- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 1,349
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
Reasonable points. But from my perspective they are missing the bigger picture of the standoff we are in regarding our ongoing federal spending habits/disaster.
There are those defending spending on the smaller non-life impacting luxury items like PBS/NPR. Saying it is insignificant to the to the bigger impact of tackling the entitlements. (which certainly is mathematically accurate)
But as soon as proposals for cuts to the Social Security and Medicare entitlements enter the equation, we can rest assured that there will be screams about federal funding to PBS/NPR and any other federal programs that are much lower priorities.
Believe most agree that Federal spending is out of control and unsustainable. This isn't about love/hate of public broadcasting. It is about first establishing priorities and then working our way down through all spending.
There are a lot of federal expenditures that are not a priority. Funding PBS is not high on the priority list.
.