this makes sense only if they can continue operating with donations. 
personally i think NPR provides a counter-balance to conservative schwag 
radio stations, while PBS provides some of the only informative television 
programming to people who can't afford expensive cable packages.  It's a 
public service that I want tax dollars devoted to, and i'm willing to 
sacrifice 25 patriot missiles per year to maintain quality programming 
with limited commercialization.

my belief is that this $100M cut is more about eliminating liberal media 
outlets than balancing the budget, because $100M really is just a drop in 
the bucket for the US government.  We could continue funding NPR for 
almost 700 years with the money just lost to estate tax cuts.


On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Matt Rudary wrote:

> This raises an interesting question -- is the public funding of NPR & PBS

> regressive? Take a look at the following statistics about NPR listeners:
> http://www.pbcionline.org/gendemnpr.htm
> http://www.pbcionline.org/gendempbs.htm
> http://www.kwmu.org/Support/Underwriting/demographics.html
>
> NPR listeners and PBS watchers are disproportionately wealthy. In addition, I

> note that fund drives are successful in raising operating costs from 
> listeners (can't find numbers at the moment, but I understand that a large 
> chunk, if not the majority, of a station's budget is raised in drives rather 
> than gotten through taxes).
>
> Now, I prefer that these stations continue to get financial support from the 
> government for a purely selfish reason and for a less selfish one: First, I 
> don't want pledge drives to last any longer than they currently do, and 
> second, it would be a shame if stations in less wealthy areas of the country 
> closed down for lack of funds. However, how do we justify continued funding 
> of services used by (on the average) wealthy Americans while the deficit 
> continues to grow and services for the poor are underfunded?
>
> Matt
>
> Kevin Lochner wrote:
>> i think this one already went around, just making sure . . .
>> 
>>
>>	 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>	 Hi,
>>
>>	 Everyone expected House Republicans to give up efforts to
>>	 kill NPR and PBS after a massive public outcry stopped them
>>	 last year. But they've just voted to eliminate funding for
>>	 NPR and PBS -- unbelievably, starting with programs like
>>	 "Sesame Street."
>>
>>	 Public broadcasting would lose nearly a quarter of its
>>	 federal funding this year. Even worse, all funding would be
>>	 eliminated in two years--threatening one of the last
>>	 remaining sources of watchdog journalism.
>>
>>	 Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS again
>>	 this year:
>>
>>	 http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
>>
>>	 Last year, millions of us took action to save NPR and PBS,
>>	 and Congress listened. We can do it again if enough of us
>>	 sign the petition in time.
>>
>>	 This would be the most severe cut in the history of public
>>	 broadcasting.	The Boston Globe reports the cuts "could force
>>	 the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs." NPR's
>>	 president expects rural public radio stations may be forced
>>	 to shut down.
>>
>>	 The House and Senate are deciding if public broadcasting will
>>	 survive, and they need to hear from viewers like you. Sign
>>	 the petition at:
>>
>>	 http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
>>
>>	 Thanks!
>> 
>> 
>>
>>	 P.S. Read the Boston Globe story on the threat to NPR and PBS
>>	 at:
>>
>>	 http://www.moveon.org/r?r 64
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>