NPR and PBS subsidies are unfair
From , courtesy of some friends in my Facebook network:
鈥淐ongress must protect NPR and PBS and guarantee them permanent funding, free from political meddling.鈥�
I write this as a frequent user of PBS content: with two kids in diapers, , , , and other PBS programs are big parts of our day-to-day lives. One of our son鈥檚 favorite songs is the theme from , which is a local offering.
Just because we benefit doesn鈥檛 mean that these programs are worthy of subsidies: the resources could almost certainly be put to even better use somewhere else, and I鈥檓 not sure how taxing the poor so that rich college professors can have good children鈥檚 programming is consistent with progressives鈥� theories of social justice. Among the programs I鈥檝e seen on our local station are travel shows that give tips on things to do in exotic, out-of-the-way places. My guess is that in the case of programs like these, the net redistribution of wealth is from the poor to the rich.
Even if we concede the 鈥渕arket failure鈥� justification for subsidies, it isn鈥檛 at all clear which market is failing here. One could say that it is important to have an independent, government-subsidized voice to provide alternatives to media outlets controlled by powerful corporations, but (again) it isn鈥檛 clear that media outlets controlled by a powerful state are going to be much better.
Nonetheless, I expect that public funding will live on for a couple of reasons. The first is that the benefits are very vivid and very easy to see. is a great show, in my opinion. There are a ton of videos on SesameStreet.org that bring back memories of my own early childhood. I also get to see directly how much my kids enjoy it. What we鈥檙e giving up in order to subsidize Sid and his pals, however, is much more difficult to see.
Second, the old adage 鈥渁 bird in the hand is worth two in the bush鈥� is relevant here. Sid, Super WHY, Elmo, and Cookie Monster are known quantities. We can be pretty sure that they will either stand on their own or be replaced with something, but since we don鈥檛 know exactly what, a lot of people would probably prefer to stick with the status quo.
Third, this is a classic case of concentrated benefits and widespread costs. I get a lot of benefits from PBS, and the costs I pay are probably a small fraction of my total tax bill. For those who make their living in public broadcasting, there is a lot more on the line. The people who benefit have a pretty substantial set of incentives to make sure PBS and NPR keep getting funded. The incentives facing the people who pay the bills are much weaker.
A tragic irony is that some of the benefit will be frittered away through the political contest over NPR and PBS funding. , which was linked by our local PBS station, urges people to write to their Congressional representatives on behalf of public television. This isn鈥檛 free. I expect that they will be successful; they have a lot more riding on this than I do. To adopt Mises鈥檚 terminology, however, it means that as a society, we are going to be allocating resources to satisfy less-urgent wants at the expense of more-urgent wants.
------------------------------
海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.
