Mitt Romney created a splash, along with a backlash, with his showy tough-love stance on Big Bird and Jim Lehrer, two stalwarts of public broadcasting. It seemed Mitt couldn’t get the words out fast enough, how much he loved Big Bird, and Jim too (blush!), but he was not going to borrow money from China to pay for them.
“Big Bird is going to be just fine,” Mitt said. “I don’t believe CNN gets funding [to] stay on the air. PBS will be able to make it on its own, just like any one of the other stations.”
If this truly is Romney’s position (with Mitt, you never know), then he is as misinformed as he is glib. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS, is not just “one of the other stations.” CPB was created by an act of Congress in 1967, to consolidate the various sources of government funds for what was then called “educational television.” But the origins of public broadcasting go back much further, to the Communications Act of 1934, which states:
…it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, and will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation.
It was not the intent of Congress that public broadcasting should be self-supporting and competitive in a commercial media marketplace. What Romney did was to manufacture a false equivalency between public and commercial broadcasting, to pander to his base.
It is hard to fathom the animus that hard-core conservatives have against PBS and NPR. Vocal opposition to government funding of public broadcasting by Republican leadership dates back (at least) to 1994*, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. It thrives to this day, thanks to efforts of libertarian think-tanks like the Cato Institute (founded by Charles Koch — yes, one of those infamous brothers) who would defund and liquidate not only public broadcasting but also air traffic control and global positioning systems, dams, the U.S. Postal Service and the National Weather Service, to name a few on their hit list.
Even by the Cato Institute’s standards, CPB is small potatoes as paradigms of socialism go. On its website, Cato lists fifteen “salable federal enterprises” it thinks should be privatized, including CPB. By its estimation, those enterprises could be sold for more than $80 billion. Selling off CPB would bring in four-tenths of one percent (0.4%) of that total.
Amtrak and U.S. Forest Service timberlands are also on Cato’s hit list — but we don’t hear Mitt Romney railing on about Amtrak, or how much he hates trees (in fact, he loves trees, especially in Michigan, because they are the right height). Instead, Romney goes out of his way to target public broadcasting, PBS in particular, with a vigor disproportionate to its impact on taxpayers. What explains this right-wing venom directed toward the people who bring you This Old House, Car Talk, and the letters D and R? Much has been made of Mitt’s attack on Big Bird, but the character who right-wingers really want to throw in front of a fast-moving Thomas the Tank Engine is the person of Bill Moyers.
Bill Moyers made his name as Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary, and followed this with stints at CBS and PBS, hosting Moyers on America, Bill Moyers Journal, and presently Moyers & Company. Moyers has been a favorite target of the right, thanks to statements of his such as, “The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they’ve won.” Needless to say, people like the Kochs (the epitome of the corporate right and political right) take exception. To their thinking, the class war has not yet been won, and so the warfare must go on.
Former Homeland Security hack and FEMA director Michael Brown (yes, the hell-of-a-job Brownie guy) is another “taxpayer” who can’t abide either Moyers or PBS, as he reveals on his blog: “Funded by taxpayers through the Public Broadcast System [sic], Bill Moyers uses his taxpayer salary to blast a private organization, the National Rifle Association, as the enabler of death.” Citizen Brown then unleashes his own ideas how tragedies like the midnight mass-shooting at that Aurora, Colorado theater should have been handled:
No one knows if an armed citizen in the theater that night could have stopped or even minimized the killing, but we do know this: the police could not and did not arrive until after the killer had opened fire.
We also know that if armed citizens had been in that theater the chance the shooter could have been stopped earlier is greater than it was with no one armed in the theater.
Yet we want the government to protect us from these deranged minds. We abdicate our personal responsibility to the government. We see the needy and the poor, and we ask the government to intervene. We see how poorly we plan for retirement and we ask the government to intervene. We see people uninsured for healthcare by choice or circumstance, and we ask the government to intervene. We see people unemployed and we ask the government to intervene.
What are we not willing to ask the government to intervene into our personal lives so that we might escape or avoid personal responsibility? Nothing, it seems.**
Bill Moyers wasn’t in that theater, but as far as Brownie is concerned, Moyers is at fault for expecting police to protect us, when we should arm ourselves. And we pay Bill’s salary!
Well, we do pay part of it. Moyers does not say how much he makes, but from this table (below) it appears that federal, state and local taxpayers kick in 40 cents of every dollar that he earns from public broadcasting. One right-wing site that keeps track of such things claims Moyers has been paid over $20 million by U.S. taxpayers.
In the end, it is a political decision, how we spend our tax dollars. Mitt Romney is right, elections do decide what the government should pay for. It is tragic, however, how the ideology (as usual) completely obscures legitimate questions such as:
• Is the CPB fulfulling its mission?
• Is its original mission still relevant?
• Who is the intended audience, and does CPB reach them?
• Are we able to measure the benefits to its viewers and listeners?
Actually, we hear very little data or evidence to support either side of the funding issue. What we mostly get are ideological rants and knee-jerk defenses. (How could you think of firing Big Bird?!) But I would like to see studies. They might help put my own position on more solid footing.
• • •
Personally, I don’t mind paying $1.35 in taxes a year (in addition to my annual donation) so that public broadcasting can continue. I rarely watch PBS but I do get most of my news from NPR. They have excellent reporters and their international coverage is better than any other network. As a taxpayer, I think I am getting my money’s worth.
Using tax dollars to build a new football stadium, however, is another matter. Yes, I like to watch the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the NFL is fundamentally different than PBS and NPR. The NFL is a profit-making venture. The owners make money and most of the players make money. The commerical broadcast networks make money. Sportswear companies make money. Bookies make money. So it’s different, asking taxpayers to support local professional sports teams. Isn’t it?
Why should I agree, as a taxpayer, to pay part of Bill Moyers’ salary but object to paying part of Bill Belichick‘s salary? Truth be told, I have not been able to formulate a clear and consistent principle of my own with respect to the “proper” use of tax dollars. I would like to think that decisions to fund ventures with taxpayer money are based on measurable social and economic benefits, but I suspect emotional and political considerations win out. My guess is, despite Romney’s promises and threats, the fate of PBS will come down to some senator whose grandchildren like Big Bird more than he hates Bill Moyers.
_____________________________________________________________________________
* “…the perceived leftish tilt of public-supported series like Frontline and practitioners like Bill Moyers is fueling the [conservative] campaign to leave the field to corporations and foundations, which, it is hoped, will lean more to the right.” – Columnist Walter Goodman, New York Times, November 1994.
** Seems to me that Brown’s rant has a certain uncanny resemblance to Romney’s “47 percent” tirade. Apples never fall far from their trees, especially when rotten.
*** Sources of funding for public television, from a 2010 CPB report:
Contributions by individuals 22%
CPB (federal appropriation) 18%
State government support 14%
Underwriting by businesses 13%
University support 8%
Foundation support 7%
Other federal grants and contracts 5%
Local government support 4%
All other sources 9%
“Big Bird is going to be just fine,” Mitt said. “I don’t believe CNN gets funding [to] stay on the air. PBS will be able to make it on its own, just like any one of the other stations.”
If this truly is Romney’s position (with Mitt, you never know), then he is as misinformed as he is glib. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports PBS, is not just “one of the other stations.” CPB was created by an act of Congress in 1967, to consolidate the various sources of government funds for what was then called “educational television.” But the origins of public broadcasting go back much further, to the Communications Act of 1934, which states:
…it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, and will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation.
It was not the intent of Congress that public broadcasting should be self-supporting and competitive in a commercial media marketplace. What Romney did was to manufacture a false equivalency between public and commercial broadcasting, to pander to his base.
It is hard to fathom the animus that hard-core conservatives have against PBS and NPR. Vocal opposition to government funding of public broadcasting by Republican leadership dates back (at least) to 1994*, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. It thrives to this day, thanks to efforts of libertarian think-tanks like the Cato Institute (founded by Charles Koch — yes, one of those infamous brothers) who would defund and liquidate not only public broadcasting but also air traffic control and global positioning systems, dams, the U.S. Postal Service and the National Weather Service, to name a few on their hit list.
Even by the Cato Institute’s standards, CPB is small potatoes as paradigms of socialism go. On its website, Cato lists fifteen “salable federal enterprises” it thinks should be privatized, including CPB. By its estimation, those enterprises could be sold for more than $80 billion. Selling off CPB would bring in four-tenths of one percent (0.4%) of that total.
Amtrak and U.S. Forest Service timberlands are also on Cato’s hit list — but we don’t hear Mitt Romney railing on about Amtrak, or how much he hates trees (in fact, he loves trees, especially in Michigan, because they are the right height). Instead, Romney goes out of his way to target public broadcasting, PBS in particular, with a vigor disproportionate to its impact on taxpayers. What explains this right-wing venom directed toward the people who bring you This Old House, Car Talk, and the letters D and R? Much has been made of Mitt’s attack on Big Bird, but the character who right-wingers really want to throw in front of a fast-moving Thomas the Tank Engine is the person of Bill Moyers.
Bill Moyers made his name as Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary, and followed this with stints at CBS and PBS, hosting Moyers on America, Bill Moyers Journal, and presently Moyers & Company. Moyers has been a favorite target of the right, thanks to statements of his such as, “The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they’ve won.” Needless to say, people like the Kochs (the epitome of the corporate right and political right) take exception. To their thinking, the class war has not yet been won, and so the warfare must go on.
Former Homeland Security hack and FEMA director Michael Brown (yes, the hell-of-a-job Brownie guy) is another “taxpayer” who can’t abide either Moyers or PBS, as he reveals on his blog: “Funded by taxpayers through the Public Broadcast System [sic], Bill Moyers uses his taxpayer salary to blast a private organization, the National Rifle Association, as the enabler of death.” Citizen Brown then unleashes his own ideas how tragedies like the midnight mass-shooting at that Aurora, Colorado theater should have been handled:
No one knows if an armed citizen in the theater that night could have stopped or even minimized the killing, but we do know this: the police could not and did not arrive until after the killer had opened fire.
We also know that if armed citizens had been in that theater the chance the shooter could have been stopped earlier is greater than it was with no one armed in the theater.
Yet we want the government to protect us from these deranged minds. We abdicate our personal responsibility to the government. We see the needy and the poor, and we ask the government to intervene. We see how poorly we plan for retirement and we ask the government to intervene. We see people uninsured for healthcare by choice or circumstance, and we ask the government to intervene. We see people unemployed and we ask the government to intervene.
What are we not willing to ask the government to intervene into our personal lives so that we might escape or avoid personal responsibility? Nothing, it seems.**
Bill Moyers wasn’t in that theater, but as far as Brownie is concerned, Moyers is at fault for expecting police to protect us, when we should arm ourselves. And we pay Bill’s salary!
Well, we do pay part of it. Moyers does not say how much he makes, but from this table (below) it appears that federal, state and local taxpayers kick in 40 cents of every dollar that he earns from public broadcasting. One right-wing site that keeps track of such things claims Moyers has been paid over $20 million by U.S. taxpayers.
In the end, it is a political decision, how we spend our tax dollars. Mitt Romney is right, elections do decide what the government should pay for. It is tragic, however, how the ideology (as usual) completely obscures legitimate questions such as:
• Is the CPB fulfulling its mission?
• Is its original mission still relevant?
• Who is the intended audience, and does CPB reach them?
• Are we able to measure the benefits to its viewers and listeners?
Actually, we hear very little data or evidence to support either side of the funding issue. What we mostly get are ideological rants and knee-jerk defenses. (How could you think of firing Big Bird?!) But I would like to see studies. They might help put my own position on more solid footing.
• • •
Personally, I don’t mind paying $1.35 in taxes a year (in addition to my annual donation) so that public broadcasting can continue. I rarely watch PBS but I do get most of my news from NPR. They have excellent reporters and their international coverage is better than any other network. As a taxpayer, I think I am getting my money’s worth.
Using tax dollars to build a new football stadium, however, is another matter. Yes, I like to watch the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the NFL is fundamentally different than PBS and NPR. The NFL is a profit-making venture. The owners make money and most of the players make money. The commerical broadcast networks make money. Sportswear companies make money. Bookies make money. So it’s different, asking taxpayers to support local professional sports teams. Isn’t it?
Why should I agree, as a taxpayer, to pay part of Bill Moyers’ salary but object to paying part of Bill Belichick‘s salary? Truth be told, I have not been able to formulate a clear and consistent principle of my own with respect to the “proper” use of tax dollars. I would like to think that decisions to fund ventures with taxpayer money are based on measurable social and economic benefits, but I suspect emotional and political considerations win out. My guess is, despite Romney’s promises and threats, the fate of PBS will come down to some senator whose grandchildren like Big Bird more than he hates Bill Moyers.
_____________________________________________________________________________
* “…the perceived leftish tilt of public-supported series like Frontline and practitioners like Bill Moyers is fueling the [conservative] campaign to leave the field to corporations and foundations, which, it is hoped, will lean more to the right.” – Columnist Walter Goodman, New York Times, November 1994.
** Seems to me that Brown’s rant has a certain uncanny resemblance to Romney’s “47 percent” tirade. Apples never fall far from their trees, especially when rotten.
*** Sources of funding for public television, from a 2010 CPB report:
Contributions by individuals 22%
CPB (federal appropriation) 18%
State government support 14%
Underwriting by businesses 13%
University support 8%
Foundation support 7%
Other federal grants and contracts 5%
Local government support 4%
All other sources 9%