NPR gets the ax , , if this is any measure

[henryclay]

The House of Representatives voted today to defund NPR , , , and all of it's functions nationwide.

The bill passed by a 228-192 vote. No Democrats voted for it but 7 Republicans voted against the measure.

The bill calls for an end to all federal funding to NPR and its affiliates.

It also prohibits stations from using federal funds to pay NPR dues and to purchase programming. It would block NPR from applying for grants provided by federal agencies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Department of Education, Department of Commerce and the National Endowment for the Arts.

But there is still the Senate, , , and of course , , ,



The big "O".

www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/npr-funding-house-votes/2011/03/17/id/389846?s=al&promo_code=BE2A-1

[privateinvestor]

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

[Deleted]

Why SHOULD they get public funding? If they are not good enough to stand on their own, let them sink. My fav talk show hosts do not get tax dollars, nor do they need it.

[deziloooooo]

Bad decision, hope Senate stands firm and if not a veto. If this is where they are going to solve our financial problems they really are out to lunch.

To try and explain it to you Krickett would just be trying to explain why the sun comes up every day in the East and sets in the west...so why bother.

[Deleted]

Your presonal attacks are getting old, Dez. But- you have fun now, ya hear? I saw one moderator already chastise you and delete one post of yours AT me. All I can figure is that it must mean a whole lot to you to post against me, by name, in such a personal way. Carry on, Dez. Freedom of speech.

[vonnie6200]

Mar 17, 2011 18:59:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Bad decision, hope Senate stands firm and if not a veto. If this is where they are going to solve our financial problems they really are out to lunch.

To try and explain it to you Krickett would just be trying to explain why the sun comes up every day in the East and sets in the west...so why bother.

Well then explain it to me.

[henryclay]

Me too, dezi. Explain it to me, please. Heck, I'll even stand up for you with the moderators and let you lodge some of the same charges against me that the NPR head shed used in their run-up to getting the ax.

[fairlycrazy23]

Mar 17, 2011 18:18:28 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

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.

They should cut all these federal grants and federal funds, not just to NPR but all of it. We shouldn't be borrowing money to provide these non essential services, which there is no federal authority to provide in the first place.

[deziloooooo]

Like good music, around for centuries, good theater, museums, the programming on NPR and PBS is the same.

One has to listen to it and understand the quality. There will be so many places that will have no PBS , not where I live and if some one is willing to pay for satellite radio, but that is a expense many can't afford. I know I have it.

These are places of the country that do not have the population to afford it. They depend on it more then you know.
The news is not just on TV , lordy we know that.
TV news rarely discusses, they sell their point of view for the most part. Local radio news, there isn't any to speak of, reading head lines from newspapers.

NPR discusses, has the right people in and gets the word out. This pushing of the liberal side is just not happening no matter what what those on the right say. Any one listening, check their audience, it will surprise you.

I can only say that if you have never really listened to it then you haven't a clue .

I know Krickett you said you once listened to it ONCE , lol, and almost fell asleep.
Truthfully I doubt it , your claim, but there is not way to tell , correct? So you go on living your life as you do and give your thoughts on the world around us, speaking with all that real life experiences you seem to have picked up, if you don't mind, I will continue to pick up my information and knowledge by other sources, among them CNN, History Channel, C-Span 1 and 2, and definitely PBS and NPR.

If they do away with the funding I will shed a tear for those countryman of mine who most are not of my political thoughts but will be shut out of that experience since so many live in those conservative areas of the country, mid west, Northern border states, south west, bid land areas, fewer people.

I wonder if all those republicans who jumped on this realize that.
At least seven of them crossed over and not one Democrat did, and not all are in big population areas.

This country is really split and in the dire straits we are in, if you think this is a victory, you are coo coo, it means little will be able to be done to help solve these major problems if some thing so minor in financials can't be solved.

By the comments I see here, I doubt if those commenting really want any of these problems really addressed, still in the us vs them mode, a great way to work together to solve problems.

[fairlycrazy23]

But why should the Federal government force citizens to pay for something that is first not a function of the Federal Government and second something they do not want, and third is non essential when the Federal Government has to borrow more and more money to fund even its 'essential' items.

[deziloooooo]

Fairly.... I was googling trying to find audience size to dazzle you with a answer to your why but i came upon this new article by one who does a good job criticizing NPR /PBS but also explains much clearer then I can possible why.
If your up to reading it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6672-the-pbs-npr-debates-unmentionable-dilemma

[hello fromWarsaw]

At least the pubs are working on JOBS< JOBS< JOBS, and not playing to the dittohead hater base.

[kansasflower]

First, let me say that I listen to NPR every day and I do not believe it should receive taxpayer funding. I enjoy many of NPR's programing, but truth be told, much of it is non critical....the "intense" discussion on why Americans trusted Walter Cronkite that aired immediately after his passing comes to mind. NPR is something that should be funded by individuals who specifically choose to support it. In fact, I would donate money to NPR as an individual, if I wasn't already paying for them through taxes. It is time for NPR to stand on its own without public funding and truly become funded by the listeners.

[deziloooooo]

kansas glad you listen to it, I don't remember that program and not saying in the millions of words spoken there aren't some program that might upset some one, would have loved anything to do with Uncle Walter, I grew up with him every night I could.
I do support it and PBS. NPR with a basic membership of $35- plus small donations as they do their drumming for $ , nothing big, same thing with PBS, the other day, it was Les Miserables or Doo wop, I have two stations I get on my cable, opted for Doo wop but think I missed something great in Les miserables.

The money they are talking is peanuts in the scheme of things, we still are the USA. This is not about the budget, they won't really touch the big stuff...this is about payback and one side forcing their fears on another. Personally . I won't be affected, with out any Government $ then they can go the way they want and feel politically, I know they try to be straight there.

There will be parts of the country, big parts , lots of folks, who will be shut off. In that article I read , Dallas has no NPR, I couldn't believe it, a City of that size in our country? It stopped broadcasting over two years ago.
Readers here, maybe you , might feel that's just fine, I don't. i don't live in Texas but did for 11 years, Houston area/Galveston for three...even on the Island , wealth and poverty was the mix there, 68,000 people, we had NPR.

I respect your feelings on support, I will stay with mine, it's a shame, hopefully the Senate will stand firm and if not, Obama does the right thing.

There was something interesting today on our local station. They re doing their reguler fund raiser but they also threw in a " Feed the Children of Haiti". You all remember Haiti don't you , it was the last big one, kind of down in the list of calamities right now, but it's still a hell hole and one of the things thats a hell is the kids..they are starving. I know, I know, It's just HAITI...but kids are kids and this local station had raised enough last year I heard to feed 450 kids or a bit more for six months each. They fed 2400 last year and hope to reach those figures again, when the fund raiser goes off.

What got me they are in a fund raiser for themselves but are also reaching out to overseas to help, which has to take away from them selves.

This was just a small thing, one of the local NPR stations doing something nice, sure no one here, all my sophisticated friends of the world on these threads appreciate what I am saying but no local stations could do this as these people do it, they never shut up..constant when they are after $ and they do get the $..but they do some real cool and good stuff too...ok I am a softy, not as worldly as the rest of you but that was a thought I had as I called in my lousy $10 bucks.

[henryclay]

kansasflower.

Both of us being NPR fans, thank you for your supporting NPR the way it should be supported.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Mar 17, 2011 19:36:25 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

But why should the Federal government force citizens to pay for something that is first not a function of the Federal Government and second something they do not want, and third is non essential when the Federal Government has to borrow more and more money to fund even its 'essential' items.

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 17, 2011 19:36:25 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

But why should the Federal government force citizens to pay for something that is first not a function of the Federal Government and second something they do not want, and third is non essential when the Federal Government has to borrow more and more money to fund even its 'essential' items.

Agreed, but why is this bill naming NPR specifically it should block all government funding to all radio stations. If people truly want NPR to try it's hand in the free market then the government should get out of the radio business completely so that there can be a free market.

Unfortunately this is not what this bill is for. This bill is directly focused on bringing NPR down. Why is the government wasting time on individual vendettas and not addressing the larger scale issues.

Save a little money defunding NPR, save more defunding all radio.

[privateinvestor]

As I said on another thread about NPR...the Obama Administration opposes this bill passed by the House to defund NPR which went along mostly party lines. However Republicans in the senate have vowed to find enough Democratic votes to oppose Obama again....Federal Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which funnels money to public radio and TV stations has been a hot button issue for the past few years and now its faith rests with the US Senate.

My best guess is that NPR will survive...unless the Dems in the senate want to oppose Obama's wishes on this issue..

[deziloooooo]

Mar 18, 2011 7:26:07 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

As I said on another thread about NPR...the Obama Administration opposes this bill passed by the House to defund NPR which went along mostly party lines. However Republicans in the senate have vowed to find enough Democratic votes to oppose Obama again....Federal Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which funnels money to public radio and TV stations has been a hot button issue for the past few years and now its faith rests with the US Senate.

My best guess is that NPR will survive...unless the Dems in the senate want to oppose Obama's wishes on this issue..

I agree, I don't see the Senate going along with it, it's not a real budget savor and I do believe enough Democrats will suppiort It and on this one, unless they are just being political, Senators by their terms and experience, usually are less emotional on issues, why we have them there for six years, I wouldn't be surprised to see Republicans crossing over, especially some of those not up for election in 2012. My feeling on that one.
I have a link by the Pub who sponsored the bill who mentions just this scenario and mentions how it will be up to the electorate, which to me proves , it was as much for political reasons to pass it in the House as the budget , actually the prime reason, another campaign tool for the coming 2012 election.
A election breaker, LOL, not on your life and something to be a positive for the other side too.
I am saying that there are many Republicans who listen to the stations , and are from the hinterland and knowing they are losing it with the pubs in power, well, if it was me and I am semi fence sitting, screw them , taking away my NPR, interesting things happen in a voting booth.

[privateinvestor]

If the Liberals are so much in love with NPR they can contribute megabucks to their stations....both parties are looking to cut out wasteful spending by our government ...so the question is by the Republicans should the federal government fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or should the Public be the main source for their funding...and what does the public polling show on this matter? I don't have a clue so maybe we will find out if and when Harry Reid decides to take up this issue or try to reject it completely in the senate...it may not even come up for a vote...

[ugonow]

Americans should be very grateful to republicans for calling this emergency session to save us from NPR.

[floridayankee]

Mar 17, 2011 18:59:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Bad decision, hope Senate stands firm and if not a veto. If this is where they are going to solve our financial problems they really are out to lunch.

If you're having money problems, are you going to keep buying your $5 lattes at Starbucks or might you cut them out? Personally, I'd be cutting all my "wants" even if they are a relatively tiny percentage of my overall expenditures.

The problem with government cuts is that somebody, somewhere enjoys the "free money". Everything needs to be on the table Dezi...even the programs we may personally like. Would you prefer we just keep blindly running towards the cliff?

[Value Buy]

Mar 18, 2011 9:18:07 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 17, 2011 18:59:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Bad decision, hope Senate stands firm and if not a veto. If this is where they are going to solve our financial problems they really are out to lunch.

If you're having money problems, are you going to keep buying your $5 lattes at Starbucks or might you cut them out? Personally, I'd be cutting all my "wants" even if they are a relatively tiny percentage of my overall expenditures.

The problem with government cuts is that somebody, somewhere enjoys the "free money". Everything needs to be on the table Dezi...even the programs we may personally like. Would you prefer we just keep blindly running towards the cliff?

Floridayankee, I use few of these, as I think they are silly, but you are

[ChiTownVenture]

Mar 18, 2011 9:18:07 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Mar 17, 2011 18:59:06 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Bad decision, hope Senate stands firm and if not a veto. If this is where they are going to solve our financial problems they really are out to lunch.

If you're having money problems, are you going to keep buying your $5 lattes at Starbucks or might you cut them out? Personally, I'd be cutting all my "wants" even if they are a relatively tiny percentage of my overall expenditures.

The problem with government cuts is that somebody, somewhere enjoys the "free money". Everything needs to be on the table Dezi...even the programs we may personally like. Would you prefer we just keep blindly running towards the cliff?

But thats not what is happening. They are not saving any money they are restricting the money from being used to support NPR. There is no savings the same amounts will be paid out;

“Let me be clear, this measure will not prohibit local stations from receiving any funding,” Rep. Lamborn said on the House floor this morning during debate over a procedural rule tied to the bill. “It will just not allow them from using taxpayer money to fund NPR programming and dues. They can do it without federal dollars by embracing the private sector. I want NPR to grow on its own. I’d like it to thrive. Just remove the taxpayers from the equation.”

But Democrats speaking on the House floor today repeatedly said that the bill would save no taxpayer money, and painted it as an ideological stunt sparked by last week’s release of a sting video by conservative activist filmmaker James O’Keefe showing NPR’s top fundraiser disparaging conservatives and saying that NPR would be better off in the long term without federal funding.

“This bill has no effect whatsoever on the deficit, and saves no money, not a dime,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). “This is purely ideological bill so our members can go home and brag about what they have done to public radio.”

The theme running throughout many of the comments of Republicans supporting the bill was that they, personally, were fans of NPR – and certainly of their local NPR affiliate stations – but didn’t think it was appropriate for the federal government to fund it given the budget deficit.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), for example, said that NPR had it was precisely because NPR had been “wildly successful” and had such growing listenership that “they should be moving to a model where they could sustain themselves.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) said that he’s “heard some inaccurate things on National Public Radio before” but that if funding is cut, as he supports that it be, “I personally will increase my contribution” to his local stations.

Play by play from political

www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/House_debates_bill_to_defund_NPR.html?showall

[ChiTownVenture]

It would basically bar NPR from applying for grants provided by federal agencies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Department of Education, Department of Commerce and the National Endowment for the Arts.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/npr-house-republicans-pass-npr-defunding-bill/story?id=13157489

That doesn't mean the grant money won't be there it just means NPR can't have it and no body can use the money to fund NPR.

[floridayankee]

Mar 18, 2011 9:46:34 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Floridayankee, I use few of these, as I think they are silly, but you are...

In that case, I'll feel honored. If one tries to look at things logically rather than emotionally, it only makes sense.

[ed1066]

After they defund National Palestinian Radio, let's move on to Planned Parenthood...

[jkapp]

Mar 17, 2011 19:24:53 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Mar 17, 2011 18:18:28 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

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.

They should cut all these federal grants and federal funds, not just to NPR but all of it. We shouldn't be borrowing money to provide these non essential services, which there is no federal authority to provide in the first place.

Just because someone thinks its a "nice thing to have" does not mean federal tax dollars (forcibly taken from the populace under threat of incarceration) should be used to help fund it. Government has gotten far too involved in things that have absolutely nothing to do with the functions at the federal level.