Public Broadcasting Subsidy: Unnecessary and Irrational
Sunday December 19th, 2010 • Posted by William Shughart at 12:46am PDT • 8 Comments
According to a Poll Position survey conducted in late October, 45 percent of Americans said “No” when asked whether the U.S. government should stop helping to fund NPR; 39 percent said “Yes.” Only those respondents identifying themselves as Republicans favored, by a 54 percent to 28 percent margin, ending taxpayer support for NPR.
Given that the federal budget is more than $1 trillion in the red and that deficits extend into the future as far as the eye can see, federal subsidies to public broadcasting understandably are on the table.
The just-released report of President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission recommends diverse measures to put Washington’s fiscal house in order, including a $100 billion reduction in defense spending, a substantial increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline, ending of the tax deductibility of home mortgage interest payments and eliminating all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Federal funding of public radio and television seems to be comparatively small potatoes in the larger budget picture.
This year, for example, congressional appropriations for CPB, the primary channel through which tax dollars are funneled to PBS television and NPR, amounted to $422 million.
At a time when economic stimulus programs, financed primarily by borrowing and the Federal Reserve’s recently announced second round of “quantitative easing,” total in the trillions, who could object to spending a mere few hundred million dollars to support the production and distribution of public programming? Well, I do! . . .
Click here to read the full article…
-
George, Those who prefer PBS as their source of information and entertainment should be free to patronize it, and the demographics of PBS’s audience show that the average viewer is among the most affluent in America and could easily fund PBS’s annual deficit. Hence, to compel the average person to subsidize the preferences of others, and in this case, “liberal” elites, is hypocrisy. Should NPR viewers be compelled to fund Fox News?
You are indeed correct about the wasteful funding of the U.S. defense establishment, but why stop at $100 billion? Please see here, here, and here.
-
Crazee4Dogz says:
The job of government, in my opinion, is allowing its citizens to be as equal as possible. Few of the affluent fund for their poorer fellows, they merely use more or pay may for the use (of whatever).
I’m an average person. I’d like PBS and NPR funded, national health care with single payor option, and a restructuring of our tax system so that it is heavily skewed toward taxing the affluent! How about a tax system that included a “percentage option” so the taxpayer could choose how much of his/her taxes will go to defense, health care, public improvements, etc?
-
Crazee4Dogs, The purpose of law is not to allow or make “its citizens to be as equal as possible.” The purpose is equally protect the natural rights of all people to be free to make their own peaceful choices. Treating different people in different ways based on age, race, income, gender, etc., is the basis for tyranny. If you would like to support PBS, NPR and health care being provided by the government, you are free to do so, but those who choose to do otherwise are similarly in the right.
I would recommend your reading The Law, by Frederic Bastiat.
-
Maria E. says:
Note that 55% WANT public radio/tv to continue. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to win. But with conservatives, it’s their way or the highway.
-
Maria, In a free society, neither a majority nor a minority nor anyone can impose their will on the rights of individuals. But if most people do want to support PBS, NPR, VOA, etc., then why are subsidies needed? And if such ventures cannot attract support to sustain them, why should they exist? You cannot have it both ways.
-
Steven Smith says:
We spend over 15 billion dollars in the war on drug with no good results. Public radio is a resource that is both helping our country with quality programming in the arts, science, history, and bringing communities together. I think we should be cutting this war on drugs and supporting more humanities related programs. Maybe an educated approach is better than scare tactics.
-
Steven, Your figure for the “War on Drugs” is far too low, and I would recommend the following book on the subject:
Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, by Jeffrey A. Miron
In addition, why compel people to fund NPR, Fox News, Chicago Tribune or any media? Let’s allow individuals to choose what they wish to support and use.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Search
By linking to Amazon.com from this page, The Independent Institute earns referral fees of 4% to 15% from whatever you buy. Bookmark the above link and you can support the Institute when you do your normal shopping!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Henry Bowman on “Customer Service” at the IRS?
- PaulTheCabDriver on “Customer Service” at the IRS?
- Carol Ann Harder on “Customer Service” at the IRS?
- The Defense Reform Proposals Package – the 26th edition « Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog on Another Day, Another Taxpayer Waste
- Feds Apply Full Court Press | lessbull.com on Feds Apply Full Court Press
Recent Posts on The Independent Institute’s Other Blog, The Beacon
- Healthcare and the Cost of Non-Price Rationing May 20, 2013 John C. Goodman
- Stupid Regulations May 17, 2013 Randall Holcombe
- Healthcare and the Poor: Why Money Works Better than Waiting May 15, 2013 John C. Goodman
- Why Government Shouldn’t Build Things (Part 3) May 13, 2013 Mary Theroux
- No Longer Fruitcakes. . . May 13, 2013 Alvaro Vargas Llosa
- Both the Right and Left Go Wrong on Healthcare Prices May 13, 2013 John C. Goodman
- What Medical Tourism Tells Us about Our Healthcare System May 8, 2013 John C. Goodman
- When Government Gets “Arty,” Hang Onto Your Wallet (and Children) May 6, 2013 Mary Theroux
Blogroll
- (Tab)ulation, The
- Agitator, The
- Agoraphilia
- Alpha.Sources
- AntiWar Blog
- Anything Peaceful
- Austrian Addiction
- Beacon, The
- Bovard
- But What the Hell Do I Know…
- Cafe Hayek
- Cato@Liberty
- Citizen Economists
- Commons, The
- Conservative Economics
- Coordination Problem
- Crash Landing
- Culture of Congestion
- Division of Labour
- Downsize DC
- Econ Log
- Economic Way of Thinking, The
- Economics in Plain English
- Ed Policy
- El Instituto Independiente Blog
- Enterprise Blog, The
- Federalist
- Financial Armageddon
- Fly Bottle, The
- Foundry, The
- Freakonomics
- Free Advice
- Free Exchange
- FreedomWorks Blog
- Greg Mankiw’s Blog
- Hawblog
- Healthcare Economist
- Hit & Run
- Jeff Miron
- John Stossel’s Take
- Kids Prefer Cheese
- Liberty and Power
- LRC Blog
- Macro and Other Market Musings
- Managerial Econ
- Marginal Revolution
- Market Urbanism
- Maverecon
- Max Borders
- Mess That Greenspan Made, The
- Mises Economics Blog
- Neutral Source
- Newmark's Door
- OpenMarket
- Organizations and Markets
- Perfect Substitute, The
- Perpetual Three-Dot Column, The
- Peter Gordon's Blog
- PowerBlog
- Pro Libertate
- Rogue Economist Rants
- Skeptical CPA
- Stefan Karlsson
- Straus Military Reform Project
- ThinkMarkets
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
The logic here is not conclusive. Right now, private funding will not cover the shortfall. Although there ARE other independent channels and media for public broadcasting and projects, PBS’s reputation and standards are GENERALLY higher. It therefore solicits and attracts personnel and projects which are of higher quality.
If any budget committee has the industry and integrity to rip into the worthless and even downright destructive projects that are using my tax money, such as the $100 billion unnecessary defense funds mentioned in the article which are “on the block”, I’m sure that they would “locate” far more than the $422 million it takes to keep a worthwhile entity like PBS afloat.