My take is, if Dems are throwing a fit over things like PBS and NPR that can survive withoutgovernment funding, what are they going to be willing to cut at all?
Anything that Republicans like: Defense for one. Any corporate subsidies for another. The military is evil (only when they're not evil), the Defense Department in particular and corporations / ceo's and Wall Street are greedy evil fat cats who are destroying the middle class. But then, the subsidation of the lower class via welfare has to be increased due to social inequities and the need for social justice you see. So there really won't be "cuts" per se, just a rearranging of funds away from things Republicans want and for things Democrats want.
When in reality we can't afford either Republican or Democrats plan. The cuts have to be broad and deep and across all things. Defense, Welfare and Social programs, entitlements such as SS, Medicare and Medicaid. I favor a flat cut across every single area of 15% over the next 5 years, increasing to 20% in 10 years, while changing the tax rate to a flat 23% fixed rate for everyone - no exceptions. If you make a dime, 23% of that dime is collected. Then the states can cut their own areas to make sure they can get out of the red - and in about 20-25 years we'll be dug out of this mess, assuming of course no one screws it up.
Sorry, but this is typical of many liberals who claim to support fiscal responsibility but then accuse anyone who proposes any actual cuts of being mean-spirited or partisan. I agree by comparison, the funding is pretty small, but, when looking at other potential cuts, it seems like paying for radio and tv stations should be among the first to go. Besides, it seems that the most common argument against cutting the funding here is, "But I like it."
See, now in Barb's comments she throws out a reasonable question. She may or may not be right about the effects of defunding PBS/NPR, but the question of what I am willing to cut is a fair one. Then of course we have those on the other side of the isle, instead of waiting for an answer, have to build their elaborate straw men that have no basis in reality, and of course they think they somehow made a point, when the reality is all they did was look dishonest.
Barb, an honest answer for an honest question: "... what are they going to be willing to cut at all?"
Anything and everything. Note that there is a difference between cut and defund entirely. Want to cut PBS/NPR/CPB by 10 % along with a program of cuts, I would be smack dab alongside that. Want to trim defense spending by pushing for more efficiency? Sure, base closure commissions from Bush the elder and Clinton's time period are saving us a ton of money now and did not reduce military readiness. Trim everything, as much as you can. The problem is that republicans and democrats are trying to cut based on their partisan beliefs, and with no willingness to compromise much, which means no cuts will happen, and both sides can blame the other(and both sides know that their path leads to no cuts).
See, the reality is not at all like Ockham and X Factor are great examples of why there will probably be very few actual cuts this year. Instead of wanting to come up with a plan, to them it's just scoring points. They would rather score political points than actually get something accomplished. They are a part of the problem, not the solution.
Bringing this back to public broadcasting, I don't think any one is saying they should be immune to cuts. They are fair game for cuts just the same as any one else. However, what is going on has nothing to do with the deficit. NPR/PBS is not a significant factor in that. Claiming that the efforts to defund them are an effort to reduce the debt is laughable. Creating a package of a number of programs, some popular with the left, some with the right, reducing funding by say 10 % to all of them is something that could save more money, and actually pass and get signed by the president. That is a real solution.
