, my argument by analogy was not as clear as it might have been. I welcome this opportunity to clarify it. > [@](#): > > t agree that we should all pay the same proportion, at least when we’re talking about really poor people and really rich people. To a billionare, the loss of a million might be cause for anger or sadness, but lifestyle changes will most likely not occur. To someone making $10,000 a year, the loss of a hundred dollars might mean eviction from an apartment, a month without nutritious food, or walking five miles to work instead of taking the bus. The hardship is not proportional, even though the fiscal proportion is the same. I’d even be willing to consider a lower-end cut-off, to avoid the possibility above. Recognizing that taxing away core money would be a disincentive to work, I could get behind a system that calculated a minimum line below which no taxes were assessed, and a sharply gradiated range above that to bring the tax rate up to the standard rate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/188 "2005-06-19T12:01:06Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > Why NOT, **Bricker**? Do you claim that claim that everything you are occured in a vacuum? You owe _nothing_ back, save for what you choose to recognize? > > Here’s the hard reality, **Bricker** , that principled conservatism used to recognize: nobody’s guaranteed anything, but a healthy society fosters possibilites, just as measure of good sense. Pious trappings and justifications are optional. > > You–_and nobody else_–sprang into full flower from nuthin’, just by the sweat of your hard work, fervent conviction or earnest prayer. Whatever you’ve achieved-- right now, is the sum of what other people–society, other people–allowed and recognized. That isn’t an indictment; it’s a _gift_. And it applies to everybody. Or should. > > Exclude that at your peril. When I moved out of my parent’s house, into my own place, my folks gave me a lawnmower. It was a nice gift, because I now had a lawn to care for. But my folks sort of expected, I think, that I’d swing by and mow their lawn as well. (I lived only a mile away, and it made perfect sense). So I was happy to get the lawnmower. But in a sense, it wasn’t a gift – it was given in expectation of getting something in return. Now we consider the many benefits that spring from an organized society… and those benefits exist because of the marketplace. The marketplace creates those benefits by action of the invisible hand – no central authority crafts them; the simply spring into being as a natural consequence of free people buying and selling goods and services. And those benefits innure to the continuation f the marketplace. Of course I could never have paid for college without a job. Should I be grateful to the business owners that “gave” me jobs? No. They acted in their own self-interest; they got competent labor at a fair price. Hell, I worked for less than minimum wage in one job, and that was my choice… I needed the money and that’s what the job was willing to pay. I had the choice, and I freely accepted. The employer gained my labor; I gained the wage. What you, and others, are characterizing from society as a gift – the myriad opportunities that exist that allowed me to prosper and gain wealth – were not “gifts” at all. They were opportunities that flowed as a natural consequence of a bunch of people out for themselves. My employers would have loved to pay me less money than they did. But they couldn’t, because no one would work for them for less money. I would have loved for my employers to pay me more money, but if I demanded it, they’d replace me. As time went on in a particular job, the calculus changed a bit: now I knew enough about the job that replacing me would be a little loss to them; the new guy wouldn’t be as good at it, so I could safely demand and get more money. You would have me look back at all the chances I had to earn money, and say, “Look how beneficent society is!” That system - the free marketplace - is what makes “…a healthy society foster possibilites.” Society didn’t give me a lawnmower as a gift. Society gave me a lawnmower because I was willing and eager to mow lawns. That’s not a gift – that’s an exchange entered into with an expectation for profit on both sides… and that, and ONLY THAT, is the mark of a health and free society. ---
**Author:** ![zoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71c47a/32.png) [@zoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/189 "2005-06-19T13:36:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d even be willing to consider a lower-end cut-off, to avoid the possibility above. Recognizing that taxing away core money would be a disincentive to work, I could get behind a system that calculated a minimum line below which no taxes were assessed, and a sharply gradiated range above that to bring the tax rate up to the standard rate. Is this not the tax system we already have? ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/190 "2005-06-19T14:48:38Z")
I think the one thing that bothers me the most, conceptually, about these sorts of debates is the focus of the Libertarian agenda. I can get behind the idea that forcing someone to pay for things that they don’t want or use because it is good for society is problematic for some. I don’t agree, but I can at least understand. An even more generous take on my part could be that they have fundamentally different ideas about what is good for society, and are willing to help pay for the things that they do consider to be to the good (like police thugs and soldier adventurers, apparently). PBS is a wonderful example. Friend **Bricker** mentioned some posts back folks that he know that are earning good money, yet are still living from paycheck to paycheck because they have terrible consumer habits. Now, to my mind, there is inherent value in having programming that is commercial free because it can be one of those things that help prevent turning out people like this. Given that advertising is designed, in many cases by child psychologists, to encourage kids to want things that they don’t need and to get into the habit of doing so throughout their lives, I would say that there is inherent value it a media that is commercial free. This is to say nothing of the benefits to attention span and so forth. What I don’t get is why they are so quick to condemn things like welfare, PBS, Head Start or the arts and yet are deafeningly silent (with a few notable exceptions) on issues like war. In my darker moments, I tend to suspect that it is a matter of expediency and cowardice. Basically, that they are supporting thugs because they are going after weak targets that fit a narrow part of their agenda. I would simply remind them that if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/191 "2005-06-19T14:59:23Z")
> [@zoo](#): > > Is this not the tax system we already have? Glad I’m not the only one thinking this. Are we being whooshed or something? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/192 "2005-06-19T15:02:57Z")
> [@zoo](#): > > Is this not the tax system we already have? No… although it’s closer than I care to admit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/193 "2005-06-19T15:06:35Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > I’m not a loonie for _any_ wing, but I still can’t regardthis as anything but blatant political hotdogging. Trim wasteful goverment spending? Yes, _please_. > > Going after public broadcasting is rankest political symbolism, nothing more. That’ll show those pointy-headed, effete parasites sucking the public teat. I’m not a either, and I agree 100% with that and have already said so in this thread. In fact, I think it’s politically foolish for the Pubs to go after PBS because their motives are so transparent and it simply makes them look petty and mean spirited. They can’t hide under the cloak of fiscal responsibility on this, given their track record for the last 4 years and the fact that there are plenty of other, better areas to cut if cutting is the motivation. However, that still doesn’t alter the fact that I personally think funding CPB with federal tax dollars is unnecssary. Note that my post which you quoted was in response to **EC** who made the wild claim that the rest of the press is incapable or unwilling to air stories that PBS/NPR does. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, it hardly matters, does it? Since they are only fated to be crushed by the Libertarian Party’s rise to world domination. You just wait. The Libs may have gotten only .3% of the vote in '04, but they’re well on their way to getting .4% in '08! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/194 "2005-06-19T15:10:39Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > That’s “delusion” John. Maybe someone else SHOULD have paid for it. I guess you’re for ending all that corporate welfare and going after corporations with great vigor to make sure they pay their taxes, too. 'Cause they’re riding on your back much more than PBS is. Except … aren’t you in Canada? Just to clear up a possible misconception. The last line in the above comment is entirely irrelevant. Canadian taxpayers are concerned about corporate welfare and taxation and personally watch and support PBS just like you Americans. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/195 "2005-06-19T15:14:29Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > What I don’t get is why they are so quick to condemn things like welfare, PBS, Head Start or the arts and yet are deafeningly silent (with a few notable exceptions) on issues like war. In my darker moments, I tend to suspect that it is a matter of expediency and cowardice. Basically, that they are supporting thugs because they are going after weak targets that fit a narrow part of their agenda. I would simply remind them that if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I think you’ll find that many (not jsut a few) of the “libertarian types” have been against the war all along. I have. Folks like \*\*Bricker \*\*and **Sam Stone** do lean heavily to the libertarian side, with the one exception that they are much more hawkish on defense. When you say “issues like war” you really mean only one war-- Iraq. Do you think those guys would support an attack on Iran right now? Might it not be that they really thought they were protecting the interest of the US by attacking Iraq? I don’t agree with that reasoning, but I can see where they might have come to that conclusion. But I’m sure \*\*Bricker \*\*can speak for himself on this. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/196 "2005-06-19T15:19:39Z")
Defense good. Aggression bad. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/197 "2005-06-19T15:24:47Z")
The whole thing can be cleared up with a few minor reforms. Big Bird must, repeat, _must_ cease and desist warping our children with his socialist agenda. He may continue to advise that “sharing is nice, so long as it is not coerced by a collectivist governance that refuses to recognize the moral primacy of property rights.” Minor alterations to the _Coulter Report_. The Friday discussions that currently include radical Freedom-hater Mark Shields will elminate his clearly biased viewpoint. David Brooks will represent the left, Sean Hannity the center, G. Godron Liddy on the right. Fair and balanced. _Nova_ will continue pretty much as it is, so long as it recognizes that the Copernican System is “only a theory”. As I said, just a few minor reforms to bring PBS in line with the vast majority of Americans. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/198 "2005-06-19T15:40:53Z")
I really don’t get where this “PBS is biased to the left” comes from. Sure, they have left leaning shows or hosts for shows, but they have right leaning ones as well. I think the News Hour \*\*is \*\*one of the best news show around, and that NOVA is by far the best science show (which is why I am happy support PBS with my own $$). But I don’t see why PBS \*\*must \*\*remain comercial free. Sure, I’d hate to see commercials on NOVA, but then I can just up my donation if it really bothers me that much. They accept corporate sponsors, and they actually do have commercials of a sort (before and after programs), so maybe they jsut need to think outside the box on this whole commercial thing. Maybe they add more “real” commercials to the begining of shows if they don’t want to interrupt the flow. They can’t be worried about the corrupting infuence of corporate sponsors, since those already exist. And they’ve had their share of tussles with the gov’t over programming already. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/199 "2005-06-19T15:46:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …When you say “issues like war” you really mean only one war-- Iraq. Do you think those guys would support an attack on Iran right now? Might it not be that they really thought they were protecting the interest of the US by attacking Iraq? I don’t agree with that reasoning, but I can see where they might have come to that conclusion… Actually, I am not just talking about this particular war. In a larger sense I am talking about the seeming willingness to fund a war-like footing (both at home and abroad) with no seeming limit on the extent. However, I do get what you are saying. I think that it boils down to a question of interests. Folks that lean libertarian, as far as I can tell, have no issue with the use of force if it serves the economic interests of the USA. Using that as a springboard, it seems to me that they are willing to pay taxes for the things that they think are important and cry foul for things that they think are not. I don’t have a problem with that, hell I do it myself. The difference, I think, is that they seem to like things that are fundamentally more selfish than the things that I like. Moreover, they seem to have devised this grand philosophy to explain how being selfish is somehow good. What I would like to see is just a touch more honesty when folks are thinking and talking about these things. For example, I get vocal and upset when the arts or PBS are targeted for funding cuts because I think that these things add more value to society than they take, I grew up with them and don’t mind paying for them. On the other hand, even though I know that it can be devastating to whole communities, I tend to have to make an effort to give a shit when military bases are closed because I do not find any value in them and, as far are I am concerned, the current incarnation of our military takes more from society than it gives. This lack of empathy is not something that fills me with pride, but it is something that I am at least aware of, make no excuses for and have not tried to devise some grand philosophy to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739/200 "2005-06-19T15:48:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …But I don’t see why PBS \*\*must \*\*remain comercial free. Sure, I’d hate to see commercials on NOVA, but then I can just up my donation if it really bothers me that much. They accept corporate sponsors, and they actually do have commercials of a sort (before and after programs), so maybe they jsut need to think outside the box on this whole commercial thing. Maybe they add more “real” commercials to the begining of shows if they don’t want to interrupt the flow. They can’t be worried about the corrupting infuence of corporate sponsors, since those already exist. And they’ve had their share of tussles with the gov’t over programming already. I touched on this point a little while ago, but for me there in a great deal of value in entertainment that is free of comercials. To be honest, the comercials between shows represents a great loss to me and I would be pretty pissed off if they were during shows. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-the-republicans-are-going-after-public-broadcast-funding/308739.md?page=11)