Quick Thoughts: No federal funds means federal control?

NPR is fearful of more governmental intrusion over two recent bills introduced by Rep Doug Lamborn to cut off federal subsidies to NPR and reduce federal spending.

I would understand if the fear were about losing money and suddenly having to compete in the marketplace that everyone else in radio does, but I'm a little confused about being afraid of the government controlling your broadcasting without giving you money? 

That's a bit odd, because when you loose federal funding, you usually loose the strings that come with that money. When the federal government gives you the strings without the money, that's called an unfunded mandate. Usually, only States have to deal with both funded and unfunded mandates from the feds (think No Child Left Behind and Obamacare) and they hate both.

You would think that the fact Rep. Slaughter (remember her rule that would have "deemed" Obamacare into law without a vote?) is trying to increase FCC control what is said and how it is said over the airwaves would be more worrisome for NPR.

It makes you wonder if NPR is trying to be a propaganda machine?

CBS Poll: Tucson Shooting and Rhetoric Not Related

Breaking news!

CBS just did a poll indicating that over 55% of people don't feel that the Tucson shooting and political rhetoric are related. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

Contrary to the suppositions of those clamoring for the FCC to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" (regulation requiring radio broadcasters to give equal time to opposing voices) people are able, at least in this instance,  to see what is reported to them and decide the truth for themselves.

Now, how much more informed would we be if the news outlets would actually report?

Look at that: Polling on Obamacare and Deficit

Rasmussen Reports just came out with a poll showing that only 29% of people think that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit.  A huge majority of Americans get what the CBO, and Nancy Pelosi seem unable to understand: adding another trillion dollars (estimated conservatively) to the Federal budget increases the deficit, regardless of how many times we double count "savings" from Medicare.  The tax increases in the bill aren't going to bring in as much in revenue estimated either.  Tax increases usually equal lesser federal revenues, while lower taxes usually equal higher tax revenues.  Just look at the JFK, Reagan, and Bush '43 tax cuts.  Tax revenues increased after each tax cut.

Here's to hoping for a repeal of Obamacare.

Quick Thoughts: A Crabby Analogy

If you've ever gone crabbing, you've seen the selfish behavior of crabs. When you pull your crabs out of the trap and put them in a bucket they will try to escape. Inevitably whenever one tries to get to the top, the others will pull him back down. The bucket stays full of crabs because none of them will allow any of the others to get out.

Usually we think of this attitude being a bad thing, i.e. not allowing someone in your community to achieve and leave their bad circumstances. Businesses, too, will explain the negative effects of the crab in a bucket mentality to inspire their workers to work more efficiently.

When applied to a government, however, this is a great thing. The different branches of government have a tendency to try and do more and take more power. The Founders used checks and balances to allow the different branches to use that mentality to stop other branches from taking more and more power (for more detail on that see here).

The more the government does, the less we are able to do ourselves. The less they do, the more freedoms we have. This built in feature of using jealousy to have government restrain itself is kind of comforting.