Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Die PBS Die 14

Journal by pudge

OK, I don't really want PBS to die. I watch PBS every night: NewsHour is the best news on American TV. And my family watches some educational programming on PBS. And I enjoy some of the documentaries and other news programming, often weekly.

But so what? I also watch SportsCenter and The Daily Show every day, but I don't want my tax dollars to go to them. We watch Noggin every day, and pay $2.40 per year (on top of our basic DirecTV package, not including sales tax, and really more than that, since we don't watch most of the other channels in the package, so it is probably more like $5) to do so.

This has nothing to do with any particular bias of PBS shows. Sure, they lean left in a great many cases. But I couldn't care less about that. If PBS were all right-wing, I would feel the same way. This is about a. the fact that the Constitution neither expresses nor implies the power of Congress to pay for public broadcasting, and b. the fact that commercially viable worthwhile programming is everywhere and can be funded if people really want to see it.

There are supposedly 90 million weekly PBS viewers. The budget of PBS is supposedly being cut by $100 million. So each viewer just needs to pay $1.11 to make up the entire shortfall for next year. $2 would give a huge boost in their bottom line. Two measly dollars. If you are unwilling to give $2 to PBS, I can't believe you really care about it.

I don't pay anything to PBS because my tax money goes to it. The moment the PBS budget is cut, I will send in a check for $20 to PBS, covering me, my family, and a bunch of other people who maybe really are unable to pay.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Die PBS Die More

Die PBS Die

Comments Filter:
  • According to the LA times, the $100 million (which is part of a $200 million cut in national programming, educational grants and local operators) is being cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides about 15% of the public broadcasting funds.

    Which means, if I'm doing the math right and with the understanding that this is a massive simplification, the local PBS station will take something like a 7% hit depending on how well they do with fundraising.

    There's two ways of looking at thi

    • According to the LA times, the $100 million (which is part of a $200 million cut in national programming, educational grants and local operators) is being cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides about 15% of the public broadcasting funds.

      Right.

      There's two ways of looking at this. One is that it would be possible over time for PBS to replace the loss of public funding with private funding

      Over time, nothing. Everyone can send in their two bucks now as soon as the bill passes.
      • In what ways do you (or others you can cite) feel it is unconstitutional?
        • After reading this [nccs.net] and rereading your journal entry I think I know what you'd say.

          I feel socialism is a losing proposition, but a strict reading of the Constitution (and no additional "judicial legislation" from the Supreme Court) would make a pretty depressing country in some ways. I would hate to rely on the goodwill of industry and fellow citizens to put schools up, check medicines for safety, parcel out chunks of the radio spectrum, fund mental hospitals and other things handled by federal grants, en

          • After reading this and rereading your journal entry I think I know what you'd say.

            It's pretty clear. The federal government has only the authority to do what the Constitution says it can do. The Constitution does not say it can do this. Therefore it falls to the states, and to the people.

            a strict reading of the Constitution (and no additional "judicial legislation" from the Supreme Court) would make a pretty depressing country in some ways. I would hate to rely on the goodwill of industry and fellow
            • The federal government has only the authority to do what the Constitution says it can do. The Constitution does not say it can do this.

              The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [...]
              U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

              The beginning of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 [cpb.org] seems to indi

              • The beginning of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 seems to indicate they're relying on the Commerce Clause for their authority (note frequent use of phrases like "public interest" and "general welfare".

                The Commerce Clause says nothing about "public interest" or "general welfare." You are quoting what is essentially the preamble to Section 8, wherein the enumerated powers are listed. "General welfare" is a description of some of the enumerated powers, not blanket permission to do anything in the gene
  • I don't pay anything to PBS because my tax money goes to it.

    I thought you knew that PBS isn't just funded by the budget allotted to the CPB by Washington. That ended a long time ago. Now, most of each PBS station's operational budget comes from local donations and fund raising efforts. So, your tax money doesn't really do all that much with respect to broadcasting PBS to your local TV. As a regular viewer, you should be chipping in $20 anyway, or else you're just freeloading on all the people who do

    • I thought you knew that PBS isn't just funded by the budget allotted to the CPB by Washington.

      Yes, I am well aware of this.

      So, your tax money doesn't really do all that much with respect to broadcasting PBS to your local TV.

      That's not true. NewsHour, for example, gets half of its money from the CPB, which gets, in turn, 20 percent of its money from the federal government. So it's about 10 percent for that show, which is probably Jim Lehrer's salary.

      As a regular viewer, you should be chipping in $2

  • I don't pay anything to PBS because my tax money goes to it. The moment the PBS budget is cut, I will send in a check for $20 to PBS, covering me, my family, and a bunch of other people who maybe really are unable to pay.

    That's the kind of thing I think we need to start hearing more and more from conservatives (and libertarians). There are several causes which I am forcibly supporting by tax dollars right now that I would gladly support voluntarily when the taxes are cut: county hospitals and free publ

  • I like PBS and give them hundreds of dollars per year (voluntarily -- I'm not counting taxes) and think that the current reason they are under attack(*) is very lame, but ultimately, yeah, I have to agree. This is none of the federal government's business, and my taxes shouldn't be paying for it. Because while I like PBS, someone else out there doesn't, and he's being forced to pay for something he doesn't want. And if I make him pay for my stuff, then he gets to make me pay for his stuff. And I truly h
    • What's amusing about the current attack, is that pudge is the first Republican I have seen that has mentioned that public broadcasting is beyond the federal government's role.

      I am not sure if I have seen others mention it either. Last time, when Gingrich tried to cut it, it was mentioned with some frequency.

      (Did you see that guy on the Newshour? He was actually making me laugh.)

      I half-watched, neither of them was holding my interest, largely because I think that discussion is just boring. Great, so
    • (reposted because i suck)

      What's amusing about the current attack, is that pudge is the first Republican I have seen that has mentioned that public broadcasting is beyond the federal government's role.

      I am not sure if I have seen others mention it either. Last time, when Gingrich tried to cut it, it was mentioned with some frequency.

      (Did you see that guy on the Newshour? He was actually making me laugh.)

      I half-watched, neither of them was holding my interest, largely because I think that discussio

Slashdot Top Deals

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller

Close