Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated,
He is calling for public subsidies to public broadcasting to be eliminating. This includes both PBS and NPR.
...he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget.
...And he's wrong. There is an excellent reason for the Federal government to supply them with money. These stations are non-profits specifically dedicated to public education. I get so sick of this attitude that it's not government's job to promote the general welfare of this country. Go re-read the Constitution sometime, it's in the first sentence.
Public radio and public television have done more to educate pre-schoolers than any other education program. Here's a list of bullet points that I ran across recently:
- PBS is the number one source of media content for pre-school teachers.
- The American public has named PBS the most trusted public institution for nine consecutive years.
- Children who watched Sesame Street in pre-school spend more time reading for fun in high school and obtain higher grades in English, math, and science.
- Kids who played the Martha Speaks app for two weeks had a 31% gain in vocabulary tested.
- Last year, PBS offered more than 500 hours of arts and cultural programming watched by more than 121 million people.
- While the federal appropriation equals about 15% of the system's revenue, that's an aggregate number. For many PBS stations, including those that serve people who may need it most, this counts for as much as 50%.
...And there were a few other bullet points, but you get the idea. Whether you're on the left or the right of center, almost everyone agrees that PBS and NPR are worthwhile.
But if you cut the federal subsidy, the end result is that a lot of the smaller stations serving poorer areas that can't raise as much money as those in more prosperous areas will go under. Of course, that seems to be the MO of Republicans these days--we want all of our benefits, and to hell with the poor people.
If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding.
As I said above, a lot of stations in poorer areas will go under. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants to can just cut their budget by 12%. If you're decently well-off, you probably can, but this is why people like me get so frustrated. You have no idea what it's like when people tell you, "Just cut 12%!" when you're barely scraping by.
So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.
No, the only thing that's misleading is your attempt to justify Romney's brilliant plan to solve our budget problems by eliminating the government subsidy to PBS and NPR. It will most definitely kill its availability in a lot of areas, especially more rural communities and poor communities, the very places where it's needed most.
You've also effectively proved yet again why people like me get so frustrated at Republicans. Look, I understand we have a large deficit. I'm not oblivious to the fact that we're overspending in this country. But why is Romney picking on public broadcasting? I've heard the rationale that, well, you have to go after everything--everyone has to tighten their belts. But it's just awful convenient that to Republicans, everyone having to tighten their belts means that poor and middle class people, people who disproportionately use public services, have to tighten their belt, but rich people get yet more tax breaks and benefits.
If Romney/Ryan are serious about cutting the budget deficit, why aren't things like cutting subsidies to the oil industry on the table? Why aren't things like increasing the capital gains tax on the table? Why aren't things like raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39% on the table? Why aren't things like cutting defense spending on the table? Why is it that only programs that benefit the poor and middle class are being cut?
And before you feed me this line about "job creators" bullshit, please remember that I'm not as stupid as your standard Republican who votes against their own economic self-interest because they think that God wants them to. I watched George W. Bush systematically cut taxes throughout his presidency and we see how well that helped the job creators--by the end of his second term, we were losing almost a million jobs every single month. If you honestly believe that bullshit, then why is it that taxes are now at rates lower than they've been since the 1940s, yet unemployment is higher? The answer, of course, is that those so-called "job creators" aren't actually creating jobs, and it has not one damn thing to do with tax rates. (And before you shove polls in my face, make no mistake--I know that companies are saying that, but as has been demonstrated by the steep tax cuts/unemployment rate, it's not actually true.) Instead, the "job creators" are taking those tax windfalls and funneling it directly into the pockets of the rich.
So please, stop with this idiotic notion that cutting PBS and NPR is going to help solve our budget problems. Or better yet, I'll tell you what, I am not an unreasonable person willing to compromise. You agree to some of the things mentioned above--cutting corporate subsidies, raising the capital gains tax rate, raising the top income marginal income tax rate, cutting defense spending--and then I'll agree to put funding PBS and NPR back on the table for cuts. It's not tightening our belts that I object to, it's how Republicans only want to tighten the belts of the poor and middle class. When you actually make some genuine effort to tighten everyone's belt, then maybe we can talk.
By the way, this whole sequestration thing is an excellent example of Republican double standards. To kick the can down the road, they agreed to across-the-board spending cuts. Hey, it's only fair, right? And like good little playmates, they came together with their Democrat colleagues and agreed that both had skin in the game and would lose out if they couldn't reach an agreement later and it came to that. But now, Republicans are trying to weasel out of their end of the sequestration bargain to cut defense. Yeah, they're always, "Cut, cut, CUT! Make government smaller! Waaaah!" as long as it's the poor and middle class that are impacted. As soon as their rich fat cat buddies might have to suffer a little bit though, WHOA! Hold the phone! You're killing jobs! Which, of course, is a bunch of bullshit, and I'm sick of it.
So yeah, come back when Romney comes tells us how he and his rich buddies are going to have to suffer a little bit for the bad economy, to tighten their belts. Until then, though, shut the hell up and leave the federal subsidy to public broadcasting alone--or better yet, increase it, since it's already been cut to the bone over the years, and it's demonstrably fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated purpose of promoting the general welfare of our country.