E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf history is any precedent -- especially if Republicans win control of Congress -- assignment editors can probably plan on a Washington D.C. press conference featuring Big Bird and Oscar in the next few months.
In the wake of NPR’s decision to fire political analyst Juan Williams for his remarks about Muslims, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint announced Friday that he will introduce legislation to nix federal financing for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS programming. (In fiscal year 2008, public radio and TV received 13.8 percent of its total revenues from CPB appropriations.)
“With record debt and unemployment, there's simply no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize liberal programming they disagree with,” said DeMint in a written statement.
The sentiment, echoed by conservatives from Rep. Eric Cantor to Sarah Palin, could set up a rerun of congressional Republicans’ previous attempts to reduce or eliminate taxpayer funding for public broadcasting often labeled left-of-center by critics.
It’s a back-and-forth as predictable as Oscar the Grouch’s enthusiasm for trash.
Efforts to reduce funding for public broadcasting date back to President Richard Nixon, who was irked by what he perceived to be anti-Administration bias on its public affairs programs. In 1973, he vetoed appropriations for the Corporation, which later agreed to shrink its control over programming decisions.
Newt Gingrich led another charge in 1995, labeling PBS “a little sandbox for the rich” and promising to “zero out” funding for public radio and TV. After a public outcry, the Corporation survived the onslaught, and PBS added several new programs apparently aimed at conservatives.
More unsuccessful calls for defunding came in 1999, when it was revealed that Boston public broadcasting station WGBH had shared its donor list with Democratic Party leaders.
And in 2005, CPB chairman (and Bush appointee) Kenneth Tomlinson renewed allegations that public broadcasting are liberally biased. But after a House subcommittee voted to completely phase out the government’s grant to underwrite the programming, a powerful lobbyist showed up in Washington to rally support to reinstate the funding -- Clifford the Big Red Dog. House Democrats held a press conference near the Capitol featuring the cuddly character, kids with handwritten posters, and boxes of petitions from viewers. The full House restored the money.
So, will this year be the one that the funding is finally eliminated? If it is, it will be a spending cut brought to you by the letters G, O, and P.
Leave a Comment:
If the fear mongers want to de-fund something, lets try the farm subsidy or oil and all the giveaways to their states. Lets close some of the military bases. Texas how would you like NASSA moved out to Calif.? I guess spending cuts like that you would not be for.
DeMinted and Newt are just playing to the lowest common denominator.
Eric, if we have a flat on one tire, should we poke a hole in one on the other side? Not all churches are extreme right - just as not all NPR correspondents are extreme left.
This is a silly, silly article that only has a shred of truth to it. As with all election seasons there are more lies out there than the truth and the people who believe all the lies are foolish.
To whoever wrote this: please remove your logical fallacies. The article could do without the name calling i.e Oscar the Grouch. You are also guilty of a hasty generalization when you assume that all Republicans will be for the suspending of government funding of public radio and TV just because a few outspoken member demand for a stoppage in the funding. I'm sure there are many who believe that the funding should not be stopped.
To whoever wrote this article: Please remove you logical fallacies. The article could do without the name calling i.e Oscar the Grouch. You are also guilty of committing a hasty generalization when you assume that all Republican are for the removal of government funding from public TV and radio. Just because a few outspoken members demand for the stoppage of funding dose not mean that all are. I'm sure there are plenty that support the government funding.
To summarize , the only reason we have not been made extint is that people have an ability to b suspicious of everything. More often than not that suspicion has lead to irrational fear of one bunch or another and has lead to organized concerted efforts throughout our history that have allowed us to advance. From clan to ,village to empire and republic ,people fearing one another, given us the only reason to need a civilization and a reason to cooperate: a common cause.
Without it we would not need a civilization, much like in the theoretical communist ideal ,the proletariat would not need a government:because everyone would always be equal and each would take as they need and give as they were able.(we all know how that went)
We would not be occupying North America if our forefathers had come along and decided that they should be nice to the native population rather than to foment irrational fear and hatred for them that would eventually allow us to displace them.
As rotten as it sounds It made way for the industrial revolution,without which you would not be able to have the machine that you are writing with now, or have the average life expectancy that you do now.
So over all fear hatred and irrationality have been more beneficial to s in general than trusting everyone, and trying to get along with everyone. If they weren't extinct you could ask the formerly populous indigents peoples of North and South America.
So Steve,
If I follow what you are saying then it was wrong of us to give up on slavery since it was a long standing tradition that served in general to promote the survival of the majority, increased the standard of living for the majority and increased the life expectancy of the majority? Is that what you think?
As you do not understand it apparently. However this post was on the wrong page It should have been in response to another thread that was going back a page or so.
But no, not wrong to have given up on slavery, but foolish to deny that human nature is at its core, adversarial, which is as I said the only reason that anyone ever "civilized" in the first place. The definition is fairly fluid as to what constitutes civilized, but the motivation has always been the same, to find a way to take what you want as a group(tribe,nation ,empire or what have you) at whatever expense it may bring.
As I said conflict is the only motivator that people have ever had, without it they are contented and a contented group of people are un motivated to change anything.
You have forgotten boredom which motivates me to change things and do new things frequently. Also the exhilaration of the unknown guides my search for rewarding experiences. The "warm thrill of confusion" so to speak.
My next question is about all the good things you mentioned coming from irrational fears and hatred. If those fears had survival value and civilization was motivated solely by them, then are they really irrational?
What will be hilarious is Senator Demint and the South Carolina GOP'ERS trading in their Hoods and Robes for Turbans due to their new Governor being from an India family and background. One benefit, she MAY have higher Morals then the GOP ALLEY CAT that she replaced