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
.png)
more,
I am conservative and there is a conservative argument to be made for funding public broadcasting in particular in rural areas. There is an infrastructure argument and a cultural argument, both are public goods.
“One of the maddening aspects of dealing with the deficit is a general tendency toward distraction.”
A more maddening aspect of dealing with the deficit is trying to deal with something, Social Security, that plays no part in the deficit. It’s a waste of time better spent discussing other things, like defense cuts, putting Goldman Sachs executives in jail (or at least fully on the tax rolls) and eliminating draconian state regulations that hold back small business. And if privatization is just a distraction, why did the last Republican president make it a centerpiece of his second-term agenda?
Read this, Bill G, if you dare: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1
I have completed my threadjack. All hail Dark Lord Soros!
Unchanged social security IS a debt issue and a big one. However I think changing it is easier than some of the other debt problems.
Money is fungible there is no separate accounts money goes in money goes out of the federal government, a big hunk of the money in and out is Social Security so it is indeed part of the debt issue.
But public radio funding is such a minutia element that the benefits from it far far outweigh the cost.
Phan, no offense taken and no intended to you, but it’s not JUST healthcare or pensions that driving costs. It’s spending across the board. We have to address things and we have to be honest and pragmatic about it. Whether it’s school programs, funding NPR or TAUNY or farm subsidies or rent control in NYC. We have built a castle on sand. We were fooled into the belief the clowns in Albany and Washington really did know what they were doing. I’m still trying to figure out why my pension statement from DiNapolli says the NYS Police and Firemans Retirement fund is in great shape and then 3 days later he does a press conference saying it’s on the rocks!
My point in the previous post was that this self centered, money grubbing conservative is willing to make sacrifices. Why aren’t the altruistic liberals?
“Unchanged social security IS a debt issue and a big one.”
Yes it is, Mervel. In 2037.
The changes we must make to social security do not include going private that is not what I mean. But Social Security is not paying for itself right now it is taking money from other parts of the government income stream. So it is a debt issue right now it is in the red. It can also be fixed right now.
I agree with Mr. Reich
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2011/0218/Budget-baloney-Social-Security-isn-t-to-blame-for-deficit
I agree with Mr. Reich, too. But he also agrees with me. He says it’s in surplus and will be for at least 25 years. And you’re right, too, Mervel. Raise the payroll tax ceiling to $180,000 of income, and presto!
But THIS IS NOT A CRISIS! A crisis is something that we can see the effects of and should deal with right now, like health care costs or climate change or peak oil. Or the nation-destroying liberalism of NPR.
Do you deny the Social Security is in a permanent deficit situation?
I enjoy some programs of NPR, yet find its political stance nothing a government of free people should support..be the stance liberal or conservative. NPR seems too often a subliminal propaganda machine.
Final thought.
Since we seem stuck on the idea that the rich/wealthy shouldn’t be forced to pay higher taxes to solve the debt problems of the state and federal governments, why don’t we just ask them to donate above and beyond what their taxes require.
We could have donation check boxes on the federal form just like we do on the state form. Maybe one for defense, another for social security, another for the environment and so forth and so on.
Just like NY, it wouldn’t lower their taxes but it would make them feel good when supporting what they would like to support.
“Do you deny the Social Security is in a permanent deficit situation?”
Yes. Because it’s in a surplus situation RIGHT NOW. The Social Security trust fund is paying out money to the rest of the government, which is a problem. The reason that trust fund is able to pay out to the rest of the government is because it has money. It is in surplus.
And I gotta say, your tone sounds positively Werner Klemperer.
From the article:
“Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.
Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.”
So factually it is in deficit as of this year, borrowing from other government pots is simply increasing the deficit. However like he said up until now it was in surplus if we just isolated the fund.
But yeah oa I totally; raise the marginal tax rate on social security from 0 to 7.5% for those making over 103k. Right now social security is a regressive tax all that would do would be to make it less regressive. I don’t understand why there is any ceiling on it at all. By itself it is not a crisis.
Great Idea! So just ask the other broke parts of the Gov’t to give back all the money that was robbed from the SS funds that were never supposed to have been touched in the first place.
Gosh, that’ll work.
“So factually it is in deficit as of this year,”
Mervel, I believe you’re reading the articles about this differently than I am. SS paid out more than it took in last year. That will happen again this year. It’s projected to take in more than it pays out for two years after that. But there is a giant pool of money, years of collected surpluses, that give it a NET SURPLUS until 2037.
If I have 600 dollar surplus in my checking account built up over several years, and I spend 20 more dollars this year than I take in this year, I will be in a deficit for this year. But I’ll still have a $580 surplus.
And yes, Bret, let’s get out of Afghanistan and make the DOD pay it back. That’s what’s supposed to happen. Or are you arguing that we gradually shut down Social Security because a bunch of rich people, the spiritual descendants of people who’ve hated Social Security from the beginning, keep proclaiming dishonestly that it’s in a permanent deficit, when it’s actually not?
Bret, that sounds like quitting. And I don’t think you’re a quitter. It almost sounds like you’re hopeful that America collapses, which sounds really liberal. And I don’t think you’re a liberal.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-social-security-run-45-billion-defic
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
An excerpt from that 2nd one that’s really important- “This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers.”
So your claim of surpluses are based on the belief that the economy will get significantly better in the coming years. If that doesn’t happen the whole projection is off.
I’m not hoping for any collapse, I’m trying to get you to open your eyes to simple facts, you can’t keep grazing the same hunka ground and expect it to produce more and more. You can’t get blood from a stone. You can’t expect a program that was expecting 30 workers to support one retiree to work when you only have 5 workers supporting that retiree.
“You can’t get blood from a stone.”
No, nor can you get an understanding of facts from Bret. “My” “claim” of surpluses is not a “claim,” and it’s not “mine.” It’s a fact. There is a surplus. The rate at which it will be eaten away in future years can be debated, but not the fact that THERE IS A SURPLUS in the Social Security trust fund. And by the best available projections, even if we do nothing, there will be one until 2037.
Alright, let me try it this way- Remember back in the 90’s when Clinton proclaimed we had a surplus? We didn’t. What we had was a situation where if absolutely nothing changed there would be an actual surplus eventually. The deficit remained, there was for a very brief time a bit more money coming in than going out, but the “surplus” did not count the obligations we had. This case is a little different because there is money owed to the SS fund. That’s kind of a double edged sword though be cause the same people end up paying either way- the taxpayer.
I understand what you are saying. You just choose to ignore the obvious and declare an unsustainable obligation in the black even though it’s in the red.
You win, Bret. You always do. It’s weird how you give up on civilization but never quit on these threads.