Your daily Letter to the Columnist — May 11, 2011
Mark Wolfe | FEMA | Wikimedia Commons
He’s glad the Gov cut funding for public TV
I ran a business for nearly 40 years. I paid all federal, state and local taxes.
I would have been very resentful if the federal, state and local governments were supporting my competitor with my hard earned tax dollars. You libs down at the Roanoke Times must have all skipped Economics 101.
I have a small book, entitled “Economics in One Lesson” that first came out in 1946. It is just as valid today as it was in 1946. I’ll be glad to loan it to you. I’ll even run it up Spring Road to you!
Fred Landis,
ROANOKE
May 11, 2011 - 1:30 PM
Anybody who seriously believes that a small book entitled “Economics
in One Lesson” can adequately explain the complexity of economics in today’s world is seriously deluded and still living in the medieval age.
It sounds though, like this must be the book where Suzie gets all her
profound economic theories from. Are we sure Fred is not Suzie?
Dave, maybe Dan will put it on his shelf and you can win it and read for yourself and report back.
From a reviewer: “The one lesson is simply this: economic planning should take into account the effects of economic policies on all groups, not just some groups, and what those effects will be in the long run, not just the short run. That’s it. That’s the lesson.”
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
A better question is does that man seriously believe Public TV is a “competitor” to network or cable TV? I mean seriously. Sometimes people just pick a pitiful example to make. Public TV does more good for this nation in a day than any network will do in a month. This is still a political stunt and while PBS and NPR will survive, it is the principle of the thing.
Wonder if this fellow has an inkling of the government subsidies and incentives that businesses that are much more likely to have actual competitors have to deal with?
If you like books Fred, try “Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston’s book, “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill).“
That is a good lesson, I’ll give him that, thanks Uptheriver. But again, who exactly is PBS competition for? Is there some struggling Mom&Pop wanting to put forth documentary and educational programming with the occasional religious epic and Irish jig thrown in that we are all unaware of?
It is hypocritical to cut funding for PBS (not to mention passive-aggressive to do it once no one can challenge it) and then to turn around and give a huge tax break to a film being shot here. Let’s see … temporary work and extremely low or no pay on a film versus and investment in the future of children across the state … hmmm … which line to get in, which line to get in?
Bobby Mac is a liar and a fraud.
Most, not all, public broadcasting has always slanted toward liberal / progressive viewpoints and therefore should not be funded with taxpayer dollars.
“Public TV does more good for this nation in a day than any network will do in a month”. This is true if you believe in the liberal world view. At least cox cable will continue to include PBS in their basic cable packages unlike the christian tv stations which in my opinion do more good than pbs and npr put together and are now available only on cox plus. Now i know you do not agree with that opinion so your tax dollars should not go to support christian broadcasting. That’s the same way I feel about public broadcasting.
As far as economics goes, how about this —–”you cannot spend more than you take in”. The only “corporation” that can sustain itself for very long otherwise is the government because it passes laws that make it legal to confiscate our money and to borrow the rest. It’s time to run the government on all levels more like a business exept the government should break even instead of making a profit. A good start would be to take more power away from the feds and give it back to the states. The closer government is to the people, the more accountable it has to be.
Go Tea Party !!!!
will
And if Cox cable carried the christian stations exactly how is it that my tax dollarsa wouyld be supporting them. Fact is Cox probably doesn’t carry them for two reasons; 1. Lack of demand. and 2. They won’t pay the fees requires to have them carried on that tier of prograqmming.
Tell you Libs what – I’ll support funding for PBS if we can also fund The Rush Limbaugh Show – deal??????
Will, I am more than willing to bet that anything less than FOX News is “slanted toward liberal / progressive viewpoints” in your particular world view so pardon me if I disagree that PBS or NPR are overtly slanted.
Wholesome, theatrical, odd, religious, provocative, highbrow, current events? Check. Liberal and progressive in any overt or subversive way? Ridiculous. Let me guess, the Roanoke Times is a “liberal rag” in your opinion too?
I do not doubt at all that you do not see my point Sandi. The race horse doesn’t see what is around it either as it happily gallops toward the finish line with it’s blinders on. I suppose you still think Dan Rather was an objective journalist. You are always down on FOX news. What is your primary source for news?
I watch pbs sometimes. I have an acquaintance that produces and directs one of the better local shows. But the people behind PBS and NPR have a social/political agenda and have every right to propagate that agenda. However, they should not be supported by taxpayer money while doing so.
And Dave, you missed my point. The point is that tax payer money should not be spent to support broadcasting of any particular viewpoint period.
As far as programing content for basic cable, using your same arguement, is pbs that highly in demand? If so, it doesn’t need tax money to survive and is pbs paying the fees required to be on basic cable?
Extreme mega dittos double D !
Will,
The money the governor cut through the line-item veto didn’t change the appropriation for the shows you’re talking about 1 iota. What he cut, with the stroke of a pen, was $424,000 earmarked toward education services (both video and online) that are a resource for teachers — the ultimate beneficiaries are schoolkids. It allows the teachers to get various educational programming.
Your comment would make more sense if the gov cut the former rather than the latter.
Well Dave if pbs is so noble then maybe they should redirect their funding to cover the cuts. Besides, the “educational” resources directed toward subjects such as man made climate change and political correctness are agenda driven imho.
The government funding that is lost will only affect the shows that the fewest viewers do support. They have a way to figure that out you know. The things that will be lost are perhaps the best and most effective educational tools not the Irish jigs and British plays and certainly not the progressive, investigative and provocative shows you obviously disdain. Government funding is a small portion of their budget and yes they can do without it, it is only the people who watch the cooking, sewing, teaching and educational shows that will suffer and they can never be called political. It is a cutting off the nose to spite the face issue.
The things that will be lost are perhaps the best and most effective educational tools not the Irish jigs and British plays and certainly not the progressive, investigative and provocative shows you obviously disdain.
So PBS will cut the ‘educational’ stuff before they cut the liberal crap. Thanks for admitting what we already knew about PBS’ leftwing agenda, Sandi
Will,
The legislature cut about a $1 million from the pot that covers the kind of programming you’re talking about. Because of that cut, the legislature added $424,000 for education programming into a separate budget category. The governor cut the latter.
Yes well thanks, I am certainly an expert on NPR/PBS and the liberal agenda. I am fairly fluent on the right wing destroy anything that looks like dissent agenda too.
“Bobby Mac is a liar and a fraud.”
@ Saintbridge – I don’t necessarily disagree with that description of the Governor. In the spirit of fairness, could you please name some successful politicians who are neither liars nor frauds?
Careful now… some of those guys are slippery.
Ed of H,
We’ll start with:
Jimmy Carter
Dwight Eisenhower
Harry Truman
John Warner
It took me 15 seconds to come up with those 4. I’m sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with more.
“The legislature cut about a $1 million from the pot that covers the kind of programming you’re talking about. Because of that cut, the legislature added $424,000 for education programming into a separate budget category. The governor cut the latter.”
Comment by Dan Casey — May 12, 2011 @ 5:17 pm
So he didn’t actually “cut” anything, but did not allow an increase… Hmmm…
Dan@8:16
And lets add Jim Olin, Caldwell Butler, Linwood Holton, Jerry Baliles,
Gerald Ford, and Walter Mondale to that list just for starters.
CDaddy…
$1,000,000 was cut.
Because of that cut, the legislature decided to specifically earmark $424,000 for educational programming, which still results in a net loss of $576,000 as a whole.
The $424,000 was cut by McDonnell, so we’re back to the $1,000,000 cut.
So how much less funding will educational programming get because of the $1 million cut? Good question. But until the line item veto, they were planning on a guaranteed $424,000 that they won’t be receiving now.
[Dan--Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that. That was just my general understanding from everything I have read on the issue.]
Thanks for the giggles Dan & dave! I would agree a couple of those were *marginally* better than Gov. McDonnell on issues of honesty, but sorry guys – successful politicians are liars. Occasionally, a more honest one will confess to as much. I believe it’s the major reason so many people are disengaged from politics… it’s positively awful, it always has been, and I’m afraid it always will be.
There is no reason to subject politicians one admires or considers honest, decent or truly a statesman (if there are any) to the jeers of ideologues so I will pass on naming anyone.
The problem is not that politicians are inherently dishonest, self-serving, manipulative, or even vain (albeit many are all that and more), the problem is that once elected they have to make decisions and any decision that anyone disagrees with is going to be questioned, examined, maligned and inflamed for political purposes and to make them “toe the line”. Since that is guaranteed: your private life, marriage, sex partners, finances, contracts, contacts, housekeepers and yard workers, had all better be beyond reproach and your house not made of glass, or the rest, as they say, is history.
Politicians by and large (except for the really criminal minded) are what we have made them to be. We make them lie to us because telling the truth will never get you elected. We make them hide and deal in secrecy because the exposure, no matter how well intentioned the action, is brutal and unforgiving.
We have earned the political system and the politicians we have. Anyone who thinks differently has not been paying attention.