 by Ted Rall |
COMMENTARY
"I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you, too," Mitt Romney told Jim Lehrer in the most quoted line from the first presidential debate. "But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."
Romney's call to cut the $445 million a year the federal government contributes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which subsidizes PBS and NPR, amounts to a paltry 1/100th of 1% of the federal budget.
A co-creator of "Sesame Street" dismissed Romney as "silly."
Silly? Definitely.
But is Romney right? Probably.
Candidates and parties aren't important. Ideas are. If we're ideologically consistent and if we want to appear credible when we criticize right-wingers like Romney, we have to hold ourselves to the same (or higher) standards as those to which we subject our enemies. We have to admit when they're correct, even—especially—when it's about something as trivial as this.
This is a time when we have to give the devil his due.
Until recently I was unaware of the exorbitant salaries received by executives and top employees of federally-subsidized broadcasting networks. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal last year, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina pointed out that PBS paid its president and CEO, Paula Kerger, more than $600,000 a year—more than the President of the United States." Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, received more than $1.2 million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit filed in 2009," wrote DeMint. "Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 in compensation in 2008." (Now Knell runs NPR, which pays him about $575,000.)
Actor Carroll Spinney, who plays Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, was paid more than $314,000 last year.
The liberal Center for American Progress countered: "While those numbers are not exactly chump change, it's pennies compared to the salaries of another industry the U.S. taxpayers subsidize at much higher cost—Big Oil."
But that's red-herring sophistry. Wasteful federal spending on overpaid executives is wrong, whether it's for planet-murdering energy corporations or on a network that airs free educational TV that helps ready kids for school with basics like counting, math and even Spanish. Kill both.
"Like for-profit media companies, Sesame [and PBS] needs to pay top dollar to attract talent," MSN's Jonathan Berr argues.
I disagree.
NPR and PBS do an OK job reporting the news—as long as it happens on a weekday—but that's not the point.
If you accept public money, you're in public service and should get paid accordingly. If you can't find someone qualified to run NPR or PBS, or an actor up to the task of playing Big Bird, for $100,000 a year—especially in this job market—you're not looking hard enough. Something is off-kilter when the studios of publicly-funded shows like NPR's All Things Considered are centrally located and sumptuously furnished with mahogany tables and the latest high-tech gadgetry, while those of privately-owned 50,000-watt talk-radio powerhouses are situated in the slums and look like 1970s-era flophouses.
Salary figures for NPR "stars" like Robert Siegel ($341,992), Renee Montagne ($328,309), Steve Inskeep ($320,950), Scott Simon ($311,958) and Michele Norris ($279,909) are three to four times more than top-rated talk-radio hosts in the biggest markets get. How dare these one-percenters shake us down during pledge drives, much less collect federal tax dollars?
PBS receives about 15% of its funding from the feds. For NPR it's even smaller: about 2%. As a former NPR executive confided, the media groups might be better off cutting the strings given the political heat they take over it. Then they'd be free to stop giving lying conservatives "equal time" to seem "fair."
Why is the government giving broadcasters money they don't need? There's a much stronger argument for propping up newspapers, which remain the original source of 95% of news stories. Print media is in big trouble: the newspaper industry has shrunk 43% since 2000. Analysts say that even that chart-filled ubiquitous denizen of hotels USA Today may fold. If the fed want to do something good for journalism—and the well-informed populace required for vibrant democracy—it should start by subsidizing print newspapers.
But only if their editors and publishers don't get paid ridiculous salaries.
Ted Rall is a columnist, cartoonist, author and independent war journalist. He is the winner of numerous awards and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His new book is The Book of Obama: How We Got From Hope and Change to the Age of Revolt.
Leave a Comment:
You think Carol Spinney is overpaid? You think someone who's contributed his talents to teaching generations of children, portraying some of the greatest, iconic figures in our childrens' (and adult) lives is overpaid at $314,000? You think they can just go find some other scrub on the street to do the same thing -- that making inanimate puppets come to life is a simple thing?
Really?
I guess you don't realize what top actors are paid. $20 mil a MOVIE? And you think Carol Spinney is OVERPAID?
Your premise is ridiculous. And it has nothing to do with federal dollars. Carol Spinney may be the most underpaid employee on the planet.
Caroll Spinney is not overpaid by Hollywood standards. He is overpaid by the standards of someone who accepts public money.
"He is overpaid by the standards of someone who accepts public money."
Really?! How much are the key people at the companies that receive corn and soybean subsidies getting paid? Isn't that the same? Apples vs. apples, not apples vs. oranges.
How much do you make? And you are no where near as talented as Carroll Spinney, and certainly contributed much less to the betterment of the country than Spinney has for decades.....
Public broadcasting provides a service, a good service, a needed service. Private enterprise has shown that they do not care about children's programming. Look at the dreck TLC (The LEARNING Channel - LOL!) broadcasts.
If we truly care about the USA and our children we would pay as much for educational endeavors (including PBS & NPR) as we do on our weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately all those "think of the children" folks on the right merely use our nations' children as props and don't really gave a damn about their education or well being.
Plus Caroll Spinney has played Big Bird since 1969 and is a National TREASURE! I say he deserves a RAISE!
Should we be giving public money to PBS and NPR, well that is a good debate. There are strong arguements on both sides. However, if right wingers are trying to blame the deficit on money going to public televison and radio they are insane. Cutting 1/100th of a percent from the federal budget would do nothing.
Romney's claim was that giving money to public media is not important enough to borrow money from China for it, as if there is any real reason (other than some sniveling rich guy wants another tax break) to borrow money from China for anything. American's should be paying thier own bills, even if they have to pay higher taxes for it. If the American people don't want to foot the bill then the program should be cut, its as simple as that.
I don't agree, it takes a special type of person with a good heart for children and a special combination of imagination and talent. My children learned so much and I dont make anywhere near that amount but I don't begrudge them their salaries.
And people can earn 128 millions a year?
And Romney can pay only 14% income tax. on 200 million dollars?
Give me a brake.
You have to be in his Payroll to be defending him.
It's not defending Romney to admit that, on this point, he's right.
The old saying "Take care of the dimes and the dollars will take care of themselves," applies to our government. They always want to say for example, "Oh, it's only $575,000,0000." Well multiply that over several hunderd programs and you save a bundle.
The saying is most notably not "Take care of the dimes, but throw the dollars at something extravagant we can't afford." You have to use a little common sense as well.
Here's what I just read:
1) PBS and NPR have way too much money on their hands.
2) Most of that money (85% and 98% respectively) is private/corporate.
What's baffling to me is how you could look at this and conclude that they need to stop taking PUBLIC funding. Gimme a break, the problem is the PRIVATE money. Make them rely 100% on public funding. That's what makes public media "public" after all. And the exorbitant-salary/mahogany-table/all-the-other-trappings-of-a-typical-big-private-corporation problems will go away like magic. As high-profile as the Big Bird gig is, I'm sure there are hundreds of talented actors who would do it for $10,000/year.
Or if you like, you can fund it a little more, by let's say fairly taxing the corporations (they can afford it now that they're no longer supporting public broadcasting), de-funding the police state, stopping the futile foreign wars, or any number of other measures the vast majority of Americans are in favor of, that a sane government would do without a moment's hesitation.
I agree that we should tax the hell out of rich people and corporations. But that's a different issue.
When the money for programs that Romney insists he needs to cut dds up to 6 HOURS of Defence spending I think its more to the point to ask not only where Mr Romney's values and priorities are but our own as a nation. We already spend more on Defence then any other nation on earth, why do we need to spend more. Which is a more worthwhile and rewarding investment. $450 million dollars for a year of education and culture or $450 million dollars that wouldn't cover the Pentagon going to go out to lunch for a week.
As I have written elsewhere, you are right. The PBS budget is miniscule compared to the waste that is our wars and Defense budget. But that doesn't justify these excessive salaries at PBS and NPR.
My point wasn't about cost it was rather about priorities. In this day and age the salaries you mentioned are hardly excessive when taken in the context of those peoples career peer group. I would also say that their is a very definite case to be made for the caliber and quality of their talent and when that is matched vs. the costs paid in the private sector for people who do similar work I think that NPR and PBS (and consequently the American people) are getting a bargain
I'd also like to see someone defend the $600,000 a year paycheck for the President of PBS.
Paula Kerger is like a goddess walking among us mortals. Can you imagine PBS without her visionary what-have-you and her inspirational whatever? It'd be like a sticky swamp of blablabla. $600,000 is a pittance compared to the value she provides to the American people. If she's paid a penny less than ALL OF OUR MONEY, it's not enough.
(Or did you mean with a straight face?)
I think the sticking issue is whether that $600k is competitive with equal media corporations. You seem to discount market value simply because part of the compensation is coming from public funding, but that just feeds the trope that "government can't do anything right" because they can't recruit the talent necessary. Personally I don't understand why there's a group of CEOs that can hop from company to company making insane amounts of money as if they are one of a very few who could possibly do the job--but that seems to be the case as they keep being given said compensation. So, President of PBS vs say President of CBS or TBS perhaps?
And you can say defending one example of wasteful spending by pointing to a larger example is "red-herring sophistry" but that doesn't mean fixing the larger example first doesn't make more sense. Efficiency experts may look for easy small changes in corporate workflow, but they're always looking for bigger scores as well. So I fully agree with those that say $4,000,000,000 in completely unnecessary tax breaks for oil corporations that year after year make WORLD record breaking profits in fact SHOULD be on the chopping block LONG before we start worrying about if $440,000,000 is being spent as well as it can be at PBS.
I agree, totally, always smartest to address the bigger problem first. And corporate waste is by far the bigger problem. But lefties aren't going to change that without an AK-47. At this point, we have to start by living with integrity, which means insisting that our allies and political compadres—which includes "liberal" PBS—abide by the standards we hope to impose on the other side—the Right and their allies.
This is what happens when you let people with poor math skills write columns. I actually thought this was satire for the first couple of paragraphs, but then I realized he was serious.
The first thing to be aware of is that even if we are right and republicans are completely full of it when they argue for complete lack of restraint on CEO salaries, we absolutely cannot use that as an argument that we need to exercise absolute restraint on salaries. That way lies madness, or worse, being branded a weak-minded liberal without picking up any political gain in the process.
Second, conservatives have a point that CEOs have special skills and underpaying them can sometimes be riskier than overpaying them. They just get really, really, really, really, really carried away with that point.
Third, someone making 300,000 a year has a completely different impact on the economy than someone making 30,000,000 a year. I think that one of the things that built this country and made it great was the better ways of doing things that came from people making those 5 figure salaries. And yet if a product comes along that is super compelling, then a very large percentage of the 300k is available as possible consumption, or perhaps deferred consumption. Hayak and Woods and people like that don't come off as stark, raving lunatics when they are talking about the 300k guy. Those theories could actually work, and in fact are likely too. But when you start talking about someone making 30M a year as having deferred consumption, then you actually *are* a lunatic fringe position holder.
Fourth, we need to change the debate in this country. Right now we have a perception that liberals care about people, but conservatives are willing to make the hard choices when those are needed. Some people say if you are under 40 and conservative you don't have a heart, but if you are over 40 and liberal you don't have a brain. We need to change that to, "if you are conservative, then you simply haven't run the numbers", but that will take a lot of doing. It sounds funny, but in some ways the bleeding heart liberals are ruining it for the fiscally conservative liberals...
Here is a starting point. The top 400 people have the same wealth as the bottom 150 Million people. If you want both to contribute to the economy, then your first step is to ask what the short piece is. If you have looked around and decided that the shortage is in capital dollars, and interest rates are sky high, so that no-one is able to get a loan for the massive amounts of demand out there, then your job as an economist is to try to make sure that those 400 people are treated as well as possible. If, on the other hand, you are in the opposite situation and all of our dollars are wanting to go to Taco Bells, but very few dollars wanting to go to tacos, then you get return on investment dropping, interest rates going to zero, labor near a point where the supply and demand curve inverts, meaning that decreasing wages would actually stimulate additional labor supply in order to meet fixed costs, then you find you have all the problems we had in 1928, and the only policy that makes any sense at all is to make sure that that 150 million is treated well.
Hang on... I thought we *liked* the idea of higher wages for people who work for a living. Is $300,000 a year too much for somebody who's put over 40 years of quality work into his career? There should be an upper bound for wage-earners? Or just wage-earners in the public sector?