Morning Read: Debating Federal support for public broadcasting
Regional newspapers are covering the debate in Washington over the future of Federal support for public radio and television. The Watertown Daily Times points to Rep. Bill Owens’ support for the funding and notes his connections to PBS.
Mr. Owens has said cuts to public broadcasting are based on ideology, rather than saving money, but he contended that programming is not the liberal agenda that conservative critics sometimes suggest.
The congressman noted that he once hosted a business affairs program on public television in Plattsburgh that focused on U.S.-Canadian trade — not a liberal agenda, he said.
The Plattsburgh Press-Republican notes that Owen’s wife works for Mountain Lake PBS and they interviewed station manager and CEO Alice Recore.
“About 27 percent of our $3 million budget comes from federal funding, and to lose that would cripple us and affect rural areas like us who have a limited means of raising funds.”
It might be of interest to pull back the curtain a bit and tell you how NCPR’s news department plans to cover this issue.
We’ve assigned the story to Chris Knight, a reporter at the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and a regular stringer for us.
We will pay Chris to produce the story, but he will be edited by the staff at the newspaper and we will air his report “as is” without changes or advance input.
That story will air tomorrow morning during the 8 O’clock Hour. Meanwhile, what’s your view? Is public broadcasting worth Federal support, or no? Comments welcome.
Tags: public radio
There should be no worry.
If public broadcasting is worth Federal support, it is easily worth advertising support.
If it is a cut-above content-wise, it will be a financial success in the market.
If anything federal support of public broadcasting should be increased so that they could get back to “no advertising”, just programming. PBS and NPR are the news sources I trust to get me the least biased reporting. Commercial broadcasting is all bent according to the whims of advertisers and the public pays for that bias through the increased price of products the advertisers sell. Plus the advertisers get a write off of the advertising as a business expense so it can be argued that commercial broadcasting has a form of government support through that tax break to the advertisers.
James is right on the money with his comment. If anything, federal support for public broadcasting should be increased so that stations can rely less on underwriting and can shorten or remove those underwriting announcements which are beginning to sound more and more like regular advertisements.
Cutting all federal funding of NPR and PBS will leave the US as the only western democracy without a publicly-supported broadcaster (as far as I know). This is the not the right venue to display “American exceptionalism”.
Good grief. Lose all these Rube Goldberg machinations to show some forced and false “neutrality.” Report the story yourselves, state the potential consequences for you and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise, you begin striving for a lily-livered “view from nowhere,” which is every bit as contrived, and less honest, than Fox News:
http://archive.pressthink.org/2003/09/18/jennings.html
“When you have an obligation to remain outside the arena, it is also tempting to feel above the partisans who are struggling within that arena. (But then where else are they going to struggle?) You learn the attractions of a view from nowhere.”
James Bullard: “Commercial broadcasting is all bent according to the whims of advertisers and the public pays for that bias through the increased price of products the advertisers sell.”
Public broadcasting is all bent according to the whims of political bias and the public pays for that bias through the increase of taxes that government imposes.
The only difference is the government can put you in jail if you don’t pay your taxes that support public broadcasting.
Those evil advertisers cannot put you in jail for not buying their products that support commercial broadcasting.
I like the latter choice, better. It is called “freedom”.
Well said JDM!
I was hoping this subject would come up. In the past the threads on this subject have resulted in us being told NCPRs Federal funding only accounted for 3% of the budget, yet the story I saw earlier this week quoted Ellen Roco as sating it was 15% of the budget. I’d like to know which it is please.
As far as funding CPB, already the cries of “We’ll loose Big Bird!!!” are echoing through the press. Let’s get real here. Big Bird, Elmo and Cookie Monster bring in millions each year. Seems to me what ever funding might be cut could be easily made up from sales of Sesame Street products alone. If the patrons really value the service, the they should subscribe and help fund the system.
PBS/NPR need to become truly independent. You either sink or swim.
One more thought on the “whims of the advertisers” that James B. mentioned.
When I listen to local (commercial) radio, I hear local businesses advertising.
Like I said in my first comment. If public broadcasting is worthy to be listened to by our local community, it should be gladly supported by local businesses.
There are no whims. Our local business deserve to be connected to the best programming available. If it is on public radio, they would jump at the opportunity.
I am sure public radio would be proud to be supported by our local community advertising, as well. It’s a win-win.
I’ll send Ellen Rocco a note encouraging her to reply to some of the questions raised here.
Meanwhile, I have a question. Those of you commenting here, how many of you spend significant amounts of time listening to public radio?
And are any/all of you members? These aren’t make or break questions, I’m just curious.
Brian, NCPR
JDMm get real.
The government can put you in jail if you don’t pay your taxes to support the military or any other place you would rather not see your taxes spent.
If sticking our nose into every country in the world is something of value, then so too should be the arts.
Pete Klein: You bring up an interesting point. The Constitution names the military as one of the requirements.
It also supports a “free press” as necessary for its survival. The government-supported, tax-payer-dependent press is not a good thing for its citizens.
Brian: I think there are several programs on NCPR / NPR that I listen to that would thrive in a market-supported system.
Brian:
To answer your question:
NPR (via NCPR, VPR and NET Nebraska) are my only source for radio broadcasting (and I’m a member of all three). I’m also a member of WPBS in Watertown, although PBS is not the only TV station I watch.
Anyone who thinks the existing huge media empires that grew with the aid of government “regulation” and favorable tax-breaks has anything to do with freedom or free markets is sadly delusional.
If you believe everything has to be on the table to address our long term budget problems…then that includes public broadcasting. But that doesn’t mean the entire program has to be zeroed out.
Let’s face it. Conservatives couldn’t care less about the budget deficit. They use fears about the budget deficit, just as they use fears about social issues, simply to get the rubes to vote for them.
Conservatives want to completely cut public broadcasting because it is perceived to be full of liberal-socialist-communist-fascist programming. Not because it would have a significant effect on the long term budget deficit.
Where are the cuts to defense, big agribusiness and big energy subsidies? How about allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices? How about some small tax increases that wouldn’t affect the average Joe?
I’m not sure of the figure, but exactly how much Federal money was given to Public Radio and Public television last year?
Now, how much did the Pentagon and the State Department spend last year broadcasting Armed Forces Radio (just one example of our propaganda efforts abroad) all over half the known world? On all those overseas bases, installations, outposts, etc…..Seriously, does anyone have a figure?
I bring this up as a reminder of how completely backwards our priorities in this country are. We think nothing of providing many of the services we’re now preparing to cut here in America, everywhere else in the world. We’ll sink billions annually into building schools, roads, bridges, communication systems, electrical generating facilities, housing, etc. in foreign lands all over the world (including those money pits in Iraq and Afghanistan) and hardly any of it is ever scrutinized by politicians or the tax payers. But yet we’ll hold congressional committee hearings, have partisan debates on t.v, in the press, etc. about cutting dollars that amount to peanuts in a federal budget of nearly $ 3.75 trillion dollars for services that benefit citizens right here at home.
All of this is theater and has nothing to do with deficit reduction. Completely ignoring the big three (Social Security, Medicare, and the Pentagon) in any deficit reduction effort is proof of that. De-funding PBS and NPR is simply yet another effort by the Right to destroy two organizations which they despise.
Back in the good old days of empires, the military operated at a profit. The Roman military would use conquest to plunder those they defeated and bring the spoils home to Rome.
Now the military is an economically losing proposition. After we defeat someone, we spend money to fix what we destroyed.
Is this a wonderful country or what?
I enjoy public broadcasting, NPR and NCPR. I personally find all cable TV news boring and irritatingly shallow. Most advertising-based broadcasting of any sort ends up being boring. Im glad an incredibly tiny amount of my tax money goes to supplement my subscription to NCPR. PNElba is absolutely correct. The goal of getting rid of (silencing) NPR is ideological – a coalition of people who dont think the federal government should do anything combined with a group who think that silencing any organization left of fox news is a good thing. In this case, all the government is doing is subsidizing, slightly, rural broadcast stations like NCPR. We already have plenty of advertising-based radio and television, which if anyone wants to eliminate – to make room for more WiFi or cell phones for example – Id be happy to support the effort. But keep public radio.
I don’t understand the connection between ending public funding of public radio, and “silencing” of the content of public radio.
What difference does it make on the content whether the government collects the money, or the people just call up and pledge it (or support advertisers)?
The content will remain either way, won’t it?
Thanks to everyone who has weighed in on the question: should the federal government support public broadcasting/media?
First, let’s answer a few frequently asked questions:
1) What is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? An independent public corporation created through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, designed to manage and distribute federal funds for public broadcasting. Community Service Grants are distributed directly to public radio and television stations that meet a set of basic operating guidelines. The funds are earmarked for the production or purchase of programs. CPB also funds the development of new program ideas (from national, station and independent producers), and provides a small amount of grant money for training and system development. Its federal stipend this year is $420 million. The Act that created the CPB also called for three-year advance funding, specifically to protect the CPB from the whims of partisan politics.
2) How much money does NCPR get from CPB? North Country Public Radio receives about 15% of its annual revenues through a CPB community service grant. Our operating budget hovers somewhere around $1.8-2 million. Our grant is about $250,000.
3) How much does this cost taxpayers? The cost per individual, in annual tax dollars, is about $1.35, for both public tv and radio combined. Across the developed world, the typical per capita tax dollar cost to support public media is $30-60 annually.
I believe what makes the American style of public media better than any other nation’s is the fifty year partnership between government, business and individuals. No single sector totally supports our operation (unlike, say, Britain, where the BBC is totally funded by the government). We have independence AND accountability.
The mission of NCPR and our public media system in general, is to provide the highest quality news, information and cultural programming to our communities. When it comes to news, we do indeed hold to the traditional values of good journalistic practice–aspiring at all times to provide the most complete, fair, and thorough coverage that we can. Our job is to do whatever we can to keep the American public informed so that citizens can make informed decisions about the world around them. We work hard to provide neutral coverage; it is not our job to tell you how to think. It is our job to give you the tools you need to make the best decisions for yourself and your community. It’s the role of journalism in a democracy. Are we always perfect at this job? Of course not. But that is the aspiration, that is the standard we reach for every time we cover a story.
We are different than commercial broadcasters and media entities. This is not a matter of which is better. We are different. We do not answer to advertisers.
NPR maintains a full-time ombudsman whose job it is to research complaints from the public. She is critical of NPR when she feels there has been a breach of rigorous journalism practice or some unfairness has occurred. This, too, separates us from most commercial news entities.
Thank you all for caring enough–one way or the other–to discuss the issue. Thanks to all of you for using our services, online and over the air.
Special thanks to those of you who contribute to our work.
Market forces are very powerful, and very good at what it is they do.
But not everything in our lives should be subject to them.
I would argue the public deserves a source of news and information that is as free as possible from the market. If anything, it would serve as an alternative to all of the other news sources we have, which are indeed at the whim of such forces.
Dave, ditto.
(This is not Ellen Rocco)
Not sure who “Ellen” is, but just for clarity, it’s not me, Ellen Rocco…it’s another Ellen. When I post to this list, my full name appears.
Ellen Rocco says, “We are different than commercial broadcasters and media entities. This is not a matter of which is better. We are different. We do not answer to advertisers. ”
Ellen: You are similar, though, in that you answer to the public budget.
When businesses lose revenue, they go out of business. We don’t like to see that happen, but it happens.
When public media loses funding its a similar fate. We don’t like to see it, but it happens.
Your options are – lobby for funds or go commercial. There may be other options, too.
Like anything that receives its funding from the government – they are beholden to the elected officials.
If the people elect representatives who collectively wish to defund public media, then those who are opposed need to go to the ballot box and elect representatives who will take on their cause.
Same with everything government related.
I have been a supporter of both NCPR and the Watertown PBS station in the past. I am not now a supporter of NCPR mostly due to Ms. Roccos partisan stands expressed during the days following 9/11 and the build up to Afghanistan/Iraq and during the St Lawrence Co. bulletin board fiasco. The breach between allegedly unbiased editorial content and the reality of what was actually occurring were simply too much for me to stomach.
$420 million, true a drop in the bucket in light of Obamas obscene budget demands. But it’s $420 million that could be spent actually filling bellies, heating homes and helping the needy. Meanwhile Sesame St products alone bring in somewhere between $96 and $165 million a year in the US alone, my Google-fu is not able to determine a solid number. What do the other programs bring in? Shouldn’t they be underwriting a good deal of the funding? After all, the Muppets are as profitable as they are due to public dollars exposing to millions each day. I’m not up on all the kiddie shows, but I know at one point “A Prairie Home Companion” was doing a good business selling memorabilia, and Garrison Keillors books have done as well as they have ( I own a couple) due to his exposure via the public dollar.
If NPR/PBS truly has merit they will go on without that measly $420m. In fact, they should grow.
As far as this myth of completely unbiased and fair reporting, please. We’ve already been through that and we all accept that NPR news is no more free from bias than any other news outlet. Editorial flavor, nuance to use Brians pet word, can be in your face or more subtle and refined, but it’s still there. Try as you may you have views and opinions that cause you to present reports in a certain light. Doesn’t matter if it’s in your face Fox/MSNBC or more subtle PBS/NPR. If you deny this then just check back to the NPR story line ups prior to the ’08 election and see how many were critical of everything our gov’t was doing under the Bush administration vs. after Jan ’09 when all the sudden things like warrant less wiretaps, Gitmo, troop deaths, even the UE rate became non-stories. Once the “right” people were in office the editorial content shifted from tear down the Bush regime to support the Obama regime.
That’s not unbiased reporting. And I don’t think anyone expects perfection. But I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect right wing politicians to be fully in favor of cutting funding to an organization that’s been a thorn in their side for 40 years.
I’m an all-day Public Radio listener, that is, when I’m in control of the radio. My teenage son insists on controlling the radio when he’s driving though, and I find myself listening to the local pop stations more than I’d like. God forbid that Public Radio should ever have to operate in the local commercial market. I swear, I become stupider with every locally produced commercial, and the selector buttons are almost worn out from the vigorous and angry response generated in me.
The truth is, if public radio goes annoyingly commercial….well, it’s easy to find something else to listen to these days.
Just to give a bit of context to the approximate $420 million in federal funding for public broadcasting…As a nation, we are currently spending $500 million on military musical bands each year.
So, to my mind, there is an imbalance–or even a political motivation–in the recommendation to cut public broadcasting funding for hundreds of tv and radio stations around the country which serve virtually 100% of the American population, 365 days a year. And it was precisely this political decision-making that the overwhelming majority of legislators on both sides of the aisle were trying to protect public broadcasting from when the original Public Broadcasting Act was passed in 1967.
$500 Million on military bands? Typical Pentagon largess that receives little to no scrutiny. But they sure sound good on the lawn in Thompson Park.
And Boehner tried to shove $450 Million to the GE plant in his district to develop a second engine for yet another fighter plane we don’t need. Yes, Mr. “We need to end Earmarks” tried to shove one through. I believe it may have now been blocked by the White House and the Pentagon (who didn’t want it). I don’t think that fight is over but it’s yet another glaring example of the hypocrisy in Washington.
But there is a public service that goes beyond programming. No private broadcasters are going to put up the hardware to have coverage in a good chunk of our remote area. The fact is there is a social service a public good that benefits the entire region beyond just the individuals who like public radio programming just due to the fact that you have one radio station that can indeed cover the entire North Country. Rural areas benefit greatly from public broadcasting.
Excellent point, Mervel.
Listen to NPR sporadically, obviously enjoy this goofy blog, and am a member.
I’m with you, JDM, by the way.
I think NPR should get a corporate sugar daddy like Rupert Murdoch to fund it for 5 to 10 money-losing years, like he did with Fox News, until he finds a crazy enough rodeo clown (c’mon Somerstein, I know you can do it!) to draw a cult following and a profit, and then, when the audience tires of the antics and ad revenues plummet, said sugar daddy should continue to fund it at a loss, forever, to get his political point of view across.
Let the free market work!
But, that’s beside the point. Defunding CPB is what Alan Simpson, no bleeding heart liberal, characterized as “a sparrow’s belch in a typhoon”. Now, it may be justified if the choice was between public broadcasting and feeding and heating the homes of the poor, as a commenter noted. However, the effort being made presently is to defund public broadcasting AND programs to assist the poor.
The real issues, and everybody who is paying attention knows it, are the big three: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. Cutting discretionary spending is more of a side show than a serious effort to deal with the deficit and the problem with using it to make a statement is that to get to a “big number” in paring down 12% of the budget, worthwhile programs such as public broadcasting will take the hit.
Let’s talk some turkey here.
I have Direct TV. This means I partially pay for programs I don’t like and don’t watch.
Bret doesn’t contribute to NCPR because he doesn’t like Ellen Rocco and objects to about $1.25 of his tax dollars funding Public Broadcasting throughout the entire USA.
Must everything in this country be about money? We used to be a generous people (or so we told ourselves) but it seems we are now becoming totally petty.
Bob Dylan said, “Money doesn’t talk, it swears.” It is also used as a club, primarily used to save the rich and oppress the middle class and the poor.
Ellen Rocco says, “And it was precisely this political decision-making that the overwhelming majority of legislators on both sides of the aisle were trying to protect public broadcasting from when the original Public Broadcasting Act was passed in 1967.”
I guess public media is not considered an inalienable right, and is subject to review.
Your point about not answering to advertisers leaves you open to having to deal with elected representatives.
That’s what’s great about this country. People have power to change things!
I am a member of three public radio stations–NCPR and two in New York City with predominantly jazz programming. The suggestions above that commercial interests will support the programming on public radio “if it is a cut-above content wise” is not supported itself by the facts of radio life (there are no commercial jazz stations left in the US,for example). The content and format of commercial radio is not listenable, except for sports programming. The move to defund Corp for Public Broadcasting is political. It is (wrongly) perceived as “liberal,” and ripe for chopping by the House. This attempt is part of the republican strategy to foment a cultural war, where folks who listen to public radio aren’t real Americans. Public radio sets a contemplative, thoughtful tone for nearly all it does–this is not the kind of vibe most advertisers are interested in: they want to stoke consumerism, anger, and other extreme emotions, not give you a moment to possibly probe deeper issues. On public TV, i find i watch only the NewsHour, which, in one hour each night, gives me more reasoned, balanced, in-depth and far reaching news of the world than I find anywhere else–by a long shot. That said: if the government decides it will not funding public broadcasting, there should be a move to allow it as a checkoff on tax returns, and enhancement of a contribution’s value as tax decuction, and a powerful campaign to get listener support. It is too imporant to me not to pay. And i would welcome the removal from public radio’s programming of shows that i think are there only to please the center-right—such as John Hockenberry’s morning show, which has a prickly idiocy that belongs, well, on commercial radio.
“Like anything that receives its funding from the government – they are beholden to the elected officials.”
Only if the elected officials play politics with those funds. You know… like threatening to withdraw funding because they don’t like the content.
Let’s get one thing straight about democracy. It is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end.
The danger of a democracy is that the people can vote away all of their freedoms and their rights.
And I might add that you don’t even need a majority of voters to accomplish this because all you need is a majority of those who do show up to vote!
The Bill of Rights was instituted to try to avoid this problem but it is not a fail-safe solution. It took a Civil War to grant slaves the most basic of rights and now we see our rights being eroded most recently and clearly by the Department of Homeland Security.
I support the idea of Public Radio and TV without feeling any need to support or agree with everything they broadcast. If there were no NCPR, I would have to turn on the TV to get the morning news but more often than not, TV would not provide me with any news on the Adirondacks. The same is true of the Glens Falls Post Star. It provides next to zero news on the Adirondacks unless it is editorializing on the horrors of the Adirondack Park Agency.
“Only if the elected officials play politics with those funds. You know… like threatening to withdraw funding because they don’t like the content.”
If you don’t like what they’re doing – vote them out of office!
My point in repeating this is because those on the right have had to choke back anger year-after-year, and in some cases, decade-after-decade. Last November, a minor victory was won on the right.
Now, it’s the liberals turn to motivate an electoral turn-out in their favor.
Don’t whine about it – get out there and change things!
I’d rather find a sugar daddy like Uncle Rupe! He keeps Beck on no matter what he says. That’s a great gig!
I would rather have my tax dollars support NCPR than have my tax dollars subsidize tax breaks for an Australian who is laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible Americans are.
Billg said: “The real issues… are the big three: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense”
Except for that’s four, since Medicare and Medicaid are two quite different programs, and except for Social Security, which has a $2.6 trillion surplus and is solvent until 2037, and is an issue only in the minds of people who want to privatize it and get stock-market commissions from it. Otherwise, that’s absolutely right.
Okay, I can only take so much tripe. Social Security, as of a month or so ago, is in a permanent deficit status. IE, it’s paying out more than it takes in. The date it goes insolvent varies from 2018-2043 depending on who you choose to believe. That’s an extremely simple thing to look into. I invite you to do so.
I only wish it was truly “solvent”.
Could some of you stop taking about the end of NCPR, which this isn’t, and realize it’s just 15% of the budget? It’s only 15%, $250K. By trimming a little here and there and finding some local sponsors that much could be found. Local advertising doesn’t necessarily imply the Billy Fucillo or the Casino will be slapping their own dismal brand of advertising on NCPR. The NCPR staff are surely creative enough, if this came to pass, to develop a better level of advertising than we find on commercial radio. Same for PBS.
For that matter, NCPR could develop a true local radio station system like we used to have. Look at what NCPR did during the Ice Storm. Get more involved in local coverage, start doing more local call in shows. Cover local sports if that’s what it takes.
You guys aren’t dummies, you have an enormous coverage area with some pretty decent opportunities if this cut comes to pass, which in truth I doubt will actually happen. Local business and local gov’t are having to deal with increasing costs and lowered revenue. Why should NCPR/NPR/PBS be free of that?
And yes, we DO need to address the big 3 money pits.
Bret – most people think that social security can be “fixed” quite easily with a little tweaking (agreeing on which tweaking is the problem). Medicare not so easy. I would point out that two of the biggest targets of the current enemies of public financing are teachers salaries and public employee pensions (and public employee unions). These will go before public broadcasting subsidies. Add getting rid of farm subsidies and price supports, and ask yourself where you will be.
Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are different programs, but they are both driven by a broken healthcare system. While it is is conceivable that the fix for one would not address the problems of the other, I seriously doubt that this is the case.
Re SS, it is solvent by definition. However, that’s not the point. We know that on its present trajectory, it will become insolvent and that the longer that fundamental adjustments are delayed, the more draconian they would be. Hence, the advisability of addressing the issue now. The most credible recommendations to fix SS (the Deficit Commission) says nothing about privitization.
One of the maddening aspects of dealing with the deficit is a general tendency toward distraction. Whether it’s privitization of SS or the defunding of public broadcasting, the focus of discussion is shifted from the core issues to the trivial or irrelevant.
Actually I prefer Billy Fucillo to some of the programs he advertises on. In fact, I can say the same for most commercials except for those with talking babies and all the beer commercials.
The best commercials are those with animals.
As to Medicare and Medicaid, both could become history if we would only ban all of the health insurance companies and have national health care.
Why is it that no conservative or even a slightly right leaning middle of the road person has responded against the cut in spending for NPR? I can try to answer this with one of 2 scenarios: 1. They feel that NPR is leftist and tries to discredit anyone who thinks differently than themselves or 2. They feel a true free press means completely free from government interference and to be truly free you must stand on your own 2 feet. I personally am the latter. Lets see…. you say it costs $1.25 from each of us. In your minds there are only about 15% of the population that is for cuts to NPR (my guesstimate). so let’s say everyone who is against it to simply open up your wallet and send $1.25 + 15% (to cover those of us for the cuts) which would bring the total to $1.44 (I rounded up 5/8 of a cent). Still really cheap to hear news slanted just the way you like it.
phahn50 says:
February 17, 2011 at 7:04 pm
” I would point out that two of the biggest targets of the current enemies of public financing are teachers salaries and public employee pensions (and public employee unions). These will go before public broadcasting subsidies. Add getting rid of farm subsidies and price supports, and ask yourself where you will be.”
Ya know, I’m glad you mentioned that stuff. I realize my view of the world goes contrary to any peoples here, and moreover, that many people here have a view of anyone conservative as a selfish bigot whose only concern is money grubbing. Lets deal with some reality- I know my pension, that I worked well over 20 years for, is in jeopardy. I know my wifes pension is also on the blocks. I don’t personally get any farm subsidies, but price supports and limits affect me. I know I will probably never see Social Securtiy. I know my taxes WILL go up to pay for our debt caused by irresponsible Democrats and Republicans. I don’t like any of that. But, if I have to suffer a bit, or a lot, to help ensure this country will be there for my kids and grandkid, then so be it! It almost makes me sick to see some of the posts here regarding a measly $420m being cut from our budget of $1.7t. Yeah, it’s unpleasant, but we need to spread the pain guys. You think this is bad? Wait till they really do start working over the budget. My local school district is set to lose $2m bucks a year. Does anyone think taxes aren’t going up? What follows higher taxes? Increased costs to cover those taxes by local business which leads to inflation, which leads to higher costs. All this because we kept handing out the money with no plan for the future.
Get a grip guys. This is just the start.
Bret,
I will always do whatever I can to make sure you get the SS you are entitled to – even if it means raising the limit on the contributions made by the rich.
I care for you, not them.
Bret – no disrespect but its health care costs and to a lesser extent municipal employee pension obligations that are eating up all our taxes (not welfare). social security will be there, and we can afford all this stuff (otherwise). My point for you is, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the trouble with conservatives is that you eventually run out of other peoples benefits to cut.