Currently viewing the tag: “House”
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.”
Aw.
It’s a nice sop to a conservative base that’s not thrilled with the bite-sized budget deals they’ve seen so far, but it’s going nowhere in the Senate. That’s why they did this as a separate bill, in fact, instead of sticking it in the three-week budget bill that passed a few days ago. Reid and […]
In what was basically a party-line vote, the House of Representatives voted today to strip federal funding from National Public Radio:
After a contentious debate and over procedural objections from Democrats, the House on Thursday voted to prevent federal funds from going to National Public Radio.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), passed the House on a 228-to-192 vote, with one Republican voting present. All but seven Republicans voted for the measure, and all Democrats present voted against it.
The measure is unlikely to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. The White House on Thursday issued a statement “strongly opposing” the bill but stopping short of a veto threat.
The bill would ban any federal money from going to NPR, including funding through competitive grants from federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR receives about $ 5 million annually in such funds. The bill would also prohibit NPR’s roughly 600 member stations from using federal funds to purchase programming from NPR and to pay station dues.
The push to defund NPR follows the departure from the organization of its chief executive, Vivian Schiller, and its top fundraiser, Ron Schiller (no relation), in the wake of a hidden-camera video sting by conservative activists that showed Ron Schiller making controversial remarks about Republicans and tea party members.
Democrats argued that the bill would not actually lower the deficit and charged that Republicans were simply taking aim at NPR because they disagree with its content.
“This bill does not cut one dollar, one dime, one penny from the federal deficit,” McGovern said, adding that if the debate is about whether or not the American people should be forced to subsidize content they disagree with, federal funding of advertising on Fox News Channel should also be up for debate.
(…)
Several of the Republicans who spoke in favor of the measure said they personally enjoyed NPR but did not believe it should be funded through taxpayer dollars.
Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said he appreciated some of NPR’s programming but added that “half the American people have never even heard of, much less even listened to, NPR.”
Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) argued that those watching the House debate on Thursday were likely watching it on C-SPAN, which doesn’t receive federal funding.
“A lot of us like NPR,” he said, later adding: “We’re not trying to harm NPR. We’re actually trying to liberate them from federal tax dollars.”
Of course, whether one likes or dislikes NPR’s content isn’t really the relevant question here. As I noted in the wake of the whole Juan Williams controversy late last year, the issues surrounding Federal funding of NPR, and other similar entities, is more fundamental than that:
As a matter of principle, there seems to be little justification for continuing government subsidies for media outlets in an era when consumer choices have broadened far beyond the three networks (plus, in some networks one or two local channels) that existed when the CPB was created in 1967. Between cable, satellite, the Internet, and broadcast television itself, the number of consumer choices, and outlets for different voices, is far broader than it was then and, quite honestly, if there’s a type of programming that the market, or private grants, won’t support, then there seems to be little argument for saying that the government needs to step in and subsidize something that people don’t want to listen to.
There’s also the Constitutional issue. Looking at Article I, Section 8, it’s hard to find any grant of power that authorizes Congress to subsidize television and radio networks. While some will no doubt all such an insistence on Constitutional purity silly, it strikes me as an important point. If Congress can’t do it, it can’t do it.
This is, of course, a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Federal funding for the CPB amounts to a few hundred million dollars out of a budget of trillions of dollars. For fiscal conservatives like me, that amounts to virtually nothing. However., when you’re looking for something to cut, it makes as much sense to look for the small targets as it is the big ones.
So, yes, defund NPR and the CPB. Not because of what happened to Juan Williams, but because the government shouldn’t be funding them in the first place.
NPR may be a good thing, it’s just not something that should be receiving funds from the government.
In what was basically a party-line vote, the House of Representatives voted today to strip federal funding from National Public Radio:
After a contentious debate and over procedural objections from Democrats, the House on Thursday voted to prevent federal funds from going to National Public Radio.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), passed the House on a 228-to-192 vote, with one Republican voting present. All but seven Republicans voted for the measure, and all Democrats present voted against it.
The measure is unlikely to be taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. The White House on Thursday issued a statement “strongly opposing” the bill but stopping short of a veto threat.
The bill would ban any federal money from going to NPR, including funding through competitive grants from federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. NPR receives about $ 5 million annually in such funds. The bill would also prohibit NPR’s roughly 600 member stations from using federal funds to purchase programming from NPR and to pay station dues.
The push to defund NPR follows the departure from the organization of its chief executive, Vivian Schiller, and its top fundraiser, Ron Schiller (no relation), in the wake of a hidden-camera video sting by conservative activists that showed Ron Schiller making controversial remarks about Republicans and tea party members.
Democrats argued that the bill would not actually lower the deficit and charged that Republicans were simply taking aim at NPR because they disagree with its content.
“This bill does not cut one dollar, one dime, one penny from the federal deficit,” McGovern said, adding that if the debate is about whether or not the American people should be forced to subsidize content they disagree with, federal funding of advertising on Fox News Channel should also be up for debate.
(…)
Several of the Republicans who spoke in favor of the measure said they personally enjoyed NPR but did not believe it should be funded through taxpayer dollars.
Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said he appreciated some of NPR’s programming but added that “half the American people have never even heard of, much less even listened to, NPR.”
Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) argued that those watching the House debate on Thursday were likely watching it on C-SPAN, which doesn’t receive federal funding.
“A lot of us like NPR,” he said, later adding: “We’re not trying to harm NPR. We’re actually trying to liberate them from federal tax dollars.”
Of course, whether one likes or dislikes NPR’s content isn’t really the relevant question here. As I noted in the wake of the whole Juan Williams controversy late last year, the issues surrounding Federal funding of NPR, and other similar entities, is more fundamental than that:
As a matter of principle, there seems to be little justification for continuing government subsidies for media outlets in an era when consumer choices have broadened far beyond the three networks (plus, in some networks one or two local channels) that existed when the CPB was created in 1967. Between cable, satellite, the Internet, and broadcast television itself, the number of consumer choices, and outlets for different voices, is far broader than it was then and, quite honestly, if there’s a type of programming that the market, or private grants, won’t support, then there seems to be little argument for saying that the government needs to step in and subsidize something that people don’t want to listen to.
There’s also the Constitutional issue. Looking at Article I, Section 8, it’s hard to find any grant of power that authorizes Congress to subsidize television and radio networks. While some will no doubt all such an insistence on Constitutional purity silly, it strikes me as an important point. If Congress can’t do it, it can’t do it.
This is, of course, a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Federal funding for the CPB amounts to a few hundred million dollars out of a budget of trillions of dollars. For fiscal conservatives like me, that amounts to virtually nothing. However., when you’re looking for something to cut, it makes as much sense to look for the small targets as it is the big ones.
So, yes, defund NPR and the CPB. Not because of what happened to Juan Williams, but because the government shouldn’t be funding them in the first place.
NPR may be a good thing, it’s just not something that should be receiving funds from the government.
What follows is a statement NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center president Brent Bozell released moments ago:
Republicans said today that the arrogant liberal sneers at taxpayers in Flyover Country deserve to be met by NPR raising its own money in its own fancy cafes. And an organization that admits catering to a "core audience that is predominately white, liberal, highly educated, elite" is among the last that should survive budget cuts if legislators are serious about cutting unnecessary spending.
We applaud the 228 Representatives who stepped up to say so with their votes in the House today. If the Senate and President Obama really care about reckless spending, they’ll pony up and do the same. The time is now to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on funding NPR.
To date, over 1,000 companies, covering nearly 2.4 million employees, have been granted waivers to escape the burdensome requirements of Obamacare. The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Health Care, the District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives held a hearing this week to further examine the transparency and fairness of the waiver process.
Obamacare forbids insurers from placing annual and lifetime limits on health plans. These “consumer protections” have endangered the limited coverage plans that some employers currently offer. Unable to provide more comprehensive coverage, those employers would be forced to drop coverage altogether if they abide by the new law. To avoid this consequence of the new law, employers are flocking to secure the waivers offered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep their employees covered.
At the hearing, Steven Larson, Deputy Administrator and Director for the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, argued that waivers act as a bridge from now until 2014, when Obamacare will be fully implemented. Larson said the waivers were always on the table to phase out mini-med plans.
But Heritage Senior Research Fellow Ed Haislmaier pointed to 21 different sections in the new law that authorize the HHS Secretary to provide waivers for specific purposes—and authority to grant waivers for annual and lifetime limits was not among them. In his testimony, Haislmaier argued, “HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process. The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision.”
It’s simple, really: If Congress intended to institute a waiver process for this particular provision of Obamacare, they would have included it in the legislation. It seems clear, then, that Congress never intended to award waivers for this provision of the law. In doing so, HHS has overstepped its authority.
The hearing also focused on transparency and fairness in the process of granting waivers. While other witnesses said that the waiver process is fair and transparent, Haislmaier argued that the process of applying for a waiver invites the opportunity for favoritism because large corporations and unions can afford to go through the waiver process, unlike smaller businesses that may not have the money or time to apply for a waiver.
Scott Wold, an employee benefits attorney in Minnesota, has had hands-on experience working with employers applying for waivers from the annual limit restrictions. In his testimony, Wold stated that he “encountered several issues or difficulties with the process,” particularly with regard to eligibility for health reimbursement accounts (HRA), a type of consumer-directed health plan. Wold believes that the confusion surrounding HRA eligibility and the nebulous application process has “likely resulted in many sponsors of HRAs not requesting a waiver.”
Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, further questioned the fairness of the application process. He noted that HHS bureaucrats know exactly what company’s application they are reviewing and whether they are union plans. This has arguably led to the disproportional acceptance of waiver application from large corporations and unions. Haislmaier further emphasized that the use of a waiver process has led to a system that is based not on “the rule of law” but rather on “the rule of ‘who you know.’”
Due to the lack of transparency and fairness associated with the waiver application process, Haislmaier urged Congress to instruct HHS to eliminate the waiver program. He also said, “Congress should consider whether or not it will change or further clarify the statutory language of this provision of [Obamacare], in the context of its broader debates over the future of this legislation in general and its numerous specific provisions.”
This post was co-authored by Amanda Rae Kronquist and Raul Tamez.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday voted to end federal funding to National Public Radio. Republican supporters said it made good fiscal sense, and Democratic opponents called it an ideological attack that would deprive local stations of access to programs such as “Car Talk” and “All Things Considered.”
The bill, passed 228-192 along mainly partisan lines, would bar federal funding of NPR and prohibit local public stations from using federal money to pay NPR dues and buy its programs. The prospects of support in the Democratic-controlled Senate are slim. Seven Republicans broke ranks to vote against the bill.
“It is time for American citizens to stop funding an organization that can stand on its own feet,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., the sponsor. He said it was not a question of content—which many conservatives say has a liberal bias—but whether taxpayer dollars should go to nonessential services. “As a country we no longer have this luxury.”
Other Republicans also denied that the measure was a vendetta against NPR, although the organization left itself open to conservative attacks last week when an executive, talking to conservative activists posing as members of a fake Muslim group, was caught on camera deriding the tea party movement and saying the NPR would be better off without federal funding. Both the executive and the president of NPR resigned after the incident.
“Nobody’s on a rampage,” said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., who also asked “why should we allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology?”
Democrats retorted that the legislation would do nothing to reduce the deficit and would be a blow to local public stations that rely on the national programs that include “Morning Edition” and “Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Me” to attract listeners. “This bill would pull the plug,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “It would snuff out stations from coast to coast, many in rural areas where the public radio station is the primary source of news and information.”
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., displayed a blow-up photo of the two brothers who host the car advice show “Car Talk” with the caption, referring to their nicknames, reading “Save Click and Clack.”
The White House said it “strongly opposed” the bill and voiced similar objections, saying “undercutting funding for these radio stations, notably ones in rural areas where such outlets are already scarce, would result in communities losing valuable programming, and some stations could be forced to shut down altogether.”
The move to curtail federal subsidies for NPR follows a House vote last month, as part of the GOP plan to cut federal spending for the remainder of this budget year, to take back some $ 86 million budgeted for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the parent organization of NPR. That proposal, which also faces opposition in the Senate, does not provide for $ 430 million in future spending for CPB.
Thursday’s bill would ban federal funding of NPR, which was about $ 5 million in fiscal year 2010. It would bar public radio stations from using their federal grant money to pay dues to NPR. That total was about $ 2.8 million in fiscal 2010.
It also would bar public radio stations from using federal funds to buy NPR programs. NPR received $ 56 million in programming fees last year, its largest single source of revenue. Stations could still use federal money to produce their own programs.
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010 the CPB distributed federal grant money to more than 600 public radio stations, which used that money to buy programs and pay dues to NPR.
NPR says that of its $ 145.5 million in budgeted revenues in the fiscal year ending last September, only 1. 9 percent came from station dues. The biggest chunk, $ 63 million or 43 percent, came from station program fees. Another $ 36 million, or 24.7 percent, was derived from corporate sponsorships. About 3 percent came from grants from federally funded agencies such as the CPB and the National Endowment for the Arts.
____
The bill is H.R. 1076.
Online:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov
WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday voted to end federal funding to National Public Radio. Republican supporters said it made good fiscal sense, and Democratic opponents called it an ideological attack that would deprive local stations of access to programs such as “Car Talk” and “All Things Considered.”
The bill, passed 228-192 along mainly partisan lines, would bar federal funding of NPR and prohibit local public stations from using federal money to pay NPR dues and buy its programs. The prospects of support in the Democratic-controlled Senate are slim. Seven Republicans broke ranks to vote against the bill.
“It is time for American citizens to stop funding an organization that can stand on its own feet,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., the sponsor. He said it was not a question of content—which many conservatives say has a liberal bias—but whether taxpayer dollars should go to nonessential services. “As a country we no longer have this luxury.”
Other Republicans also denied that the measure was a vendetta against NPR, although the organization left itself open to conservative attacks last week when an executive, talking to conservative activists posing as members of a fake Muslim group, was caught on camera deriding the tea party movement and saying the NPR would be better off without federal funding. Both the executive and the president of NPR resigned after the incident.
“Nobody’s on a rampage,” said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., who also asked “why should we allow taxpayer dollars to be used to advocate one ideology?”
Democrats retorted that the legislation would do nothing to reduce the deficit and would be a blow to local public stations that rely on the national programs that include “Morning Edition” and “Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Me” to attract listeners. “This bill would pull the plug,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “It would snuff out stations from coast to coast, many in rural areas where the public radio station is the primary source of news and information.”
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., displayed a blow-up photo of the two brothers who host the car advice show “Car Talk” with the caption, referring to their nicknames, reading “Save Click and Clack.”
The White House said it “strongly opposed” the bill and voiced similar objections, saying “undercutting funding for these radio stations, notably ones in rural areas where such outlets are already scarce, would result in communities losing valuable programming, and some stations could be forced to shut down altogether.”
The move to curtail federal subsidies for NPR follows a House vote last month, as part of the GOP plan to cut federal spending for the remainder of this budget year, to take back some $ 86 million budgeted for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the parent organization of NPR. That proposal, which also faces opposition in the Senate, does not provide for $ 430 million in future spending for CPB.
Thursday’s bill would ban federal funding of NPR, which was about $ 5 million in fiscal year 2010. It would bar public radio stations from using their federal grant money to pay dues to NPR. That total was about $ 2.8 million in fiscal 2010.
It also would bar public radio stations from using federal funds to buy NPR programs. NPR received $ 56 million in programming fees last year, its largest single source of revenue. Stations could still use federal money to produce their own programs.
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010 the CPB distributed federal grant money to more than 600 public radio stations, which used that money to buy programs and pay dues to NPR.
NPR says that of its $ 145.5 million in budgeted revenues in the fiscal year ending last September, only 1. 9 percent came from station dues. The biggest chunk, $ 63 million or 43 percent, came from station program fees. Another $ 36 million, or 24.7 percent, was derived from corporate sponsorships. About 3 percent came from grants from federally funded agencies such as the CPB and the National Endowment for the Arts.
____
The bill is H.R. 1076.
Online:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov
Bedfellows and despotism.
Governor Scott Walker may not have started out with the intention of making himself a national figure in the fight for fiscal sanity, but he’s not backing away from the role thrust on him by union protests and fleebagging Democrats. In today’s Washington Post, Walker accuses the unions of selective outrage, pointing out that his […]
Washington (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that would bar federal funding for National Public Radio – a longtime target of conservatives irritated by what they consider the outlet’s liberal bias.
The bill passed 228-192 in a sharply partisan vote. Most Republicans backed the measure while every Democrat opposed it.
Washington (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that would bar federal funding for National Public Radio – a longtime target of conservatives irritated by what they consider the outlet’s liberal bias.
The bill passed 228-192 in a sharply partisan vote. Most Republicans backed the measure while every Democrat opposed it.
Washington (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that would bar federal funding for National Public Radio – a longtime target of conservatives irritated by what they consider the outlet’s liberal bias.
The bill passed 228-192 in a sharply partisan vote. Most Republicans backed the measure while every Democrat opposed it.
Washington (CNN) – Even before he unveils his plan for major reforms to entitlement programs, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan admitted Thursday he doesn’t expect any bipartisan agreement on changing Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security this year, saying the issue will likely be decided in the next election.
“If the political conventional wisdom is that they’re just waiting to demagogue us and use this against us in political campaigns – which I don’t know, it probably will happen – then that means we go to the country and say which future do you want,” Ryan said at a breakfast on Thursday sponsored by Politico.
Ryan’s public admission echoes what other Republican Congressional aides have indicated privately – they still plan to move ahead with a proposal, but don’t expect much Democratic support, which is necessary since Republicans only control one chamber of Congress.
The Wisconsin Republican declined to give any details on what reforms he will propose, saying “none of these decisions have been made.” But he acknowledged his plan to reform entitlements-which will be included in the GOP’s 2012 budget to be unveiled in early April-would give ammunition to Democrats.
“Yes, is this a political weapon we are handing to our political adversaries – of course it is,” Ryan said, but argued it was important to act on this issue now.
Democrats have already argued that Ryan plans to eliminate benefits for seniors. They point to a proposal he put out in 2008, which he called “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” that would partially privatize Social Security and begin to convert Medicare into a voucher program. But Ryan has made it clear that was his own plan, and was not drafted to be his party’s position.
Based on over 500 town halls he’s organized in his own Wisconsin district, Ryan argued that the public is ahead of the political parties and would support major changes to these government programs. He pointed out that he represents the “the classic swing district” and has been proposing reforms for years. “I’m still surviving,” he said.
Ryan said he has not yet had a conversation with President Obama about the issue, but has asked for a meeting.
Criticizing the President for failing to address entitlement reform in his own 2012 budget released last month, Ryan said “actions matter and his actions suggest he’s punting.”
As negotiations continue over this year’s spending bill, Ryan said a government shutdown is “still possible,” but downplayed its impact, saying, “A shutdown is not a crash.”
Asked what spending cuts he wants to see, Ryan quipped, “you should ask me what I wouldn’t like to see cut.”
Using his iPad to show a series of charts and graphs highlighting a wash of red ink growing in government debt, Ryan warned that the U.S needs to move now on reforms. “The faster you act the better off everyone is going to be because otherwise it’s European austerity”
Ryan said of the three major entitlement programs, “Social Security is the easiest one to fix,” and although it doesn’t pose an immediate problem in terms of solvency, he said both parties could work together on some changes to the program. A bipartisan fix would show the public “that our government is not broken.”
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York, called out Republicans on the House floor Thursday morning for allegedly breaking their own rules, during debate on a measure that would strip federal funding for National Public Radio.
Weiner objected to consideration of the bill, saying it violates a House rule, “which requires 72 hour layover of the bill and it to be electronically noticed in order for it to be considered by the House.” He continued, “This bill did not lay over for 72 hours. It was noticed at 1:42 p.m. on Tuesday. Therefore it has to wait until 1:42 on Friday to be in compliance with the rules of the House.”
The House vote on the bill was expected mid-afternoon on Thursday.
Weiner then held up a sign with a quote from House Speaker John Boehner and read aloud, “I will not bring a bill to the floor that hasn’t been posted online for at least 72 hours.” He then prodded Republican Rep. Ted Poe, Texas, who was sitting in the chair, “Would the Speaker please clarify for the body that the 72 hours rule is either being waived or does not exist?”
Poe responded that the rule is not predicated on a number of hours, “but rather on a number of calendar days.” He said that since the measure had been electronically available online since Tuesday, that would constitute three calendar days, thus not breaking any rules.
Weiner pushed a little further asking Poe to clarify, “Did this bill age for 72 hours? Yes or no?”
The Speaker said, he would not respond to hypothetical questions.
Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, who unsuccessfully tried to strip federal funding for NPR last year, introduced the new standalone bill Tuesday. It would bar any of NPR’s affiliate radio stations across the country from using any federal funds to purchase any programming from NPR.
According to NPR’s website, it provides content to 900 independent stations, reaching 27.2 million listeners every week.
Oregon Democratic Rep Earl Blumenauer circulated a letter to House members Tuesday citing press reports that he said demonstrated the conservative activist who set up the taping, James O’Keefe, “deceptively edited” the video to target NPR.
Blumenauer urged House members to oppose any cuts to NPR funding.
“Every month, more than 170 million Americans tune in to public broadcasting for information about their communities, and recent polling shows that Americans consider federal investment in public broadcasting to be second only to money for our troops as the best use of taxpayer dollars.”
