Currently viewing the tag: “Funding”
Just what is it with the Obama Administration and state broadcasters? Not content with sticking by NPR after the House of Representatives voted to cut off its funding, it now emerges that the administration has been giving money to the BBC and, according to one report, is considering increasing that aid. Of course, one thing NPR and the Beeb share, apart from being on the public dole, is that they oppose traditional American values. Is that what the Obama Administration likes?
The report by the British newspaper The Guardian that the U.S. State Department will soon give a substantial grant to the BBC World Service provoked understandable outrage and dismay on Capitol Hill, the Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, so State rushed out a semi-denial. Yes, State is expecting to receive a British Broadcasting Corporation proposal for aid for Internet circumvention technology directed at breaching China’s Internet censorship, but no, the proposal is not in yet and no decision has been made.
This letter to the editor of the Guardian can be found on the State Department website:
The Guardian article of March 20, alleging that the U.S. Department of State is about to sign a funding deal with the BBC is inaccurate and misleading. The BBC World Service Trust has indicated its intention to submit a proposal to the State Department in the area of Internet freedom, as part of an open and competitive solicitation, but we have not yet received this proposal or made any funding decisions. The State Department has no intention of announcing any funding decisions regarding Internet freedom programming on World Press Freedom Day.
The letter is signed Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. It will be, of course, absolutely appalling if State does decide to award the money once the proposal arrives at the office of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) in Foggy Bottom.
At a time of soaring budget deficits in this country and cuts in U.S. radio transmissions to key areas of the world, a U.S. grant given to the BBC World Service would have been a snub of enormous proportions to the BBG, which overseas not only U.S. international broadcasting, but also the Internet circumvention efforts of the U.S. government itself.
And it wouldn’t be the first snub. Only a few weeks ago that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained repeatedly in testimony before the House and the Senate that the United States is loosing the “information war” against the likes on Al Qaeda, China and Russia. A rift within the U.S. government threatened to widen to a chasm.
The fact is that the BBC World Service Trust, a separate development assistance entity of the British government, actually already is the recipient of American taxpayer funding — as mind-blowing as that concept might be. USAID is giving the BBC World Service Trust $ 4.5 million for “media support for strengthening advocacy, good governance and empowerment” worldwide, among other things training journalists in Nigeria. Furthermore, the State Department’s DRL has also approved $ 350,000 for BBC World Service Trust to do shortwave broadcasting into Burma. Needless to say, this largess is not going down well at Voice of America and the BBG, which itself also performs these functions.
Is the Obama administration and the State Department really so enamored of the BBC that it prefers the British broadcaster over its own U.S. government-funded and globally respected broadcasting services? So it seems. After all, President Obama went on the BBC to give an important message to the Arab world in June, 2009, but has never given one to Voice of America — the only U.S. president since the founding of VOA not to do so. Possibly the president might find the BBC’s often anti-American point of view more in sync with his own thinking. If this is indeed the reason for these very troubling funding decisions, maybe it is time for the White House to ask the British embassy to have the bust of Winston Churchill back.
Here’s yet another indication that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown intends to vote in a way that more reflects his state’s electorate and less the way Tea Party movement Republicans demand him to vote: he’s against eliminating all Planned Parenthood funding. Look for Rush, Sean, et. al to start going after him with frequency and a Tea Party primary challenge when he’s up for re-election. But this may be the straw that broke the tea pot’s spout:
US Senator Scott Brown opposes a House Republican plan to cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the womens’ health service provider, and today urged budget negotiators to reach a compromise.
“I support family planning and health services for women,” Brown, a Bay State Republican, said in a statement. “Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
House Republicans have sought to eliminate all federal grants and contracts with Planned Parenthood, some $ 300 million, because the agency provides abortion services. By law, none of the federal money can be used to pay for abortions, but abortion-rights opponents have argued that any financial support for Planned Parenthood frees up other money that could be used for abortions.
The argument comes as part of an ongoing budget fight: Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been unable to agree on a budget to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year; Congress has recently passed two short-term stopgaps to allow more time to reach a long-term deal.
Massachusetts has always been a different kind of state for Republicans, where they must jump through hoops not on the far right to survive. Just look at Mitt Romney running around the country trying to distance himself from his health care reform record (and stands) as Governor — a record admired by some RINOS, Democrats and independents and reviled by many conservative Republicans.
Here’s yet another indication that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown intends to vote in a way that more reflects his state’s electorate and less the way Tea Party movement Republicans demand him to vote: he’s against eliminating all Planned Parenthood funding. Look for Rush, Sean, et. al to start going after him with frequency and a Tea Party primary challenge when he’s up for re-election. But this may be the straw that broke the tea pot’s spout:
US Senator Scott Brown opposes a House Republican plan to cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the womens’ health service provider, and today urged budget negotiators to reach a compromise.
“I support family planning and health services for women,” Brown, a Bay State Republican, said in a statement. “Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
House Republicans have sought to eliminate all federal grants and contracts with Planned Parenthood, some $ 300 million, because the agency provides abortion services. By law, none of the federal money can be used to pay for abortions, but abortion-rights opponents have argued that any financial support for Planned Parenthood frees up other money that could be used for abortions.
The argument comes as part of an ongoing budget fight: Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been unable to agree on a budget to fund the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year; Congress has recently passed two short-term stopgaps to allow more time to reach a long-term deal.
Massachusetts has always been a different kind of state for Republicans, where they must jump through hoops not on the far right to survive. Just look at Mitt Romney running around the country trying to distance himself from his health care reform record (and stands) as Governor — a record admired by some RINOS, Democrats and independents and reviled by many conservative Republicans.
Not surprisingly, many of the budget cuts that sailed through the House aren’t being received too well in the Senate. The latest indication of that is Scott Brown’s announcement that he would not support the complete cut-off of Federal funding to Planned Parenthood:
WASHINGTON — US Senator Scott Brown opposes a House Republican plan to cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the womens’ health service provider, and today urged budget negotiators to reach a compromise.
“I support family planning and health services for women,” Brown, a Bay State Republican, said in a statement. “Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts. However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”
House Republicans have sought to eliminate all federal grants and contracts with Planned Parenthood, some $ 300 million, because the agency provides abortion services. By law, none of the federal money can be used to pay for abortions, but abortion-rights opponents have argued that any financial support for Planned Parenthood frees up other money that could be used for abortions.
Expect another denunciation of Brown from the right shortly.
I’ve seen a number of people excitedly tossing around links to Senator Scott Brown’s statement in support of Planned Parenthood funding, but I think this is the most important part of the article:
Earlier this month, Brown voted in favor the House GOP proposal that would have made the cuts, though he said at the time that he “would have had different priorities” in cutting spending. The Senate defeated the House plan, and a Democratic alternative, in a set of votes orchestrated by Senate leaders to force both sides back into negotiations.
Scott Brown’s not a back bench house member. He’s a Republican Senator from Massachusetts. He’s at the pivot points. The way for him to get things done is to refuse to vote for bills that have provisions he opposes. If he’s voting to defund Planned Parenthood, then all the statements in the world don’t mean a thing.
For over 40 years, the government’s Title X initiative has supported family planning programs that provide contraceptive, health, and family services to over 5 million low-income women and men each year. Title X “makes no funds available for abortion” but provides grants to a network of organizations that play “a critical role in ensuring access to confidential, voluntary family planning services and information to all who want and need them.” Of the millions of women served by these clinics, 28 percent receive care at Planned Parenthood.
Recognizing the “important work” such clinics like Planned Parenthood perform “in our inner cities,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) pushed back against criticism of the House GOP’s plan to gut the program in a recent radio interview, saying he himself has “never advocated reducing funding for Title X”:
“I’ve never advocated reducing funding for Title X,” Pence said during a recent radio interview with the chairman of a county Right to Life organization in his home state.
“Title X clinics do important work in our inner cities,” Pence said. “They provide health services for women and children that might not otherwise have access to them.”
As a prominent and influential House Republican, Pence and his defense of Title X may be able to win over the program’s most voracious opponent: Mike Pence. Not only did he successfully pass an amendment to “eliminate the entire Title X program” in February, he is the chief sponsor of the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act — a bill that would ban those clinics that “do important work” from receiving any federal funds because they may provide abortions.
Readily admitting that the law prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, Pence insists that “common sense says there’s no question that taxpayer dollars received by Planned Parenthood are used to cover allowed expenses like overhead operational costs, thus freeing up other money for clinics that do provide abortion.” His bill, he says, would “close the loophole that’s forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the nations leading abortion provider, sustaining and underwriting this nefarious trade.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told ThinkProgress there’s only one way to view Pence’s open hypocrisy: “Clearly, Pence is feeling the political heat for being the head cheerleader for an over-reaching agenda that would take away millions of Americans’ access to contraception, cancer screenings, and health-care services.” But whatever he may say, his actions speak louder than words. (HT: Raw Story)
Washington (CNN) After declaring President Obama’s decision to order airstrikes on Libya a potential “impeachable offense,” Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich is calling for an immediate halt to all funds for any further military action in the conflict.
“Now the immediate thing that Congress needs to do when it returns is to cut off any funds for continuing in Libya and I intend to bring forward such an amendment,” Kucinich said in an interview with CNN, noting any legislative action would have to wait until after the current Congressional recess.
White House officials insist the President’s actions are well within the law, pointing to a letter sent by Mr. Obama to House Speaker John Boehner Monday. The letter emphasizes the airstrikes are part of an international mission to enforce a “no-fly zone” authorized by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
The letter, the administration argues, satisfies the War Powers Act which requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours of engaging in any military action.
“Our view is a mission of this kind which is time limited, well defined and discreet clearly falls within the president’s constitutional authority,” said Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes at a press briefing Monday.
Rhodes noted President Obama is following the lead taken by his recent predecessors. “If you actually look at precedent, President Clinton pursued the intervention in Bosnia. He did not have congressional authorization but he did provide a letter consistent with the War Powers Act,” Rhodes said.
Kucinich points to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which places the power to “declare war” in the hands of Congress.
“It is very clear that what President Obama did is beyond what the Constitution permits a president to do. That really isn’t disputable,” Kucinich argued.
In a series of interviews on Monday, Kucinich suggested the President could be impeached for his actions. For now, the anti-war Democrat tells CNN he has no plans to initiate any impeachment proceedings.
“Now, impeachment is a process. I haven’t gotten into that. I raised the question as to whether or not (President Obama) exceeded his authority and raising the question as to whether or not it is an impeachable offense,” Kucinich said.
One key Democrat in the Senate dismissed any notion of impeachment in a radio interview on Tuesday. Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin told the Bill Press Radio Show Congress there is strong bipartisan support for the U.S. mission in Libya, dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn.
“I think we ought to focus on what the issues are here,” Levin said.
Still, Kucinich has the support of several Republicans who want a closer examination of President Obama’s actions in Libya.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian Tea Party favorite, also argues the President lacks the Constitutional authority to take direct military action without a vote in Congress.
“My main argument is we don’t have the authority. And when we get involved, it generally very rarely does much good,” said Paul in an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360.
**Written by Doug Powers
The SAVE Award winner was feted at the White House yesterday.
From the White House website:
“If you want ideas on how to save money, ask the people who spend it. That’s what President Obama did when he began the SAVE Awards two years ago.” That’s the opening of Joe Davidson’s Washington Post write-up of the SAVE Award, the collaborative process in which all federal employees were invited to submitted their ideas on how to save taxpayer dollars and strwamline government, as well as vote and comment on others’. After a tough-but-fair crack about government acronyms, Trudy Givens gets her due recognition:
Trudy Givens, a Bureau of Prisons employee from Portage, Wis., submitted the winning suggestion. Like many of the other ideas, Givens’s suggestion is so simple, yet so effective, you wonder why [Uncle] Sam didn’t think of it earlier.
Her idea: Send the Federal Register — a daily compendium of government regulations and notices — to federal employees online, rather than by snail mail, with an estimated savings of $ 16 million through 2015.
As the SAVE Award winner, she got to meet the President and her agency head the Attorney General in the Oval Office
For my own SAVE Award submission, I was going to suggest that the White House get rid of their website proofreader in order to save taxpayers some money, but I see they already must have done that.
President Obama is quoted as saying, “A million here, a million there. It adds up.” Yes it does. Unless we’re talking about PBS and NPR, then those millions are insignificant:
President Obama defended public broadcasting from cuts on Friday, emphasizing that defunding networks like NPR and PBS would do little to rein in spending.
[…]
“That’s not where the money is,” he added.
The SAVE Award winner’s idea is said to save $ 4 million per year and she got a party. Taxpayers subsidize NPR and PBS to the tune of hundreds of millions per year and that’s “insignificant.” Go figure.
Is there a federal employee out there willing to suggest defunding NPR and PBS for next year’s SAVE Awards competition? If you do, please make sure you’ve got enough money put away for a comfortable (and fast-tracked) retirement before submitting the entry.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
As Republicans try to defund NPR, the Obama administration laughs in the face of critics and sends US taxpayer moneys to fund Britain’s left wing BBC.
American Thinker Blog
As ThinkProgress and others have noted, the 2011 budget proposed by House Republicans — as well as the three-week continuing resolution they just passed — eliminates critical funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that will hamper the agency’s ability to track and respond to tsunamis. The agency said the cuts “will take away [our] ability to upgrade tsunami models and will put considerable stress on watchstanders ability to react.”
The cuts were roundly pilloried in the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. But last week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — a Tea Party favorite and rigid ideologue on budget cuts — said he still favors the reduction, and dismissed calls to restore the funding because “we often over-react” to natural disasters. TP has the story and video:
KING: The tsunami warning centers, it’s really — the timing of that really puts attention on the subject matter. I don’t know that I would go back and look at that. I would ask people to come forward with the facts on this — how badly do we need them and do the tragic events in Japan give us a different perspective. I would look at it from a different perspective. I don’t know I would at this point know say that I’d be willing to make that change. I think we often over-react to emergencies, especially natural disasters, before we assess the limit of the damage, and particularly with the nuclear part of this.
Then, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) also defended the cuts, saying “All of us need to be tempered by the fact that we’ve got to stop spending money we don’t have.” This follows a similar pattern of other conservatives trying to ignore the tragic reality of the events in Japan in service of their political goals. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said yesterday that reaction to the nuclear power crisis there is “overblown,” and Bill O’Reilly said the “worldwide media is hyping the nuke situation in Japan a bit too much.”
– A TP cross-post.
JR: E&E News reported on Thursday, “GOP budget cuts could hurt tsunami, weather warning systems — Locke” (subs. req’d):
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke warned House Republicans today that their proposed budget cuts could jeopardize the operations of federal warning systems for storms, hurricanes and tsunamis.
The Republican-authored House appropriations bill, H.R. 1, which would fund the government through the rest of this fiscal year, would cut $ 454 million, or 16 percent, from 2010 levels from a Commerce Department account that funds weather, satellite and tsunami warning systems and fisheries and ocean research.
“Obviously, we’ll always try to prioritize, and we’ll try to be as efficient as possible,” Locke told the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee. “But you just can’t change the math.”
Locke said that if the tsunami program were kept intact, there would be cuts to other programs, such as hurricane forecasting….
Since a tsunami smashed Indonesia almost six years ago, NOAA has increased the number of detection buoys from six to 39 and expanded the early-warning system that Locke credited for NOAA’s ability to issue a warning about the Japanese tsunami 9 minutes after the earthquake last Friday.
But seven of the 39 buoys are now down for maintenance, Locke said. And the House spending bill puts their repair in doubt, he warned.
“Right now, we’re not even issuing contracts for the maintenance or upgrading of the buoys that are out of commission,” Locke said.
President Obama has requested $ 8.8 billion for the Commerce Department, which includes NOAA, in his 2012 proposed budget. That’s $ 822 million more than Congress approved for the agency in fiscal 2010. Much of that money would go toward a weather and environmental satellite program for NOAA’s National Weather Service that has already been delayed because of budget issues.
“There’s a public safety aspect to the Weather Service,” Locke said. “It’s like a police department or fire department of a local community. When you make cutbacks, there will be consequences. You can’t foresee those now, but you know that response times will be down. You’ll have less police officers on the street to respond to reports of crime.”
Locke’s warning comes as some lawmakers are pushing for expanded tsunami-detection systems.
“From what we saw in Japan and what we’ve seen in other parts of the world, it’s no longer a luxury,” New York Democrat Jose Serrano said. “It’s a necessity.”
Related Post:
During the debate this week in the House, Ron Paul took to the floor and point out just how foolish the GOP looks when it engages in hony efforts to cut the budget:
Ron Paul took to the House floor yesterday advocate again for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, one of two votes that took place there yesterday.
As, always, one of Paul’s main arguments for the military leaving Afghanistan is cost. Yesterday he mocked so-called fiscal conservatives for moving so enthusiastically to defund NPR, a move which might save the government $ 10 million dollars when we have spent upwards of a trillion in Afghanistan in the last decade.
Video:
There’s a serious question of whether [defunding NPR] will even cut one penny, but at least the fiscal conservatives are going to be overwhelmingly in support of slashing NPR, go home and brag about how they’re such great fiscal conservatives! And the very most they might save is $ 10 million. And that’s their claim to fame for slashing the budget. At the same time they won’t consider for minute cutting a real significant amount of money.
While he often tends to be a bit, well, nutty, Paul is absolutely right here. Even though I favor ending Federal subsidies to public broadcasting, along with the money that goes to organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, the truth of the matter is that the amount spent on items like this is a minuscule part of the Federal budget. Republicans who take on targets like this and then claim to be doing something about Federal spending, while at the same time ignoring big ticket items like defense spending and entitlements and acting to protect programs popular in their own states like ethanol subsidies and farm subsidies, are hypocrites, and they are lying to their constituents.
Attacking something like NPR or federal funding for abortion may be popular with the Republican base, but it does nothing to combat the Budget deficit. If the GOP is serious, we’ll see them move on to real budget cuts soon. But don’t hold your breath.
In a flurry of legislative activity this week, the New Hampshire House approved a tax cut on cigarettes even while cutting funding for education, and health care. The ten cent tax cut bucks a national trend of raising taxes on tobacco since “forever” and, according to multiple studies, could lead to a 6.6 percent increase in respiratory cancer deaths.
Republican lawmakers claim that the tax cut, which the New Hampshire chapter of the Koch-funded front group Americans for Prosperity strongly pushed for, will attract out-of-state smokers and raise revenue in the “long run.” Yet a spokesman for Gov. John Lynch (D) notes that the state already has the second-lowest tax burden in the nation. And with rising gas prices, the odds of smokers driving to New Hampshire for their cigarettes are slim.
Instead lawmakers have chosen to weaken an extremely effective policy tool: cigarette taxes not only reduce smoking but help limit underage smoking, exposure to second-hand smoke, and related health care costs. The tax cut is just one part of a legislative agenda that New Hampshire Republicans pushed through this week that cuts programs that keep Main Street healthy and strong:
– Yesterday, The House’s powerful Finance Committee moved forward on legislation that would cause mass layoffs of physicians and nurses and result in more than 12,000 people, including 500 to 800 children, losing their health care coverage.
– Wednesday, the House approved a bill freezing funding for schools.
– Tuesday, lawmakers approved a bill that “removes compulsory school attendance for children.”
– The Republican-controlled Senate approved pension-reform legislation that increases health care costs and raises the retirement age for public workers.
– House members passed an amendment to the state Constitution “to bypass a Supreme Court decision ordering the state to pay for the cost of an adequate education for every public schoolchild.”
Last week at a public hearing, the state’s Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson called the recent legislation “a stubborn or selfish unwillingness by us, the privileged, to tighten our own belts for the good of our fellow citizens who are truly in need.” While similar cigarette tax cut bills have stalled in New Jersey and Rhode Island, Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and the House, limiting the state’s Democratic governor and progressive lawmakers ability to de-rail the legislation.
Instead, it’s been left to the state’s Main Street Movement — a coalition of business leaders, union workers, social justice advocates and religious leaders — to stand up against the legislature’s right-wing agenda in public hearings and in demonstrations across the state.
In a flurry of legislative activity this week, the New Hampshire House approved a tax cut on cigarettes even while cutting funding for education, and health care. The ten cent tax cut bucks a national trend of raising taxes on tobacco since “forever” and, according to multiple studies, could lead to a 6.6 percent increase in respiratory cancer deaths.
Republican lawmakers claim that the tax cut, which the New Hampshire chapter of the Koch-funded front group Americans for Prosperity strongly pushed for, will attract out-of-state smokers and raise revenue in the “long run.” Yet a spokesman for Gov. John Lynch (D) notes that the state already has the second-lowest tax burden in the nation. And with rising gas prices, the odds of smokers driving to New Hampshire for their cigarettes are slim.
Instead lawmakers have chosen to weaken an extremely effective policy tool: cigarette taxes not only reduce smoking but help limit underage smoking, exposure to second-hand smoke, and related health care costs. The tax cut is just one part of a legislative agenda that New Hampshire Republicans pushed through this week that cuts programs that keep Main Street healthy and strong:
-Yesterday, The House’s powerful Finance Committee moved forward on legislation that would cause mass layoffs of physicians and nurses and result in more than 12,000 people, including 500 to 800 children, losing their health care coverage.
-Wednesday, the House approved a bill freezing funding for schools.
-Tuesday, lawmakers approved a bill that “removes compulsory school attendance for children.”
-The Republican-controlled Senate approved pension-reform legislation that increases health care costs and raises the retirement age for public workers.
-House members passed an amendment to the state Constitution “to bypass a Supreme Court decision ordering the state to pay for the cost of an adequate education for every public schoolchild.”
Last week at a public hearing, the state’s Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson called the recent legislation “a stubborn or selfish unwillingness by us, the privileged, to tighten our own belts for the good of our fellow citizens who are truly in need.” While similar cigarette tax cut bills have stalled in New Jersey and Rhode Island, Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and the House, limiting the state’s Democratic governor and progressive lawmakers ability to de-rail the legislation.
Instead, it’s been left to the state’s Main Street Movement — a coalition of business leaders, union workers, social justice advocates and religious leaders — to stand up against the legislature’s right-wing agenda in public hearings and in demonstrations across the state.
He really thought he had something, too.
A congressman smarting over legislation to defund National Public Radio tried to take out his frustration with a ban on federal dollars paying for advertising on Fox News, but the effort was rejected in a party-line committee vote.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., offered an amendment Wednesday night that would have prohibited funds from any federal agency from being used to advertise on the Fox News Channel.
“If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to strip funding from NPR because they believe — wrongly, in my view — that NPR is biased, then we should be given the same opportunity,” McGovern told the House Rules Committee…
McGovern didn’t actually get around to saying how much money the military spends on Fox News advertising, purposefully so. As long as people of McGovern’s ideology continue to vilify the ROTC on campuses who receive federal funding, I see no problem with allowing them to place television advertisements. They have to recruit somehow. After the deregulation of the broadcasting industry in the 80s, station owners didn’t have to eat airtime to give free reign, literally, to PSAs. They cost.
Of course, McGovern surely can’t be so illogical to assume that government funding to pay for the production of bias and items like this:
is in any way similar to advertising for military recruitment on Fox. If McGovern wants to see more military ads on networks like MSNBC, perhaps encourage them to be friendlier to the cause and attract more of an audience that would see said ads. Advertising goes where they eyeballs are.
I have to wonder, too, if McGovern was also against President Obama using the public airwaves multiple times to push his unpopular health control law?
McGovern mentions possible presidential contenders as analysts, except purposefully omitted that Fox suspended Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as analysts until they made a decision whether or not to run.
If McGovern is so concerned about NPR financing, perhaps he should privately raise funds for a PSA campaign to encourage progressives to fund what they want to hear themselves.
For the record, I like NPR and I think it’s worth funding. Even so, In light of the House passing a bill to strip NPR of federal funding, I thought I’d re-post this piece on the “dangers” of This American Life.
Weekend Public Radio: The Marxist’s Sabbath
Weekend public radio is a warm cozy cup of liberal chamomile tea. Saturday is the progressive’s radio Sabbath. Weekdays are reserved for marxist plots and socialistic schemes. Saturday is set aside for organic gardening techniques, car repair advice, word puzzle games, family fiddlers, and narcissistic human interest soliloquies.
Weekend public radio is a safe, soothing blend; a tempered progressive aroma with just a hint of deferentially moderate enlightenment.
I’m an in the car NPR kind of guy. Consequently, most of my carbon footprint education has occurred while driving. Even so, as I traverse the weekend landscape listening to my gas powered radio, I gain the satisfaction of hearing forward thinking ideology without the discomfort of actually doing something progressive. Weekend public radio allows me to simply rest in my balanced, moderate complacency. Why wouldn’t I pledge to keep such an efficient opiate on the air.
One of my favorite Saturday sedatives is This American Life. For those ignorant of all things progressive, This American Life is an hour long show dedicated to obsessive introspection. The title is a little misleading, as the show has nothing to do with being an American.
A more apt name might be, “This American Life in the eyes of a very insulated group of publicly funded radio producers.” Or a more concise title might be, “Look at me! Everything I say and do is really important!” Actually, that sounds a lot like America.
This American Life pretty much follows the same format. Ira Glass starts the show talking about something mundane and then hints at its possible profoundness or its interesting mundaneness. The rest of the show is full of well produced human interest thought pieces loosely associated with the day’s theme.
For example, if the show’s overarching theme is something like breathing, Ira would start the program interviewing a friend who breathes in an odd manner. Then we’d hear a story about a man whose defrost didn’t work, so he holds his breath while driving his car. Next there’d be an interview with a scientist who studies the effects of bad breath on lab mice and inner city youth. Finally, the show would end with David Sedaris in front of a live audience reading whatever the hell he wants.
This American Life is the perfect weekend public radio show. The content is visceral, but intellectually palatable. Progressive, yet harmless. This American Life is a sermon for the converted; a place where the pastor can preach to the choir and the choir can shout amen without fear of rebuke.
Progressives will never take over the world. They’re too content with their own enlightenment. They find their meaning in being the elite few who get it! Regular listeners gain their joy in being different from the ignorant masses. They’re too clever to share their vantage point with everyday people. If we all shared the same ground, who would we look down upon.
The astute reader will note that I am manifesting the same behavior I decry. So true. . . Come to think of it, wouldn’t that make a great theme for a show.
“The inconsistencies in each of us, the hypocrisy in all of us. Yah, that would be a really good show. We could regale our listeners with how keenly aware we are of our own duplicity. Someone contact David Sedaris and see if he’s written anything about being a hypocrite. Oh who am I kidding, just air whatever he sends us.”
