The WSJ had a piece by Jim Demint on why Public Broadcasting Should
Go Private . It is interesting to see t he salaries of those
involved. You can read the whole article at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

If you are going to read the article, do not bother to read the quotes
below. For those too lazy to go to the source, I posted most of the
information on salaries.


Dan

But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation—as
reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file—
surely it can operate without tax dollars.

According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another
$70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related
organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to
Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2
million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit
filed in 2009.

In 2001, the federal government appropriated $340 million for CPB.
Last year it got $420 million. As Congress considers ways to close the
$1.6 trillion deficit, cutting funding for the CPB has even been
proposed by President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
Instead, Mr. Obama wants to increase CPB's funding to $451 million in
his latest budget.

Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

Last year, for example, the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal
financier George Soros, gave NPR $1.8 million to help support the
latter's plan to hire an additional 100 reporters.

On Mar 5, 5:57*am, " wrote:
*The WSJ had a piece by Jim Demint on why Public Broadcasting Should
Go Private . *It is interesting to see t he salaries of those
involved. *You can read the whole article at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57617666378931...

If you are going to read the article, do not bother to read the quotes
below. *For those too lazy to go to the source, I posted most of the
information on salaries.

Dan

But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation—as
reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file—
surely it can operate without tax dollars.

According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another
$70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related
organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to
Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2
million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit
filed in 2009.

In 2001, the federal government appropriated $340 million for CPB.
Last year it got $420 million. As Congress considers ways to close the
$1.6 trillion deficit, cutting funding for the CPB has even been
proposed by President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
Instead, Mr. Obama wants to increase CPB's funding to $451 million in
his latest budget.

Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

Last year, for example, the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal
financier George Soros, gave NPR $1.8 million to help support the
latter's plan to hire an additional 100 reporters.

So when will Faux News quit sucking off the public tit via tax credits
that subsidize it more than PBS?

Then maybe Roger's compensation (8.3 MILLION) will be adjusted back
down to Earth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

TMT

wrote in message
...
The WSJ had a piece by Jim Demint on why Public Broadcasting Should
Go Private . It is interesting to see t he salaries of those
involved. You can read the whole article at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

If you are going to read the article, do not bother to read the quotes
below. For those too lazy to go to the source, I posted most of the
information on salaries.


Dan

But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation—as
reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file—
surely it can operate without tax dollars.

According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another
$70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related
organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to
Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2
million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit
filed in 2009.

In 2001, the federal government appropriated $340 million for CPB.
Last year it got $420 million. As Congress considers ways to close the
$1.6 trillion deficit, cutting funding for the CPB has even been
proposed by President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
Instead, Mr. Obama wants to increase CPB's funding to $451 million in
his latest budget.

Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

Last year, for example, the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal
financier George Soros, gave NPR $1.8 million to help support the
latter's plan to hire an additional 100 reporters.


These salaries are small change compared to those of defense contractor CEOs
who get 100% of their funding from the goverment. I don't begrudge either
group. If the goverment is going to buy something, there needs to be a
competent, motivated organization to provide it.

So what is the goverment buying from CPB? Every other media outlet is
completely beholden to corporate interests for advertising revenue. The
goverment is buying children's programing that does not push kids into
believing that suger cereal and drinks are real food. It is buying
investigative reporting that does not back down when threatened by corporate
interests. (Did you know the Mythbusters were going to do a show on RFID
chip security or insecurity when they got a call from the credit card
corporate laywers? Discovery networks made them cancel it.)

Since Public Broadcasting is the only media outlet not completely under
their control, it is no wonder corporate interests are now pushing to shut
it down. The constitution is based on checks and balances of political
power. The founders could not have anticipated how politically powerful
large corporations would become. I see public media as an important balance
to corporate control of information, and it is one that is critical to our
republic.

On Mar 5, 5:03*pm, "anorton" wrote:


Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

The
goverment is buying children's programing that does not push kids into
believing that suger cereal and drinks are real food.

Odd that you would say the government is buying childrens programming
when " Sesame Street " brings in for PBS about half as much as the
government subsidy.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 5:03 pm, "anorton" wrote:


Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

The
goverment is buying children's programing that does not push kids into
believing that suger cereal and drinks are real food.

Odd that you would say the government is buying childrens programming
when " Sesame Street " brings in for PBS about half as much as the
government subsidy.

Dan

Is your pedant mode on, Dan? g You know the figures, right? The total
Sesame Workshop contribution from CPB is around 1.7%.

But there would have been no Sesame Street, or any of the half-dozen or so
other shows from the Workshop, without the CPB, and partnering contributions
from the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. It was part of the
push to get preschool education into the parts of America in which parents
couldn't send their kids to private preschools.

If we can't support things like that, we'd might as well all turn the
government over to Goldman Sachs and be done with it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:



But there would have been no Sesame Street, or any of the half-dozen or so
other shows from the Workshop, without the CPB, and partnering contributions
from the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. It was part of the
push to get preschool education into the parts of America in which parents
couldn't send their kids to private preschools.

If we can't support things like that, we'd might as well all turn the
government over to Goldman Sachs and be done with it.

didn't we do that already?



--
Ed Huntress

"jim" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:



But there would have been no Sesame Street, or any of the half-dozen or
so
other shows from the Workshop, without the CPB, and partnering
contributions
from the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. It was part of the
push to get preschool education into the parts of America in which
parents
couldn't send their kids to private preschools.

If we can't support things like that, we'd might as well all turn the
government over to Goldman Sachs and be done with it.

didn't we do that already?

They still work behind the scenes.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/5/2011 3:57 AM, wrote:
The WSJ had a piece by Jim Demint on why Public Broadcasting Should
Go Private . It is interesting to see t he salaries of those
involved. You can read the whole article at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

If you are going to read the article, do not bother to read the quotes
below. For those too lazy to go to the source, I posted most of the
information on salaries.


Dan

But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation—as
reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file—
surely it can operate without tax dollars.

According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another
$70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related
organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to
Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2
million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit
filed in 2009.

In 2001, the federal government appropriated $340 million for CPB.
Last year it got $420 million. As Congress considers ways to close the
$1.6 trillion deficit, cutting funding for the CPB has even been
proposed by President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
Instead, Mr. Obama wants to increase CPB's funding to $451 million in
his latest budget.

Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

Last year, for example, the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal
financier George Soros, gave NPR $1.8 million to help support the
latter's plan to hire an additional 100 reporters.



Two points; PBS only receives about 15% of it's revenue from the federal
government. The rest comes from donations from viewers and other
sources. So the fact is the amount going to PBS from the taxpayers is
very small and believe me there are millions of taxpayers who do want
their money to keep going there.

The other thing is the sham these spending cuts are. They are only to
domestic discretionary spending. As such they only amount to a pittance
of what needs to be cut to bring the deficit down. So no matter how much
of this kind of cutting is done it's not going to make a dent in our
financial problem. That will only be addressed by cutting the so-called
non discretionary items like defense, medicare, and social security.

Everyone knows this, so this supposed spending reduction is not to bring
fiscal order to the country. It's just a thinly disguised way for the
right wing to eliminate many liberal programs that they don't like. It's
nothing more than that. Just as the governor of Wisconsin is using the
budget as an excuse to eliminate collective bargaining for unions, the
right wing is using "spending cuts" as a way of ending programs they
have always hated. In other words, the republicans are not being honest.
They are just using this budget deficit as an excuse to eliminate
liberal programs. If they were really serious about the deficit and the
debt they would be cutting the defense budget and the entitlement
programs. Funny how they have scrupulously avoided those? Which should
tell you how serious they are about fixing things.

Hawke

On Mar 5, 7:34*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 3/5/2011 3:57 AM, wrote:





* The WSJ had a piece by Jim Demint on why Public Broadcasting Should
Go Private . *It is interesting to see t he salaries of those
involved. *You can read the whole article at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57617666378931...

If you are going to read the article, do not bother to read the quotes
below. *For those too lazy to go to the source, I posted most of the
information on salaries.

Dan

But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation as
reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file
surely it can operate without tax dollars.

According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy
Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another
$70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related
organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to
Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2
million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit
filed in 2009.

In 2001, the federal government appropriated $340 million for CPB.
Last year it got $420 million. As Congress considers ways to close the
$1.6 trillion deficit, cutting funding for the CPB has even been
proposed by President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission.
Instead, Mr. Obama wants to increase CPB's funding to $451 million in
his latest budget.

Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame
Street make millions on their own. "Sesame Street," for example, made
more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from
2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received
$956,513 in compensation in 2008.

Last year, for example, the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal
financier George Soros, gave NPR $1.8 million to help support the
latter's plan to hire an additional 100 reporters.

Two points; PBS only receives about 15% of it's revenue from the federal
government. The rest comes from donations from viewers and other
sources. So the fact is the amount going to PBS from the taxpayers is
very small and believe me there are millions of taxpayers who do want
their money to keep going there.

The other thing is the sham these spending cuts are. They are only to
domestic discretionary spending. As such they only amount to a pittance
of what needs to be cut to bring the deficit down. So no matter how much
of this kind of cutting is done it's not going to make a dent in our
financial problem. That will only be addressed by cutting the so-called
non discretionary items like defense, medicare, and social security.

Everyone knows this, so this supposed spending reduction is not to bring
fiscal order to the country. It's just a thinly disguised way for the
right wing to eliminate many liberal programs that they don't like. It's
nothing more than that. Just as the governor of Wisconsin is using the
budget as an excuse to eliminate collective bargaining for unions, the
right wing is using "spending cuts" as a way of ending programs they
have always hated. In other words, the republicans are not being honest.
They are just using this budget deficit as an excuse to eliminate
liberal programs. If they were really serious about the deficit and the
debt they would be cutting the defense budget and the entitlement
programs. Funny how they have scrupulously avoided those? Which should
tell you how serious they are about fixing things.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It tells us how dishonest they are.

And how dishonest their followers are.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:
"jim" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
But there would have been no Sesame Street, or any of the half-dozen or
so
other shows from the Workshop, without the CPB, and partnering
contributions
from the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. It was part of the
push to get preschool education into the parts of America in which
parents
couldn't send their kids to private preschools.

If we can't support things like that, we'd might as well all turn the
government over to Goldman Sachs and be done with it.
didn't we do that already?

They still work behind the scenes.



I hate when they do that...

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

On Mar 5, 6:28*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



Is your pedant mode on, Dan? g You know the figures, right? The total
Sesame Workshop contribution from CPB is around 1.7%.

Ed Huntress

I thought that Sesame Street was a money maker and contributed to CPB,
not the other way around. Have you seen the Sesame Street rec park
in Eastern PA?

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 6:28 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



Is your pedant mode on, Dan? g You know the figures, right? The total
Sesame Workshop contribution from CPB is around 1.7%.

Ed Huntress

I thought that Sesame Street was a money maker and contributed to CPB,
not the other way around.

I haven't kept up with the funding wars for PBS, but the last time I looked,
Sesame Street's corporate sponsorship, etc., was being used to fund the many
worldwide projects of Sesame Workshop (which grew out of the Children's
Television Workshop, the producer of Sesame Street). The federal government
funding is basically a token arrangement, which serves both as a lightning
rod for anti-PBS activity and as a connecting link to the original
government support. The idea of public television is that it is of and for
the public, and government backing is a part of that relationship.

Full disclosu I worked for PBS's predecessor, NET, in 1969.

--
Ed Huntress



Have you seen the Sesame Street rec park
in Eastern PA?

Dan

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 6:28 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



Is your pedant mode on, Dan? g You know the figures, right? The total
Sesame Workshop contribution from CPB is around 1.7%.

Ed Huntress

I thought that Sesame Street was a money maker and contributed to CPB,
not the other way around.

I haven't kept up with the funding wars for PBS, but the last time I
looked, Sesame Street's corporate sponsorship, etc., was being used to
fund the many worldwide projects of Sesame Workshop (which grew out of the
Children's Television Workshop, the producer of Sesame Street). The
federal government funding is basically a token arrangement, which serves
both as a lightning rod for anti-PBS activity and as a connecting link to
the original government support. The idea of public television is that it
is of and for the public, and government backing is a part of that
relationship.

Full disclosu I worked for PBS's predecessor, NET, in 1969.

--
Ed Huntress



Have you seen the Sesame Street rec park
in Eastern PA?

Dan

Whoop, I missed that last question. No, I haven't been in there, but I drive
by it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
of what needs to be cut to bring the deficit down. So no matter how much
of this kind of cutting is done it's not going to make a dent in our
financial problem. That will only be addressed by cutting the so-called
non discretionary items like defense, medicare, and social security.


Actually, SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS THE GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--because
historically, the citizens pay way more funds into it than they've recieved
back....

The problem comes in because the government "borrows" the excess and spends
it, issuing bonds that concievably will come due at some point in the
future.

SEE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...es)#Trust_fund

"Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund
maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)).
Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues.
When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is
invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the
Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's
general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social
Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2
trillion."



--

On 3/7/2011 9:57 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
wrote in message
...
of what needs to be cut to bring the deficit down. So no matter how much
of this kind of cutting is done it's not going to make a dent in our
financial problem. That will only be addressed by cutting the so-called
non discretionary items like defense, medicare, and social security.


Actually, SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS THE GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING--because
historically, the citizens pay way more funds into it than they've recieved
back....

The problem comes in because the government "borrows" the excess and spends
it, issuing bonds that concievably will come due at some point in the
future.

SEE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...es)#Trust_fund

"Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund
maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)).
Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues.
When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is
invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the
Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's
general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social
Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2
trillion."


I agree with you. Social Security actually has a surplus right now. But
to get the budget in balance it needs to be modified. All the so-called
entitlements need to be adjusted so they are not going to cost more than
we can afford. We also need revenue adjustments too, which means the
highest tax rate needs to be raised. It's pretty easy to balance the
budget really. You just raise taxes a bit on the most well off and you
make some minimal cuts in what is to be paid out in entitlement
programs. What you don't do is take a meat axe to all the domestic
spending and infrastructure spending by only cutting services in the
discretionary part of the budget.

Hawke

On Mar 8, 2:50*pm, Hawke wrote:

I agree with you. Social Security actually has a surplus right now.
Hawke

Actually current Social Security taxes are no longer enough to pay for
the current Social Security benefits. For years Social Security taxes
brought in enough that there was a surplus, but that ended last year.
It is even worse now because the amount collected from the people
( not the company contribution ) was cut to stimulate the economy.

Dan

wrote in message
...


For years Social Security taxes brought in enough that there was a
surplus, but that ended last year.

That is correct.

--

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/7/2011 9:57 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
wrote in message
...
of what needs to be cut to bring the deficit down. So no matter how much
of this kind of cutting is done it's not going to make a dent in our
financial problem. That will only be addressed by cutting the so-called
non discretionary items like defense, medicare, and social security.


Actually, SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS THE GOVERNMENT ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING--because
historically, the citizens pay way more funds into it than they've
recieved
back....

The problem comes in because the government "borrows" the excess and
spends
it, issuing bonds that concievably will come due at some point in the
future.

SEE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...es)#Trust_fund

"Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund
maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the "Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund", as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)).
Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues.
When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess
is
invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus
the
Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's
general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of
Social
Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2
trillion."


I agree with you. Social Security actually has a surplus right now. But to
get the budget in balance it needs to be modified. All the so-called
entitlements need to be adjusted so they are not going to cost more than
we can afford. We also need revenue adjustments too, which means the
highest tax rate needs to be raised. It's pretty easy to balance the
budget really. You just raise taxes a bit on the most well off and you
make some minimal cuts in what is to be paid out in entitlement programs.
What you don't do is take a meat axe to all the domestic spending and
infrastructure spending by only cutting services in the discretionary part
of the budget.


Bull****.

The govenrment needs to quit using "surplus" social security income as a
****ing slush fund, increase taxes if there is a shortfall and provide a tax
return ( or put into a zero interest trust fund ) where there occurs a
surplus .....

End of problem...

Paradoxically, the trust fund was originally established in the 80's because
at that time, payouts had begun to exceed revenue and the shortcome was
being added to the national defecit.

--

F. George McDuffee wrote:

why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail

Probably for the same reason that the union bosses and extortionists
aren't - government collusion.

Thanks,
Rich