The chairman of the Cato Institute
proposed eliminating tax exemptions for nonprofits,
which benefit conservative groups "by some amounts"
but "benefit the Left by massive amounts."What to kill first?
The Right nominates CPB — to save tax money and "privatize the Left"Originally published in Current, Jan. 16, 1995
By Karen Everhart Bedford
"This is an attempt to kill noncommercial television, not to save it, not to privatize it in some business-like fashion," said PBS President Ervin Duggan during a Jan. 3 [1995] appearance on ABC's Nightline. "This is an attempt to kill."
To illustrate his point about the new congressional leadership's motives, Duggan held up a flyer with the headline "What to Kill First"--the subject of a meeting held in Washington a month ago.
Leading conservatives, speaking at the strategic panel discussion at the National Press Club Dec. 19, agreed that federal funding for public broadcasting should be an early target for elimination in the new Congress.
"Our idea of Christmas presents is a lot of dead federal programs and terminated federal agencies and stalled federal regulations," said moderator William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the Republican Future, a Washington-based independent G.O.P. strategy and advocacy group that sponsored the discussion. In the meeting, four panelists from conservative think tanks suggested a broad range spending cuts for the 104th Congress.
As part of a plan "not to wage war on the poor, but rather on the cultural elites at the public trough," Kate O' Beirne, v.p. of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, proposed that CPB, along with the national endowments for the arts and humanities, should be among the top targets for the new Republican majority in Congress. O'Beirne, an occasional commentator on Maryland PTV's To the Contrary national roundtable program, was the first panelist to suggest putting CPB and the endowments on the chopping block.
"It seems to me that our friends at NPR ought to recognize that if a blooming idiot like Rush Limbaugh could be successful in the private market, 660 stations, surely the geniuses at NPR could also find support in the private market," she said.
Referring to House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Dec. 6 announcement that he plans to "zero out CPB," O'Beirne added, "That having been said, the battle has been joined. He cannot, nor can we, back down from this one."
"Privatizing the Left"
O'Beirne acknowledged that her proposed cuts for CPB and other programs would provide only a "small down payment on the deficit," but a larger, symbolic value.
"[I]t speaks volumes to the American public that Congress is back on their side against the cultural elites, the radical social engineers, and the buttinski bureaucrats who insist on telling a self-governing people what is best for them."
"Stop subsidizing the tastes of the upper middle class--NEA, NEH, Corporation for Public Broadcasting," agreed William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute. Niskanen also proposed eliminating tax exemptions for nonprofit organizations, which benefit conservative groups "by some amounts" but "benefit the Left by massive amounts."
"Frankly, I think Americans ought to have more of their money under their total control and we should eliminate all these special privileges," he explained, pledging that Cato is "willing to trade in our exemption in a tradeoff for lower rates for all Americans."
Throughout the discussion, panelists advanced proposals to cut many other federal programs and agencies--Title X at the Department of Health and Human Services, Goals 2000, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Legal Services Corp., to name only a few--and disagreed on very few of them.
When they turned to strategy, speakers saw the attack on public broadcasting and other members of the "advocacy Left" as a key opportunity to gain political advantage.
By forcing congressional supporters of the endowments, CPB and other "liberal special-interest groups" to defend their programs, O'Beirne predicted, "it will become clear that they are carrying water for special interests and not making the case for the public good." She described an opportunity to make "enormous progress in privatizing the Left through appropriations."
"I like the idea of taking some early targets for abolition that are doable, and I particularly like Kate's idea of picking targets that will open up fissures in the support of liberal elite programs," said Niskanen.
The apparent consensus among panelists was somewhat unusual for a such a discussion, which was part of the Project for a Republican Future's occasional series, "The Republican Agenda," according to David Tell, communications director. Previous panels have covered a "whole variety of different subjects" and discussions often are "politely but intelligently contentious," Tell said. "This one was not--people generally agreed."
"Is it a nice thing to do?"
Partisanship has given momentum to the attack on CPB, but so has a deeper strain of ideological concerns.
"[F]or too long, the standard of government has been, 'Well, is this a nice thing to do? Will it make the world a better place?'," said panelist Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "And the true question is whether we absolutely need government to do this and, in particular, whether we need the federal government to do that." If not, it should be among the programs that the 104st Congress kills first, he said.
"There's nothing wrong with public broadcasting that a little free enterprise wouldn't solve," said Smith in an interview. He objects to the idea that taxpayers have to pay for public broadcasting programs that they may not like, and favors early and complete elimination of CPB's federal appropriation, rather than a phase-out.
"When you prune a weed, you generally end up with a much heartier weed," he said. A phase-out of the federal subsidy would only "invigorate proponents of the program" to lessen or reverse the cuts. "The only way to provide government for the general interest is to cut away the special interest."
Niskanen likewise said he supports the drive to end CPB funding even though he personally supports Washington outlets WAMU-FM and WETA-TV/FM. He found "very little argument" that stations that he enjoys "should be supported by the taxpayer."
Underwriting announcements have grown into "fairly extended 'thank-yous'," making stations "not-quite-noncommercial broadcasters," he explained. The system's dependence on federal tax dollars also is "substantially less than it used to be."
Elimination of public broadcasters' federal subsidy does not mean elimination of public broadcasting, Niskanen added. "It doesn't prohibit them from going to state and local governments."
Despite public broadcasting's past bipartisan support, Niskanen believes that the balance of power has shifted far enough to cut off CPB's federal support. "This is the first time in 40 years that we've had a Republican Congress. The mood is really quite different from what we had in 1981." He described a "moderately broad consensus that goes beyond partisanship" to cut spending on "an accumulation of things that the federal government has started in the past couple of decades that don't make any sense for federal financing." CPB is among them.
In the 1994 elections, the electorate "kicked out the old boys" as a signal that it is "no longer content with the status quo in government spending," agreed Smith. Public broadcasting is "largely funded by private contributions and presents points of view that none of these people were elected to represent," he added. "If that can't be cut, what can?"
. To Current's home page Web page created March 4, 1996
Current
The newspaper about public television and radio
in the United States
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Takoma Park, Md.
E-mail: webcurrent.org
301-270-7240
Copyright 2000
