No more government support

Do you ever wonder why you pay so many tax dollars? I used to. Now I just write columns explaining to others why we fork over so much.\nA large portion of the waste comes from programs the government set up to better society. The problem is government support of these programs is not needed in many cases.\nA clear example of this is the Public Broadcasting Station. Many of you are probably asking whether or not this is really a problem.\nIt appears to merely be an educational channel that does, in fact, better society.\nSesame Street, Nova, Mr. Rogers, history programs and various current event analyses are very good for society.\nBut this is a situation where the government is not required to supply the American people with this need.\nA clear example of this is the success of The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel and The History Channel.\nThe profitability of these establishments shows that the public doesn't need government support for educational shows. I don't feel like my tax dollars should be used toward supporting a program that would exist without my money.\nIf someone offered you a candy bar for free or the same candy bar for $5, which one would you take?\nThe same can be held true for National Public Radio.\nI bet a bunch of you are going to complain that it wouldn't be right to do away with PBS or NPR. I can see the hate mail now: "I grew up with Sesame Street and Nova; how can you take that away from today's children?"\nThe truth is there are a lot of people brought up watching these programs. These viewers are very coveted by advertisers, and, believe it or not, today's children will continue to see the programs after PBS and NPR are scrapped.\nIf I owned a television network, I would buy the rights to broadcast the fine programs I was brought up watching -- if their home channel went bust.\nI know there are plenty of viewers, and I know it is profitable since The Discovery Channel is.\nIf NPR is abandoned, then I would hire the fine, biased, reporters to head up my radio news shows with the utmost confidence in profitability.\nSo, if these programs will be seen or heard regardless of existence of PBS and NPR, why do we need the government using our money to keep them alive?\nThere is a compelling argument to my suggestions concerning PBS. The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel and The History Channel are all shown on cable, which will not reach all homes depending on location and household income.\nThis is where the government can step in. It can help entice broadcast networks to show these educational shows through tax benefits. This way, the shows could air for everyone in the United States with a television.\nMaybe the government can promise to pay the difference between broadcasting on cable and broadcasting as a major television network.\nYou should be thinking, "If the government did exactly what you say, and the government now helps fund a new network airing educational programs to everyone with a television, then isn't it the same as having PBS?"\nGood question. I'm glad you asked.\nThe difference is the government will be fronting a portion of the bill, not the whole thing. It isn't paying for the entire cost of a nationally broadcasted television station. So, it is different.\nLess money is taken from us consumers, and that makes me happy.