And now, for a word from our sponsors......

For those of you who are occasional or regular public radio listeners, or PBS viewers, you probably cringe when pledge time rolls around....seemingly more frequently with time. Well, this Boston Globe article details a plan to reduce public broadcast funding by $115 million dollars, if approved. The funding reduction would eliminate several programs on both PBS and NPR. I can't begin to fathom why funding reductions in this category would significantly help reduce our record deficit, as compared to slashing or eliminating other avenues of legitimately wasteful spending.

In the UK and parts of Europe, people buying new televisions are required to purchase a license, for about $15 (the last time I checked), which directly supports programs like the BBC. Seems like a good idea, in this age of can't-buy-HD-flatscreens-fast-enough. I say we implement something like that here. I'm not necessarily a new tax cheerleader, but let's face it - there is a consumer rush to purchase those flat-panel LCD HD TVs, and Plasma Screens that start at 42 inches. I figure if you can afford to shell out the dough for those options, why not pay an extra $15 to ensure the future of in-depth non-partisan news and educational programming? Maybe that's too much to ask for. In this day and age where we pay pro sports persons millions upon millions to play their games, and in which we continually belt-tighten educational funding and teacher salaries, maybe having intelligent programming options is an insult to a society that doesn't value education. Please prove me wrong.