Budget cuts is the mantra of new House Republicans. The House GOP leadership initially promised to cut at least $100 million in government spending in their new bill. After taking a look at things, they revised that number to $60 million, but the new members are not having any of it. They want the original $100 million, and they are cutting everything possible. The next few articles will highlight some of the glaring cuts. This article deals with the GOPÂ’s plan to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
On Friday, March 4, 2011, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced legislation to completely eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes NPR and PBS. Republicans have been after the CPB for a long time, most recently when Juan Williams was fired for comments deemed racially insensitive.
In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Sen. DeMint says, “Shows like Sesame Street are thriving, multimillion-dollar enterprises," DeMint wrote. "According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, Sesame Street made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales. Big Bird will be just fine without his federal subsidies.”
Gary Knell responded with, “Sesame Workshop puts all of the proceeds it receives from the sales of its products and programs back into the research, development, and production of new educational programs for children. The revenues derived from such activities offset about two-thirds of the research and production costs associated with the Workshop’s educational programs. The remaining one third comes from a combination of philanthropic support, corporate sponsorship and government funding.”
“As a result of this financial revenue model, we are able to deliver each new season of Sesame Street to PBS with more than 93% of production costs covered by licensing activities or corporate sponsorships. In 2010, Sesame Workshop had total operating revenues of $136.4 million and total operating expenses of $136.5 million.”
Sesame Street will be okay without the government funding because they structured their financial model to work within this system and streamlined their processes. Most likely they will cut programming if and until they can raise money to cover the loss.
This is not the same for other entities on CPB that are not as popular as Sesame Street. This also includes broadcasting on the public level. Eliminating funding for CPB only serves a Republican agenda for budget cuts and not the people, especially the children, it reaches on a daily basis.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 12
So what have we got to show for it? Hell, let's just look at the period since we created a Federal department in the late 70s. Have we seriously moved upwards in comparison to any democratic nation? Anyone of them?
In case neither of you have noticed both parties have increased government funding of education. Even the "evil" Repubs are only proposing minor cuts in the increase the President has proposed. If Sesame Street is a critical aspect of that vaunted system then we are truly screwed anyway.
This year's deficit, even with the tiny cuts the Repubs are wanting (and Dems generally opposing) will be 3 times larger than Bush's last one and by far the biggest in raw numbers in US history. Only the period of the Great Depression/WW2 saw worse actual numbers...
Just what do you think can be cut?
Increasing taxed will only cause more layoffs which will then cause less money for taxes and more out go to support these people who were layed off. Then we have to increase taxes again - this becomes a vicious cycle.
Simply put those who believe there is no area deserving of cuts could care less for the realities of economics.
Public TV/Sesame Street has been fiscally self sufficient for years and even if that had been something NEEDING doing, why can't the government say we did our part-its successful and it's time to go?
Government had no business in playing pick the winner or loser in the good times, it's hard to argue now is a time to continue playing that game. Are there ANY areas that you or any Dems feel can be cut?
As for what should be cut, here is a list:
1. Defense - This department is looking for, including the two wars, $750 Billion. This represents the largest request since WWII and translates to a $7,000 annual tax on Americans. Republicans are still trying to push through a $450 million fighter aircraft that no one, including the president, the former president, and the Joint Chiefs want or need.
2. Medicare - Currently estimated to cost $464 Billion. The governor of Wisconsin decided in his budget that the elderly in his state that are elgible for Medicare will be forced on it, saving them $215 Million, passing that amount on to the federal government. Medicaid accounts for about $300 Billion.
3. Tax Breaks - The Bush tax cuts cost roughly $1 Trillion, with an additional $700 Billion with the extension.
Instead of cutting anything substantial, the GOP is cutting things like Head Start and programs to help the elderly pay for their heating oil.
I'm with you on number 1. DoD needs cutting for sure and it's the worst idea the Repubs had to try and protect them from any cuts. But look again at who is supporting that fighter ENGINE and you'll see it's bi-partisan. If you are mentioning the F22, it was the one the pilots in DoD wanted rather than the more expensive, proto type F35 'steath' bird. Anyway, talk to me, what do YOU cut there? You mentioned a single program of less than half billion dollars...
2. ObamaCare directives have the Feds cutting multi billions from Medicare to help "pay" for the new program. So increased costs are actually on the states. Gov Walker like others is protesting those cuts and the idea of increased numbers on state Medicare rolls. IF he is trying to get the Feds to pay more for what is the single largest item in his state budget, he's not alone. The Feds direct expansions of such programs but do include transfers to pay for them. Nice shell game but an old by-partisan one. Worse, your mention was less than a quarter bilion in a cut EVEN if a Fed program managed to shift costs back to the state. ObamaCare alone will cost hundreds of billions once fully in place and it actually hasn't got that 3 year grace period of taxation without "benefits" going out period over.
3. New number on the Bush tax cuts? Even Obama only claimed it was about 800 billion which debateble. Increasing revenue does not do a single thing when spending deficits are already twice the amount (at best case) available. PLus no tax increse holds its revenue flow, it steadily decreases as the victims adjust spending/behavior patterns. Do a little checking how successful millionare tax rates do over time.
The guts aren't there to do it of course but ending all business/agricultural subsidies would be helpful. Hundreds of billions there. Just raising eligibility age for SS would save some and ending anything but basic SS for the elderly would savve billions more. Eliminating some government departments (Energy/Agriculture/Education/Labor) would save hundreds of billions now with trillions long term of not having to pay for bureaucrats retirements.
Out of curiousity, where in the Constitution is there anything about the Feds helping some people pay their bills (childcare and heating oil subsidies) while taking the money from still others or borrowing to transfer the money to them?
But I'll agree that the Repub cutting numbers are insubstational. Cuts of 60 billion, where ever they come from, compared to a deficit of 1.5-6 trillion are pathetic. That makes the Dem plans of increasing spending criminal rather then the Repub plan one of just benign neglect
2. Cost for Obamacare are theoretical since it has not been implemented may not be if the Supreme Court decides it unconstitutional. So we cannot count that money. Besides, that would have no affect on this fiscal year budget. Also, Governor Walker is not shifting Medicare costs to the federal government. He is forcing those on state healthcare plans to switch to Medicare if eligible.
3. All the numbers are debatable but what is not is the budget deficit would not be so high if the tax cuts did not exist. That's even with the increase in spending. I agree with ending business and agricultural subsidies.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Fed helps people pay their bills. There's also nothing that says we must spend billions on defense but we do it anyway. This is the problem I have with the current Republican crop, they want to use up and throw away. The elderly have given a lot to this country and instead of helping them to stay warm if they need it, they decide to make them fend for themselves. This country has always been about helping those who paved the way when they needed it. Somewhere along the line we lost those values. Some things are worth paying for even if they cost us a little more.
Actually ObamaCare is costing money as the states not fighting it are trying to set up insurance clearing houses and hiring personnel to write the state regs and man those centers. Never mind the amount of Federal personnel doing the reg writing at their level. We already have large numbers of doctors closing up their own shops to join with groups for compliance cost savings, same thing with hospitals and clinics. Businesses are dropping workers from their med plans and applying for Federal waivers while everyone tries to figure direct costs. So to say its cost free because its not yet being applied is wrong.
Walker's move to lower his state's healthcare plans then is the same reaction other states are doing. The Feds can print money and stay in debt, the states meanwhile are doing anything they can do to balance their books. You and likely many more may not like it but many of those states plans were created in plush times and that is far from the period now.
Actually it is easy to debate on the idea of the budget debt still being as high with the false hope of more revenue factored in. Revenue flow hasn't been connected to Fed spending levels for years, it virtually always exceeds by a major factor the intake. No reason to doubt that the Feds wouldn't have proposed even higher spending while claiming they'd "cut" spending (rates of increase rather).
Nice to see we can agree on some things, government subsidies are wrong period. Too bad you can't see that in regards to entitlement subsidies too.
Actually defense is one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal government. Thus it is one of the very few things our government currently spends money on that is required though admittedly the amounts are debatable.
Nice to see someone among the Obama supporters at least admit there is nothing in the Constitution supporting the spending/actions of much of our Federal government. Not sure where you seem to think that we have some tradition in our nation of having the government "help" others when they "need" it. That contradicts our actual history of having the churches/various levels of aid societies actually do that. Now we pay a bureaucracy to do that and many think it normal.
Blaming the Repubs for reacting, even as tepidly as they have to this budget crisis totally ignores the likelihood of a government spending collapse if something is not drastically done and soon. Trying to claim as seems almost all Dems are doing that the cuts planned are going to kill or deprive Americans is senseless. After all action not taken now just increases the odds that no spending program will even survive. We can't keep playing this game of blame the other guy and ignore/nibble at the problem.
Hey conservatives -- you better pray that your children and grandchildren don't find out what you want to do to Sesame Street, the most widely viewed children's television show in the world.
Don't you remember when First Lady Pat Nixon greeted Big Bird in the White House for a Christmas children's party?
Well you tried to get rid of Sesame Street before, but it didn't work. In 1970, southern conservatives voted to ban the show, saying that Mississippi was not yet ready "for the show's integrated cast." You didn't much like that Sesame Street was one of the first TV shows to present a strong single mother as a character either.
Shame on all y'all! Ethic Soup has a post on this:
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2009/11/sesame-street-has-taught-preschoolers-ethics-for-40-years.html
don't worry, Dems will block this cut too. Nothing needs cutting according to either the President or Sen Reid. Everything is hunky dory.