For the honor of the Neighborhood of Make-Believe!

This is a cc of a post I wrote on Facebook this evening, in discussion of the Republican proposed budget's planned curtailment of subsidy for Public Broadcasting (Primarily NPR radio and PBS television). I initially posted a video of Mr. Rogers making the case for funding before congress, and I urged people to contact their representatives in support of continuing funding. A friend had posted the following:

"Why? Why should the American Taxpayer pay for radio on TV? Let them be privately sponsored like everybody else."

So, I thought about what he had said, and I brainstormed some thoughts with the spousal unit (who is so sharp lately, since she's thinking for two), and I formulated a response. I'm sorry that it's so long, but I tried to keep it fairly straight forward. I would appreciate any comments (in agreement or dissent) you may have.

In the first place, NPR and PBS are not "like everybody else". They exist as a public service, not a for-profit enterprise. And this is greatly to the public good. For-profit media cannot - by its very nature - offer impartiality, as its goal inevitably becomes the increase of the corporate coffers. GE Westinghouse owns CBS and a large portion of NBC (49%, while Comcast owns the remaining majority), and ABC is owned by Disney. Meanwhile, PBS is "owned" by the people of the United States. Imagine a situation where GE was acting against the interests of the people (say, not-so-hypothetically, mass production and unregulated dumping of PCBs); do you think, for a second, that NBC or CBS would freely report stories that would damage their parent company? At the least, this represents a conflict of interest, and at worst - a situation begging for a cover-up.

Secondly, "private" sponsorship for public broadcasting is not a feasible option, simply due to the nature of the programming on PBS or NPR. These programs are, by and large, not commercial in nature. Take "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood", for example. The very slow pace and calming feel that made the show a classic and foundational program for children could not have possibly remained in place had the half hour program been interrupted for commercials or permeated with product placement. The "McNeil Lehrer News Hour" is able to maintain its momentum of spirited and respectful debate without the commercial interruption that would reduce thoughtful commentary to sound bytes. NPR's "All Things Considered", while informative and often quite entertaining, is not conducive to commercialization. This lack of exploitability for commercial purposes allows public broadcasting to offer programming that other avenues would not even give a second glance. We can see what happens when a broadcasting entity attempts to commercialize content by looking at what has happened in recent days with both the Discovery and History cable networks. Programming of educational and intellectual value that cannot be commercialized is discarded in favor of pandering sideshows like "Pawn Stars" or "The Deadliest Catch".

Finally, governmental subsidy of public broadcasting represents a valuable and necessary Investment in both the current and future growth of the nation. Since the programming is free of both corporate and commercial obligations, it is free to focus on its two main tasks: informing and educating the public. Consumers of public broadcasting have been shown in studies to be better informed on current events (both domestic and global) than those whose news came from the 3 major corporate (and commercial) networks. It can clearly be argued that - by fostering a better informed and aware society - public broadcasting avenues offer a return on any investment of tax revenue. When we further look at public broadcasting (in especial, PBS television), the benefits are even clearer. At a time when our public schools are struggling to properly teach or engage students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), PBS TV sparks interest in these high-need areas with outstanding programming such as "NOVA", "Nature", Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's "ScienceNow", and "Frontline". I personally know that my life-long love of science was fostered by these and similar programs. If the United States is to compete in a 21st century global economy, the small investment of subsidizing such programming will reap dividends in the next generation of engineers, scientists and industrial entrepreneurs.

I do, however, agree with the spirit of your argument for the American Taxpayer, and feel strongly that we should demand the highest value return on our investment that can be reasonably and ethically gained. In light of that, I encourage you to direct your complaints at programs that truly do not benefit the public at large. I suggest 3 specific items: the F-35 (or Joint Strike Fighter), the Gerald R. Ford class super-carrier, and foreign aid money to Israel. 

The F-35 fighter jet program was not requested or commissioned by any branch of the US military as necessary and will cost taxpayers over 382 Billion dollars before a single airframe can be operationally deployed. The proposed jet offers little to no improvement over existing (and far cheaper) models in operational capabilities. The program was pushed through the Pentagon by Lockheed Martin - not to assist or improve the military, but to increase the company's profits through a large taxpayer-funded government contract.

The Gerald R. Ford class Aircraft Carrier is another proposed system that is grossly overreaching. These updates to the Nimitz-class carriers will cost in excess of 10.5 Billion dollars apiece, and they're planning on building TEN of them. I can tell you from my time in the Navy that our carrier fleet represents strategic overkill and redundancy. There are a grand total of TWO aircraft carriers being operated by non-allied navies worldwide, and one of those is in dock as a floating theme park. This hearkens back to the days of stockpiled nuclear weapons which could destroy all life on earth hundreds of times over. After the first few of these are built, the law of diminishing returns takes over and excessive additional commissioning of carriers does nothing to improve our global position short of giving the Pentagon a shiny new toy,

US aid to Israel represents the largest single amount of our foreign aid budget, a staggering 3.1 Billion dollars on average annually over the years 2000-2007. The overwhelming majority of that aid is in military grant, which increases tensions in a region that hardly needs such escalation. This aid also foments a large portion of the antipathy held in many islamic nations toward the United States.  I challenge you to show me a tangible, capital return on the investment of so many taxpayer dollars into this aid program.

These three programs (and there were many more I could have chosen) expend billions of taxpayer money for minimal return on investment. By comparison, the governmental subsidy to public broadcasting is a mere 422 million dollars, with observable and provable beneficial return to the public on that investment.