Trump - The Budget

Stupefyingly lunkheaded.

That's all I can say about a proposed federal budget from Donald Trump that proposes to zero out public broadcasting,  the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and Meals on Wheels, and cut spending on medical research, environmental research, education . . . just about every domestic spending program there is.  The State Department and foreign aid also get decimated, as does transportation funding for local projects (wait - isn't Trump supposed to be the infrastructure President?).  This budget proposed to stick it to the very people who voted for Trump - white working-class people who rely on government services.  It's a budget even Republicans are appalled with!  One could forgive anyone who thought that the U.S. Senator who proclaimed the Trump budget dead on arrival at Capitol Hill was Charles Schumer.  In fact, it was Lindsay Graham, a Republican that Schumer once described as "a nice guy."

In New Jersey and New York, the Gateway Project, the passenger rail tunnel under the Hudson River that replaced an earlier project canceled by New Jersey governor and Trump stooge Chris Christie for being too costly, would lose half of its federal funding.  Of course New Jersey's senior U.S. Senator, Robert Menendez, came out against the cut, but so did Chris Christie.

Too understand the logic behind Trump's proposed draconian cuts, one needs to remember that he's a businessman and looks at the budget like a corporate spreadsheet.  Anything that doesn't produce a profit or doesn't yield quantifiable results that can be explained with numbers, like mass transit or anti-poverty initiatives, gets dropped.  And there's also how Trump sees the world as being full of winners and losers.  Trump likes winners.  That's why he can't be bothered with funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which doles out money to aspiring painters, musicians, dancers, theater directors and the like (and isn't funded at anywhere near the level of funding for culture ministries in other industrialized countries).  Such highbrow artists who don't appeal to large mass audiences don't make much of a living from their art, unlike, say, rappers and movie stars.  Trump doesn't like highbrow art like ballet, opera, or classical music because it doesn't make money and is not popular.  They're losers. Trump likes people who win.

Trump also likes people who can't be bothered with losers, and that's why he gets the support of people who don't like highbrow art and feel much more comfortable at a country music show or a NASCAR race - i.e., the working-class people who voted for him. Except that these are the same people who would be hurt most by Trump's cuts to domestic programs.   

Needless to say, no President gets the exact budget he wants, as the House of Representatives has the power of the purse, and Congress is likely to restore many of the cuts made - especially to the State Department budget. Trump's blueprint, by the way, is so lacking in detail that he and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney only put out a 53-page summation.  The budget's increases are for the military, making it clear that this is a budget based on armed strength and not compassion for the weak.  At least one infrastructural program, though is well-funded in the proposed budget - the wall on the border with Mexico.

No need for that.  We won't have too many problems with immigration.  Trump's budget priorities send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States is to be a country no one would want to come to.      

Made Possible By . . .

Republicans are trying once again to zero out federal funding for public broadcasting, seeing as they don't like public institutions - especially as they don't make a profit. Several activists are going through the age-old ritual of tearing their hair out over the proposed cut and demanding that funding for the Public Broadcasting Service on TV and National Public Radio be restored to keep both PBS and NPR from being commercialized.

News flash: Public broadcasting has been commercialized since the early seventies. If federal funding were to disappear for public broadcasting, no one would really notice, except maybe insomniacs who might find a test pattern on their local PBS station at two in the morning while looking for anything on TV. Much of the programming you see on public television in America is "funded" or "underwritten" by some of the biggest companies in America. Right now, Chevron is an "underwriter" for the PBS NewsHour. Liberty Mutual, an insurance company, "funds" the historical documentary series "The American Experience." The science series "Nova," which has received "grants" from Microsoft, now gets funding from - wait! David H. Koch? The industrialist who funds right-wing causes with his brother??

And need I mention "ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theater?"

Notice also that their acknowledgements of corporate funding -commercials, really - have gotten longer and less discreet over the years, sometimes being the exact same commercial spots that appear on regular television? Only one show honestly tells you it's "brought to you by," not "made possible by a grant from," a sponsor - "Sesame Street," brought to you by the letter L and the number 3.

Someone I knew insisted that none of these sponsors - that's what they really are - interrupt PBS's programming with commercials for their products, and others would point out that acknowledgement of corporate funding at the beginning and the end of a program doesn't try to sell you anything. These arguments miss the point. The influx of corporate money into public television has meant that certain programming and commentary can't be offered, and that many interesting things can't be shown on PBS any more than on commercial television. No one wants to offend the donors. Next time you watch PBS programming, pay close attention to it. You'll find "The American Experience" offering documentaries that don't offer many new facts that you didn't learn in high school (unless you were napping in high school history class). And watching "Nova" isn't really going to make you scientifically savvy. I once saw a "Nova" documentary exploring the possibilities of . . . time travel. I was amazed that they were able to fill the remaining 59 minutes.

And is there really any cultural value in "Antiques Roadshow?" Then again, a show about money for junk fits well into the American grain.

Ah yes, cultural programming. PBS does some good work in that realm with ballet recitals and symphony concerts, and it even offers the less commercial side of country and rock music with its "Austin City Limits" series. But you don't see all that many new and challenging performing arts programming that offers radical dance or theater. PBS is comfortable to air the usual classic operas and dances from Lincoln Center. Dramatic programming is even more staid, with many of its scripted shows being British imports - dramatizations of the Victorian novels that bore American high school students to tears, detective shows, and of course, situation comedies that went off the air in the mother country long ago. Hey, I like " Keeping Up Appearances" - the last episode of which originally aired in Britain in 1995 - as much as the next guy, but if they're going to show old Britcoms on PBS all the time, can we get some variety beyond Patricia Routledge? Maybe some old Frankie Howerd comedy thrown in?

New Britcoms? Ah, you have to go to BBC America on cable for that.

Last time I checked, this is America, and PBS ought to show something current and American as well as something old and British. Original drama series on PBS are rare. The TV series version of the movie The Paper Chase, which originally aired on CBS before getting cancelled and finding a more welcome spot on the public airwaves, was an exception, as was "American Family," a drama series about an extended Hispanic family that starred Raquel Welch. But you see, PBS has to rely primarily on private funding, and there usually isn't enough money to support such programming, which is part of the reason it focuses mainly on public affairs, educational and other cultural programming.

But then, PBS programming is largely aired in a patchwork fashion, as it has no uniform network or channels carrying the same programming at once. Individual PBS "member" stations in a single metropolitan area end up being redundant, without much local programming; many people in New Jersey think of the public New Jersey Network as a channel on which to see "Mystery!" on a different night. And, unlike the BBC, whose programming has normally appeared on PBS in America, PBS doesn't have a central program production arm; all of its programming is created or supplied by - or produced under contract with - other parties, such as the individual member stations. Even its news programming isn't an in-house production; Jim Lehrer's production company is responsible for the "PBS Newshour." And many of Lehrer's guests tend to represent the established political and business order, with few experts out of the mainstream offering alternative viewpoints - part of the reason some say PBS should stand for "Pro-Business Soapbox."

National Public Radio is much better, despite its similar funding mechanism, having an in-house production unit and more solid programming. And many of its member stations offer on the local level music programming in the form of jazz and rock performers deemed not mainstream enough for commercial radio. But even NPR has its shortcomings; like PBS, it has no uniform network carrying the same programming at once, and scheduling of national programming varies from station to station. (And, as with some PBS stations, some NPR stations might not carry specific programming because it's too "controversial.") Notice also the lack of a group of radio networks each devoted to a certain format. BBC radio has six music stations alone - Radio 1 for current pop, Radio 2 for classic pop, Radio 3 for classical and jazz, and so on. NPR's lack of national music shows or networks explains why seventies American rock bands don't have Live at NPR or The NPR Sessions albums to offer.

Whenever public broadcasting feels the pinch, they go to their loyal viewers every few months with pledge drives, usually with the kind of safe entertainment programming - programming Joe Queenan once described as "middlebrow hokum" - to encourage more viewership and more donations. After "a cabal of bespectacled dweebs try to convince you that the only thing that stands between Newt Gingrich and the eclipse of Western civilization as we know it is your viewer dollars," as Queenan wrote in 1997, PBS airs such provocative fare as performances of the Andrew Lloyd Webber songbook. More recently, they've been airing doo-wop revivals during pledge week.

I would be quite happy, actually, to see government funding for public broadcasting in its current form end, if only because we'd only have to deal with corporations. Because when Congress gives public broadcasting operational funds, and when the director of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting serves at the pleasure of the President, you're asking for trouble. Anyone remember George Walker Bush's CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, and his efforts to push PBS away from what he perceived as a liberal bias in public affairs programs by bullying Bill Moyers, only to be forced out after getting personally involved with funding a show from the Wall Street Journal editorial board? A dedicated tax for public broadcasting, with no government interference on programming decisions, which is how the BBC operates, would be superior. Given the American people's aversions to taxes, though, I'm not likely to see it happen in my lifetime. But it may happen one day.

Until then, enjoy the Lawrence Welk reruns.