Should federal funding be stripped from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to save more than $400 million a year? (salaries, solutions)

[highcotton]

Should federal funding be stripped from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to save more than $400 million a year?

[sanrene]

Yes, indeed it should.

Here's one reason;

Jim DeMint: Public Broadcasting Should Go Private - WSJ.com

Public broadcasting can pay its presidents half-million and million dollar salaries. Its children's programs are making hundreds of millions in sales. Liberal financiers are willing to write million-dollar checks to help these organizations.

They don't need taxpayer funding anymore.

[ibarrio]

I agree. Public Broadcasting once served a purpose but that void has been filled by a multitude of educational channels (Discovery, History, Science, and so on).

You might argue that it serves people who do not have cable services. Well, I say that $400 million a year is too much to pay so they can watch TV.

I willing to bet that show like Austin City Limits will get picked up by other programmers in a New York minute.

or they can just get by on public donations.

[Randomstudent]

To be fair $400m is not going to make a dent in the interest of the multi trillion dollar debt, and this is more of a right wing talking point either way. If the Republicans were serious about free market solutions they would eliminate, farm and ethanol subsidies, saving tens of billions. There is no need for them anymore as food prices are skyrocketing.

[pvande55]

Sure. If they return the money to the public, I will spend my $1.33 on a giant candy bar. Most public broadcasting stations only get about 10% of their funding from the Feds anyway.

[Frank DeForrest]

If you don't listen, why should you pay?
Sounds like it was theft from the start.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

To be fair $400m is not going to make a dent in the interest of the multi trillion dollar debt, ...

This is the same argument that is used to justify hundreds of billions in non essential spending.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This is the same argument that is used to justify hundreds of billions in non essential spending.

I am not saying not to cut it, I am saying Republicans like to say do such things as a gimmick to avoid making the hard cuts...they are trying to sell the sizzle (400m from public radio) and to hide the steak (more substantial cuts in farm subsidies and the military). As long as Republicans trot out oh we want cut 400m from this as a principle goal, I am not going to take them seriously on the budget.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

I agree. Public Broadcasting once served a purpose but that void has been filled by a multitude of educational channels (Discovery, History, Science, and so on).

Sort of like unions?

The History Channel is not very "educational". PBS reaches into parts of the country that don't have much TV coverage. In Nebraska, PBS broadcasts a lot of sports, including the Omaha Royals (now renamed the Omaha Storm) baseball games. I'm sure you RWs can find something wrong with this, but I'm just sayin'.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This is the same argument that is used to justify hundreds of billions in non essential spending.

A thief will say anything to avoid being outed.