Let's vote on it

  There is talk of removing funding for PBS and NPR. Should our tax dollars be funding these organizations? It's quite a question and one I really know little about. PBS I associate with sesame street and a few other programs. I haven't watched sesame street in quite some time, the grandkids are all grown up, but heard that it went woke a few years back. I hope that isn't the case. Well, whatever the case actually is I do think PBS is a great thing for children. As far as NPR goes, I have never listened to a single broadcast. In fact, I have no idea how I would even do that, what station or channel are they on? Do they broadcast everywhere? I would think that NPR would reflect the views and opinions of the government. NPR would be the "official" voice of America. Turns out, that isn't the case. It operates independently of any government interference, well, except for funding that is.

 The first thing to consider is are these necessary and vital services? If the taxpayers are paying for them, all taxpayers, then they are "free" services, like the postal service. Do these programs provide a service that isn't obtainable anywhere else? As far as radio goes, no one has ever had to pay to listen to a radio program that has been broadcast in the traditional sense. Many years back NPR may have been the only radio station people in remote areas could have received. That certainly isn't the case today. I'm thinking we really do not need NPR in todays world. It isn't like it is totally unbiased and fact based. Everyone has their own agenda. There reporting is as valid as everyone else's, and that is always suspect. But, I do think that the majority of the people would believe that NPR (National Public Radio) is the "defacto" voice of the nation. Strange that it would be financed by "de jure" if it isn't. 

 What about PBS. Well PBS does seem to broadcast the stuff no one else wants to broadcast. At least that was the case in years past. Beyond their content for children what is PBS known for? News, documentaries and "cultural" programming. It has always been somewhat of a joke. Sure the kids programming is great and PBS was the only place centered on that for years, kids love it. Before the internet that was about all we had besides the Saturday morning cartoons. The question is, would anyone pay to view the shows offered on that platform? Yes, they would. Sesame street has made billions of dollars alone. We now have channels devoted to documentaries, many free to watch. It's the same with "cultural" programming. Does any of that require state sponsorship? I don't think it does. 

 We have the Emergency Alert System to notify the public of any emergencies declared by the President of the United States. Most of us still call it the emergency broadcast system but that was changed back in 1997. That is the only "official" channel the government has to inform the public. Should we also have  state sponsored radio, television and internet based outlets, controlled by government officials? You know, to disseminate the official, real news to the people? National Public Radio to only state the official government position on any topic of discussion. Or should we continue to fund an outlet that is free to broadcast whatever opinion they choose to present? Should you have to pay for that?  

 I don't know, but I do know this: when funding is tied to your operation you have a tendency to please the one providing that funding. It is an inherent bias and can not be overlooked. If freedom of speech is truly to be free, it shouldn't be sponsored by the state. If I'm paying for it, I should get a say. But, majority rules and currently the majority is for providing that funding.

 Is it time for another vote? PBS gets about 500 million a year from congress and NPR gets about 1% of their total budget, but finding an exact figure is quite difficult to pin down. The government provides about 15% of the total budget for PBS programming. If NPR is already 99% funded without government funds how necessary is that? If PBS is already 85% funded by donations how vital is that 15% being imposed on the taxpayers? It's only 500 million dollars is what I read the argument to be. With a budget deficit of 33 trillion perhaps that 500 million could be put to good use elsewhere. I'm thinking that is what I would vote.