What’s at Stake for PBS Viewers? Budget Cuts Could Harm More Than Big Bird and Elmo

[Ridgerunner]

If this is becoming a larger debate about the spending deficit in general, we have two issues. Democrats are generally looking to maintain or expand social services, sometimes through tax increases. Republicans generally try to reduce taxation, however they know quite well that reducing social services such as Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, and Social Security are a third rail for them. Rarely do they put forward a plan to reduce military spending. The skinny budget put forward by the White House does nothing to reduce the public debt; it just cuts fairly inconsequential budget items such as PBS and Amtrak to claim to the base that they are cleaning up Washington spending.

Look, I’d like nothing more than to pay less taxes, but to claim tax cuts trickle down to the worker is a bit of BS. Sure, it may help some job creation; but employers also act in their own interest. It’s about the bottom line. The less expenses (people) they need to make their operation run, the better profit they make. In other word they are not going to share the benefits of tax breaks out of love in their hearts.

You can’t maintain our current spending through massive tax cuts while not reducing spending. If cutting taxes is your driver for growth, at some point or federal debt service will crush any attempt to do so. The service is already over 20%…we are just kicking the can down the road.

After the last eight years, I think we already know what cutting defense does.

I agree entitlements have to be cut, but I do not see any appetite for it. An additional problem with those is that most entitlements are either not means tested at all (SS, Medicare) or are only vaguely so (Obamacare). So there are people at the public trough whose presence there is in no way justified under anybody’s theory.

So things like Amtrak and PBS and slowing increases are the only things available. Problem is, the entitlements have built-in increases.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If you want a balance budget, we are going to need steep cuts to programs like Medicare. That is not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government either. Anyone who talks a balanced budget without bringing up either defense, entitlements or higher taxes is not really serious.

Medicare taxes are already paid separately from the general budget.

You can not tell the elderly they must pay more when they have nothing left to pay for their healthcare, after they had paid taxes into SS and Medicare all of their lives. Meanwhile Congress and the President increased the defense budget by $54 billion and aid to Israel at $4 billion.

Jim

 

[Michael68]

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

Conversely, the ‘internet’ does make quality programming, Hulu and Netflix make tons of great shows and even feature-length movies.

Isn’t Hulu making original stuff now? So much for the argument that the internet doesn’t make anything.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Medicare taxes are already paid separately from the general budget.

You can not tell the elderly they must pay more when they have nothing left to pay for their healthcare, after they had paid taxes into SS and Medicare all of their lives. Meanwhile Congress and the President increased the defense budget by $54 billion and aid to Israel at $4 billion.

Jim

The separate medicare tax only covers part A. The subsidy for part B comes from general tax revenues. The subsidies for part B alone are in the neighborhood of $200 billion per year. So it is something that must be addressed if we are serious about cutting spending.

 

[Michael68]

Maybe he thinks there are fewer listening devices on the Mar a Lago golf course than there are in the walls and furniture of the White House?

Excellent point!

 

[JanetF]

Personally, I prefer to watch them on my 32 inch tv with surround sound over my laptop computer.

Jim

And you can using Netflix and/or Amazon Prime

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And you can using Netflix and/or Amazon Prime

Sure, on my TV as Comcast now has an app for Netflix

Jim

 

[PJH_74]

After the last eight years, I think we already know what cutting defense does.

I agree entitlements have to be cut, but I do not see any appetite for it. An additional problem with those is that most entitlements are either not means tested at all (SS, Medicare) or are only vaguely so (Obamacare). So there are people at the public trough whose presence there is in no way justified under anybody’s theory.

So things like Amtrak and PBS and slowing increases are the only things available. Problem is, the entitlements have built-in increases.

The thing is the 54 Billion they want to remove is just being dumped into the military. That kind of money can provide a much need bump to things like maintaining infrastructure. For a candidate that ran on not wanting to get in more foreign wars and building other people’s infrastructure, the priorities were interesting.

We have 3 basic solutions cut military spending drastically, cut social programs drastically, or make a fairly large tax increase; probably a mix of all. The thing is no one party wants to be “guilty” of this reality. It won’t be fixed until the American people stop living in the all you want la la land…and it only gets worse the more we deny it.

 

[Theo520]

Cutting PBS funding will have zero impact on Sesame Street.
Big Bird and Elmo are huge profit makers, they aren’t owned by PBS.

 

[Holly3278]

Some of the programs on PBS are biased but I do think that they should not completely eliminate funding for it. Perhaps they could simply reduce the funding but not eliminate it.

 

[ucfengr]

Some of the programs on PBS are biased but I do think that they should not completely eliminate funding for it. Perhaps they could simply reduce the funding but not eliminate it.

When most markets had 3 or 4 channels, the argument for a PBS made a lot more sense, but with cable, satellite, and streaming delivering a hundred or more channels, it doesn’t. There’s plenty of places to get your snooty, British TV with out taxpayers needing to subsidize it.

 

[Dwyer]

Instead of eliminating PBS, I would reform the PBS channels and get rid of the politically Liberal biased news and talk show programs: “PBS Newshour,” “Tavis Smiley,” “Bonnie Erbe,” “Frontline,” and anything else dealing with political issues.

Keep the children’s programming, the nature and science programs like NOVA, the arts programming like “Great Performances” and “Live From Lincoln Center”, and the history documentaries subtracting any strong political propaganda or political messaging or political axe to grind within them and adding diversity of historical expert opinions.

Also, make the history programs more inclusive of historical subjects and persons covered instead of the usual pantheon of Liberal heroes and heroines.

 

[meltzerboy]

Instead of eliminating PBS, I would reform the PBS channels and get rid of the politically Liberal biased news and talk show programs: “PBS Newshour,” “Tavis Smiley,” “Bonnie Erbe,” “Frontline,” and anything else dealing with political issues.

Keep the children’s programming, the nature and science programs like NOVA, the arts programming like “Great Performances” and “Live From Lincoln Center”, and the history documentaries subtracting any strong political propaganda or political messaging or political axe to grind within them and adding diversity of historical expert opinions.

Also, make the history programs more inclusive of historical subjects and persons covered instead of the usual pantheon of Liberal heroes and heroines.

Good compromise: I’ll go along with that, not that I have much or any influence on programming. Who would want to give up the historical documentaries, the Great Performances or American Masters series, Live from Lincoln Center, the nature shows, or NOVA? Not me! Frontline sometimes has very interesting programs too, no matter what the political perspective may be. I generally take the politics with a grain of salt anyhow, but more diversity of political thought would definitely not hurt.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Instead of eliminating PBS, I would reform the PBS channels and get rid of the politically Liberal biased news and talk show programs: “PBS Newshour,” “Tavis Smiley,” “Bonnie Erbe,” “Frontline,” and anything else dealing with political issues.

Keep the children’s programming, the nature and science programs like NOVA, the arts programming like “Great Performances” and “Live From Lincoln Center”, and the history documentaries subtracting any strong political propaganda or political messaging or political axe to grind within them and adding diversity of historical expert opinions.

Also, make the history programs more inclusive of historical subjects and persons covered instead of the usual pantheon of Liberal heroes and heroines.

So censor anything you don’t agree with ?

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good compromise: I’ll go along with that, not that I have much or any influence on programming. Who would want to give up the historical documentaries, the Great Performances or American Masters series, Live from Lincoln Center, the nature shows, or NOVA? Not me! Frontline sometimes has very interesting programs too, no matter what the political perspective may be. I generally take the politics with a grain of salt anyhow, but more diversity of political thought would definitely not hurt.

Years ago, there were actually programs like those on commercial TV, and not a few of them. I’m not sure why commercial TV turned into the awful drivel it is today. Have we really reached a point at which there is so little audience for such programs that nobody but the government will pay for it? If so, then one has to wonder whether the occasional entertainment of a handful of people is all that much a proper charge on the public purse.

 

[meltzerboy]

Years ago, there were actually programs like those on commercial TV, and not a few of them. I’m not sure why commercial TV turned into the awful drivel it is today. Have we really reached a point at which there is so little audience for such programs that nobody but the government will pay for it? If so, then one has to wonder whether the occasional entertainment of a handful of people is all that much a proper charge on the public purse.

I think audiences eventually become conditioned to what is presented to them by the media, especially younger audiences who have no point of comparison to the “good ole days.” Yes, in the early years of television, there were actually plenty of shows of high quality, particularly live theatrical performances and music programs, even some of the comedy series and political shows. That day is long gone, and we are continuing to go ever more downhill. The same is true of politics, I believe, and…most everything else in our “culture.” Why not keep the little quality programming that we have alive: maybe, just maybe some of it will rub off on the younger generation and inspire them to loftier heights.

 

[SyroMalankara]

My local PBS picked up Fr., now Bishop Robert Barron’s CATHOLICISM series

 

[commenter]

Many PBS viewers do donate money, either to PBS or to local stations. That is fine. I donate money to EWTN. I don’t ask my non Catholic neighbors to support EWTN, even though that network includes much information, Art, and Music that is part of the common cultural heritage of Western civilization.

Many of the programs on EWTN are co funded by specific ideological foundations: essentially that means the program would not have happened in the first place without the co funding. That means a Left foundation is getting a dollar’s worth of programming using only 50 cents of their own money. Tax exempt foundations tied to extremely wealthy families are not allowed to do explicit political campaigning, but can indirectly spotlight certain issues, and not others, using my tax money.

End that.

 

[Dwyer]

My local PBS picked up Fr., now Bishop Robert Barron’s CATHOLICISM series

Father Barron and the “Catholicism” production company and donors to the production company paid the PBS stations for the broadcast time.

In other words, “Catholicism” was not a PBS produced program but it aired on some PBS stations;

“Catholicism” received no financial support from PBS for its production and it was not funded by Viewers Like You.

EWTN showed the entire “Catholicism” series; my local PBS station showed about half of the entire series but not the rest of the programs.

That said, I am glad PBS was open to and agreed to broadcast some of the “Catholicism” series despite the complaints PBS received from some viewers.

 

[Dwyer]

So censor anything you don’t agree with ?

Jim

Well, in my opinion, you can’t say PBS is fair with regard to political issues, social issues, or political talk shows.

The only Conservative Commentator shown on PBS is Mr. David Brooks and he is, in my opinion, a Moderate Republican (i.e., Conservative on financial issues, Liberal on social issues) and he’s only on once a week for about 8-10 minutes with a Liberal Commentator on Fridays during the PBS Newshour.

I don’t know if PBS still has the “McLaughlin Group” since the host died but that program was more entertainment with all the various talking heads shouting at each other than a serious rational political issues discussion program.