• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Liberals Say Public Broadcasting's $445 Million Federal Subsidy Is 'Tiny'

    NPR, PBS and other public broadcasting outlets are asking taxpayers to fork over $445 million in funding for the next fiscal year. But not if Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) have anything to say about it.

    The conservative lawmakers want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the steward of the federal government’s “investment” in public radio and TV. Congress created CPB in 1967, and DeMint and Lamborn think it’s time to cut it off from the federal trough. Their move comes as the agency prepares to report to Congress how it could operate without a federal subsidy.

    “While so many Americans are making sacrifices around the country to make ends meet, CPB appears unwilling to do the same,” DeMint and Lamborn wrote in a letter to Senate and House appropriators. “Now is the appropriate and necessary time for the government to end taxpayer subsidies for CPB.”

    Liberals are fighting back to keep the money flowing. The special-interest group Free Press, which advocates for greater government control over media and the Internet, claims the federal subsidy is necessary to save public-broadcasting jobs.

    This tiny federal investment is vital to helping support programming that commercial media won’t showcase and provides an important foundation for stations around the country to build on.

    DeMint and Lamborn don’t consider it such a “tiny federal investment,” particularly given the rapid growth of public broadcasting’s federal subsidy in the past decade. Writing on DeMint’s new Pickpocket blog, Amanda Carpenter noted:

    Even though media has become more accessible than ever, funding for CPB has exploded. Between 2001 and 2012, the CPB’s appropriated funding escalated by nearly 31 percent, from $340 million to $444.1 million.

    This, of course, isn’t the first time public broadcasting faced a fight over its federal subsidy. Previous attempts to cut off funding came in the wake of Juan Williams’ firing from NPRand James O’Keefe’s exposé of an NPR executive’s disparaging remarks about conservatives and Tea Party activists. The funding cut was also part of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s YouCut initiative.

    The O’Keefe exposé also revealed that NRP’s own senior vice president for fundraising admitted that NPR “would be better off in the long run without federal funding.” More than a year later, the American people are still on the hook.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities, Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    25 Responses to Liberals Say Public Broadcasting's $445 Million Federal Subsidy Is 'Tiny'

    1. Joe Stickney says:

      no such thing as enough for liberal propaganda defund!

      • "Liberal" isn't an insult, Joe. It's a something to be proud of being — it's what keeps people from acting like they own the world because their prick is pink, or they own a Mercedes.

        It's the frame of mind of most of the greatest creative geniuses, artists, musicians, poets, and humanitarians.

        It's the difference between a tolerant and kind community, and "Lord of the Flies".

        We could use a lot more of that kind of — ahem — "propaganda".

        • lbw6303 says:

          Well then you should just write a bigger check next time. what you state may have been the original intent, but it’s long since been usurped by the dnc as their 24/7 campaign tool. i’m tired of helping pay for the liberal/progressive agenda as though it were somehow fair and balanced, because it IS NOT!

      • @kwright39 says:

        Jeb Bush gave $800 million fla subsidy to his top donor, sold New Orleans the pumps that didn't work, lost $335 Million Fla pensions to Enron & makes billions off our slaughtered soldiers… & U worry about $445 million? LMAO… prescott bush jr created Us/China chamb of com.

    2. KJinAZ says:

      Of coarse liberals think $445 Million is tiny. It cost a lot for NPR to defend the liberals stupidity. They have to invent news that supports the liberal plans for communism. Government needs to end ALL GOVERNMENT subsidies to business. There is nothing in our constitution that says government should support any industry. There is no reason we should be paying subsidies for energy, radio, schools, transportation, and all the other pork barrel spending in Washington. This presidents subsidies have been especially wasteful, since so many like Solyndra have just blown the money and gone bankrupt.

    3. Bob says:

      The time of public broadcasting has long since past. It is time to not renew the licenses of these known liberal socialist indoctrinating venues. They are designed merely for socializing the masses that watch them. Serve virtually no purpose but to spread the worst kinds of propaganda imaginable. That 445B can be much better used in other places instead of being wasted on the commie few!

    4. Paul Morrison says:

      Liberals need to wake up to the fact that what we are doing is unsustainable. We need to make deep cuts across the board and eliminate as many programs as possible. Elimination of the NPR should be an easy decision even for our current politicians. If liberals find that to difficult maybe they could ask the VP to make a substantial donation to NPR.

    5. Bobbie says:

      If the liberals say public broadcastings $445 million subsidy is "tiny," then they won't miss it! These tiny amounts are taken from peoples' paychecks that earn their money to provide for their families but because of these tiny amounts adding up, leaves many people with NO DISPOSABLE INCOME!

      PBS has the gall to send out requests for personal donations on top of it! These people are making hand over fist at the expense of our independence which would be less effected if PBS took on their full responsibility to let their endorsers support their way and those who promote or benefit personal lifestyles through their personal language can also let their endorsers pay for their personal broadcasting. Or ALL can find another line of work!

      "free press" accommodated by government funding, doesn't make it "true" press whereas free press with those promoting it standing accountable to it's costs are accurate and truthful. The term "free" is distorted to make it at everyone elses expense. How about they do it for "free" at no one but their own expense! "Free" to us NOT TO THEM!

      • Pragmatic says:

        "'free press' accommodated by government funding, doesn't make it "true" press whereas free press with those promoting it standing accountable to it's costs are accurate and truthful."

        Both Fox News and MSNBC are accountable to their costs but I wouldn't describe either of them as accurate or truthful. Far from it.

        Also, most the of the donations and government grants don't go directly to PBS or NPR. They go to their local affiliates (ie., local radio stations).

        • Bobbie says:

          I don't care where they go, Pragmatic! CUT THEM! And if they can't stand on their own, rid them! free market is an excellent source of free choice that promotes or demotes on MERIT! Before and without Obama's urge to over regulate, private businesses donate a lot to the communities their businesses are in! Let the market DICTATE, not the controls of government and their unfair costs, OVER pay and ABUSE of authority!

        • 4arepublic says:

          You compare Fox and BSNBC. One is profitable with a huge audience and the other should be out of business. Guess which one has the lowest ratings? There is enough liberal media that draws about the same amount of listeners/views as PBS or NPR. Why do you insist on spending my tax dollars on losers?

    6. Dwight Bobson says:

      Actually, the assumed "liberals" to which you refer are as unknowing about public broadcasting as most other critics on the outside, e.g., CATO and Heritage in their past faux-research. I know how scary facts can be to conservatives but the fact is that most (90%) of the money goes to local stations. For those located in the rural or least populated areas of the country, federal funds are as much as 50% of all their money. It was set up that way so that those areas had the benefits of noncommercial and educational programming when there was not enough local commerce to otherwise support such a service. So yes, it might be a small sum given the federal budget but to those most in need, it is a heck of a lot of money. The animosity against the DC organizations is misplaced when it comes to federal funding.

    7. Wayne says:

      No subsidy for anything because it makes government more the master of our lives and we lose individual liberty. NPR/PBS are cronies of whjomever is in power at the time. They have enough finacial support from the public and sponsors.

    8. joe says:

      What the heck are they waiting for? End it now. Vote out any member who supports this waste?

      Stop talking. Do it.

    9. Bill Duffy says:

      YES! YES! YES! CUT! CUT! CUT!

    10. Dan - Greenville SC says:

      I listen to NPR everyday while traveling to and from work to understand what the left is thinking and saying. They're mostly wrong on the issues which might explain the need to feed at the government trough. In a free market, bad ideas are not rewarded. And BTW, where is my coffee mug for my many years of taxpayer support! Cut them off – it's way over due.

      • Pragmatic says:

        How are they mostly wrong on the issues? NPR is the news organization that relentlessly shows both sides of the story.

        • Bobbie says:

          "relentlessly," Pragmatic? with a distinctive emphasis on the wrong side!!

        • That is very very funny!

        • 4arepublic says:

          No and never. You are full of it.

        • Stirling says:

          It's the mouthpiece of the DNC Prag.. George Soros has thrown his money behind it as well.. (which should tell you somthing about where it gets it's marching orders from.) Look at all of the Soros funded enities and you will find the liberal slant.. (tides foundation, Center for American progress, and others)

    11. Cris P says:

      If the support is so tiny, what in the world is the problem with eliminating it? It should have been gone long ago with its tremendous bias to the left. MY TAX dollars promoting a partisan point of view. It is atrocious!

    12. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Compared to the rest of the budget? Yes, it is tiny. Privatize PBS.

    13. Greg H says:

      NPR, funded by many conservatives, is 100% biased toward big government and the left.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×