House Votes to End NPR Funding

[Volitzer]

House Votes to End NPR Funding
Thursday, 17 Mar 2011 03:49 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/npr-funding-house-votes/2011/03/17/id/389846

The House voted to block all federal funding for NPR, a week after the embattled public radio station found itself the subject of a conservative activist's undercover video recording that led to the ouster of its chief executive, ABC News reported.

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.

The House GOP continuing resolution that would fund the government for the remainder of the year already rescinds funding for the CPB, which also funds Public Broadcasting Service, and zeroes out millions in funds after that.

The White House today released a statement strongly opposing the bill but did not issue a veto threat.

"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 White House said.

On March 1, PBS released a poll it had commissioned from Hart Research and American Viewpoint that showed 69-27 percent opposition to proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with voters 83 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of independents, and 56 percent of Republicans saying they don't want it defunded, according to Fox News.

While the House spent several hours of its afternoon debating the legislation, the Democratic-led Senate is unlikely ever to bring up the measure for a vote.

GOP leaders argue that NPR can survive on its own without federal funding and that at a time of budget concerns, such a cut is necessary.

"The federal addiction for spending has driven us into debt," Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Fla., told ABC News. "We should not use tax dollars for something that can be paid for privately."

NPR executives argue that federal funding is key to their operations, but Republicans have seized on comments made by Schiller, who says in the hidden camera video that NPR and most of its member stations would survive without such funding.

Schiller, then-president of the NPR Foundation and senior vice president for development, was caught on tape calling the Tea Party "xenophobic" and "seriously racist people" who are "fanatically involved in people's personal lives."

He goes on to say that the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Party and laments the demise of intellectualism, particularly in the GOP.

NPR's president and chief executive Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron Schiller) resigned in the wake of the scandal.

House GOP leaders have for years attempted to cut funding for what many of them see as a liberal-leaning broadcast operation.

House Republicans made a proposal in November to strip federal funding for NPR after the radio station fired controversial commentator Juan Williams for comments he made about Muslims. That bill didn't pass.


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[Jennifer Murdoch]

Bad move.  Conservatives don't like NPR or PBS basically because they aren't FOX News. They both have good fact-based programming, which is why they are out the door.

Fortunately, neither ban will get past the Senate.

[Volitzer]

Bad move.  Conservatives don't like NPR or PBS basically because they aren't FOX News. They both have good fact-based programming, which is why they are out the door.

Fortunately, neither ban will get past the Senate.

I'm not defending NPR but a lot of their listeners claim to be conservative.

I agree with your point tho, if NPR loses out then FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, should be subjected to the forces of the FREE MARKET.

[Jennifer Murdoch]

They want a monopoly on all talk radio.  It's bad enough that 90% of it is conservative, they want more!  They need to come up with a new Fairness Doctrine so people have more choices than hatemongers like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage.

[Volitzer]

We don't need a fairness doctrine.

Let the free market handle it.

What we need is less governmental subsidy of both left wing and right wing radio.

They don't subsidize O'Reilly on the radio anymore cuz the numbers weren't there.  All people have to do is stop listening.

[Jennifer Murdoch]

I disagree.  The problem with radio is that most of the airwaves are owned by huge corporations like Comcast, CONSERVATIVE CORPORATIONS.  As a consequence, conservative radio is on 90% of the airwaves, leaving liberal talk something like the remaining 10%.  Some areas of the country don't get liberal talk at all. Well, there are only so many stations, and they are the people's airways.  The monopoly needs to be broken up, there needs to be more diversity in ownership and the airways and clowns like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity shouldn't be force fed in areas where people don't like them.

[Volitzer]

Currently the internet is bypassing the corporate media complex and a lot of media is internet based.

The idea of a fairness doctrine is sound it is just those who are to enforce it.

Of course if no one listens even the subsidies will end.

Conservative and Liberal media both is subsidized.  I used to be an Ed Schultz fan until I got banned from his forum for posting the Obama Deception.

[Jennifer Murdoch]

It's really not important who gets subsidies. Ed Schultz got some start up money for the radio show, but isn't getting any now, except from the help he gets from MSNBC (they built a radio studio for him at 30Rock, for instance).

He stands for working people, which is why I like him.  If you don't mind my saying, I think that you are fighting the wrong battle.  It isn't about pols, for instance, it's about the war the rich in this country are making against the workers.  To the extent that politicians enter into it, it is that they are simply tools used by the rich to screw the rest of us over.

[Volitzer]

Ed seems like a likeable guy.  I have nothing against him personally.  He and Thom Hartman make valid points against the conservative corporatocracy.  However when they don't admit the limousine-liberal side of it and don't get too critical with Obama or any Democrat shill on the national level, they lose part of their credilbility.  However when they side with Democrats on the state levels in defending union rights they are very credible.

Both need to condemn Globalists in the national Democrat party as well as the Republicans on the national level.

[Jennifer Murdoch]

Both Thom Hartman and Ed Schultz criticize the Obama administration, too. The difference between them and the Republicans is they also offer praise, when it is needed, too, and are never negative just for the sake of being negative. This differs from the Republicans, who often just criticize him on behalf of their corporate masters. They (the Republicans) are just schills for big business.

[Volitzer]

Yeah but soft criticisms.  He is so much like Bush with all these un-Constitutional wars yet they turn a blind eye to all that.

Where's the Congressional Declaration of War for any of these battles ?

Bush and Obama are equally guilty in this area.