WESTERN SKIES - June 25, 2005

*** COMMENTARY: A CONSERVATIVE CASE FOR CPB ***

ERIC WHITNEY: Across the country, millions of people rely on public broadcasting to bring them the news, but in recent weeks, public broadcasting has been the news, as Congress debates whether to cut up to a hundred million dollars in funding. Some conservatives favor trimming the budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but commentator Merrie Spaeth says she's not one of them.

MERRIE SPAETH: What does social security reform have to do with funding PBS? The House of Representatives is trying to cut a hundred million dollars from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

There's always been a debate over funding for public broadcasting, with conservatives arguing that we shouldn't spend public money and liberals arguing it should be funded like the BBC, with a tax.

As a free market conservative, what do I think? We all gripe about pledge drives, but the result is a healthy diversified funding base of support: corporate, public, and private.

I want Congress to restore and increase the money for public broadcasting. But for different reasons than you might think. And yes, some of the politically correct things PBS and National Public Radio do drive me wild: like having Postcards from Buster visit lesbian families in Vermont. And anybody who asks, "Hey, is this really age appropriate for kids?" gets accused of being homophobic.

And we need more segments showing self reliance, the value of struggle and American ideals. PBS and NPR used to ignore the importance of enterprise and business. But that's changing. And anybody who listens to Marketplace or The Motley Fool gets an important, and fun, lesson on what creates and sustains our economic system.

First, a comment on why the cuts are happening. And it's not because money's tight everywhere.

Not while Don Young, chairman of the Transportation Committee has millions of pork perks for Alaksa, including a bridge to an island with no people that even the Alaska transportation department doesn't want. And I'm not impressed with the claim that this is driven by free market philosophy. Not while we have Republicans supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who compete with private sector businesses, but who trade on the full faith of government, so they have a lower cost of capital.

This debate is happening because it's payback time. Conservatives think public broadcasting is dominated by liberals who hate us. You know, it's irrelevant. Republicans in Congress should restore the funding because it's important to reach a crucial audience (people who don't agree with us) on issues like social security and health care reform.

Do you think we're going to convince people around the country that the system in Galvaston should be an option for Social Security just by screaming over the Fox Network? These discussions need to go on in places other than where advocates with nuclear-hardened viewpoints yell at each other and accuse each other of bad faith.

The inclusion of public broadcast in the menu of information available to the American people is terribly important to conservatives. And it's supported by an appropriate mix of public and private funds.

Remember that saying, "be careful what you wish for, you may get it"? If we kill or wound this avenue to many Americans who think and care about issues (even if they don't think the way we do) we won't achieve our ultimate goal, which is to change how people think and ultimately the consensus around solutions.

I'm Merrie Spaeth, I'm a conservative, and I'm proud to be part of public radio and television.

WHITNEY: Merrie Spaeth's commentary was recorded at, and originally appeared on the public radio station KERA in Dallas.

And that wraps up this edition of Western Skies, thanks for tuning in. Our associate producer is Stephen Raher, Delaney Utterback handles the website. I'm Eric Whitney.