Yeah, as in "We the people". As in "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Taxes are how "we the people" pay for public things (libraries, parks, highways, sidewalks, schools, etc.)
See my comment below: in usual terms, in Europe “public” means technically “supported by taxes” -which is why most “public” media is most of the time pro-government (bar inertia).
Then it becomes an organization dominated by those who donate the most -- and there have already been cases where a PBS affiliate self-censored and modified its editorial in an attempt to placate a potential donor[0].
The American public's attitude towards using taxes to support media has shifted over the past few decades. There's a perception (right or wrong) that public media is liberally biased, and it's getting government attention now, and so we're seeing the consequences of that.
Are you saying that non-commercial broadcasting does not count as a public good, or that taxes should be voluntary, or that it does count as a public good but taxes should not be spent on it?
I don't think this is correct. The majority of people prefers states to have more influence on school curriculum and federal government to have less. Yes, there are downsides to that, but it generally means that hours on STEM will increase and hours on ideology will decrease.
Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.
No, teaching what the local parents believe is best for their own kids. While there are certainly a few of those who will want bibles, most in my experience put much higher value in the extra STEM unhindered by ideology.
My kids high school recently cancelled advanced math classes because the racial composition of students there was not what the school hoped to see. No, thank you, I want parents to have a much bigger influence on what schools teach.
>I suspect the post office is still supported by a durable majority. If it isn’t, then it will probably lose government funding as well.
To which funding are you referring?
In fact[0]:
"Unlike many government agencies, the United States Postal Service (USPS) does not receive direct taxpayer funding for operating expenses. Government appropriations are limited to specific purposes, such as the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) Program."
And[1]:
"In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation."
Same with public schools, public parks, public sidewalks, public libraries, even police and fire departments. We have to give billionaires trillions in tax cuts while watching most Americans backslide into poverty so obviously it'd be fiscally irresponsible for the government to fund public services for the peasant class
No it won't. The modern GOP is fueled by grievance. It needs an "other" in order to exist. They'll have a new enemy to rail against by this time tomorrow.
This is naive. If conservatives continue to perceive outlets like PBS as a thorn in their political sides, they'll go after their broadcasting licenses or target them with ruinous lawsuits - both actions that have been discussed or taken by conservative politicians already.
That is not what "public" means in ordinary language. Public is intended to mean "supported by taxes".
Support by donations is always dependent on the largest donor.
See Post, Washington to see what "dependent on the largest donor" is revealed to be.
Not going to argue semantics with you.
The US government was the largest donor until now. No single non-governmental donor will ever have that level of influence again.
I now realize (sorry) that my European mindset has tricked me, most likely. The term is very loaded here towards the meaning I gave it.
You are probably right.
My apologies.
it's not a semantic argument. you misunderstand the term in question.
Until this change, public broadcasting got 85% of its funding from donations, so whatever the term used to mean, that's what it means now.
Honest question: apart from the name ("Public BC"), what makes it "public" in the US if most of its income is private?
It gets direct donations from the public.
But then what is the difference between that and any NGO?
>Public is intended to mean "supported by taxes".
For you, probably, for me it means "from/for the people".
Yeah, as in "We the people". As in "Of the people, by the people, for the people" Taxes are how "we the people" pay for public things (libraries, parks, highways, sidewalks, schools, etc.)
See my comment below: in usual terms, in Europe “public” means technically “supported by taxes” -which is why most “public” media is most of the time pro-government (bar inertia).
Then it becomes an organization dominated by those who donate the most -- and there have already been cases where a PBS affiliate self-censored and modified its editorial in an attempt to placate a potential donor[0].
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-ou...
What are taxes for, then?
The American public's attitude towards using taxes to support media has shifted over the past few decades. There's a perception (right or wrong) that public media is liberally biased, and it's getting government attention now, and so we're seeing the consequences of that.
Voluntary vs. Compelled is the difference.
Are you saying that non-commercial broadcasting does not count as a public good, or that taxes should be voluntary, or that it does count as a public good but taxes should not be spent on it?
Things that are supported by a durable majority of the population. I wish that included public broadcasting, but it doesn't.
Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.
I guess we should just support the post office with donations while we’re at it. That’ll work well!
I suspect the post office is still supported by a durable majority. If it isn’t, then it will probably lose government funding as well.
A durable majority doesn't even support funding education, and it is losing federal funding as we speak. Do you think this is a good thing?
I don't think this is correct. The majority of people prefers states to have more influence on school curriculum and federal government to have less. Yes, there are downsides to that, but it generally means that hours on STEM will increase and hours on ideology will decrease.
Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.
Banning books and forcing bibles in schools. Right.
No, teaching what the local parents believe is best for their own kids. While there are certainly a few of those who will want bibles, most in my experience put much higher value in the extra STEM unhindered by ideology.
My kids high school recently cancelled advanced math classes because the racial composition of students there was not what the school hoped to see. No, thank you, I want parents to have a much bigger influence on what schools teach.
Which Federal policy was it that led to that class cancelation?
Some equal access policy that it was worried about. Do you have kids? If so, what age(s)?
>I suspect the post office is still supported by a durable majority. If it isn’t, then it will probably lose government funding as well.
To which funding are you referring?
In fact[0]:
"Unlike many government agencies, the United States Postal Service (USPS) does not receive direct taxpayer funding for operating expenses. Government appropriations are limited to specific purposes, such as the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) Program."
And[1]:
"In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation."
[0] https://govfacts.org/federal/usps/how-usps-stays-afloat-fund...
[1] https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis...
Same with public schools, public parks, public sidewalks, public libraries, even police and fire departments. We have to give billionaires trillions in tax cuts while watching most Americans backslide into poverty so obviously it'd be fiscally irresponsible for the government to fund public services for the peasant class
> This will at least shut them up for good.
No it won't. The modern GOP is fueled by grievance. It needs an "other" in order to exist. They'll have a new enemy to rail against by this time tomorrow.
Yes, of course, but it won’t be public broadcasting anymore. That’s why this might be a win for public broadcasting in the long run.
This is naive. If conservatives continue to perceive outlets like PBS as a thorn in their political sides, they'll go after their broadcasting licenses or target them with ruinous lawsuits - both actions that have been discussed or taken by conservative politicians already.