成人X站

Senate Republicans鈥攕purred by President Donald Trump鈥攁dvanced a rescissions package aimed at clawing back $1.1鈥痓illion in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the primary vehicle through which NPR and PBS receive taxpayer dollars. That push is sparking outrage from the usual left-wing voices rattled by the idea that progressive viewpoints shouldn鈥檛 be funded by our tax dollars.

Whether you consume NPR or not, the principle stands. Why should and programming that is consistently liberal? And if it were conservative content, this wouldn’t even be a debate amongst Democrats.

Most Americans don鈥檛 tune in, and those who do often pay via corporate underwriting or local fund drives. So why should you, the taxpayer from Puyallup, Seattle, Snohomish, or Issaquah鈥攚hether you listen or not鈥攂e footing the bill? NPR content, both locally and nationally, is produced for older progressives who cry over their white guilt while drinking oat milk lattes on their drive to Lululemon to buy a pair of $60 yoga pants. Let them pay for NPR.

NPR鈥檚 operating budget is substantial 鈥� hundreds of millions of dollars annually 鈥� with a sliver funded federally. That subsidy helps cover programs like Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Fresh Air. But most funding comes through fees paid by its affiliate stations, donations, sponsorships, and grants. If NPR is truly viable, let it survive without a federal safety net like the rest of us.

A specious argument to fund NPR

Local stations will tell you they need federal support for emergency alerts or rural coverage 鈥� but that鈥檚 a laughable claim. Continuing to funnel tax dollars simply to prop up an ideologically slanted media brand cannot be justified with the specious emergency alerts claim.

The Emergency Alert System is administered by FEMA, which can dole out grants in place of the CPB. There’s obviously a way to fund rural stations’ emergency alert infrastructure without funding NPR content. Emergency alert capabilities are not contingent on NPR’s federal funding.

And if tax dollars are on the table for NPR and PBS, then shouldn’t all media funded by the government be fair game?

I fully endorse this idea. Fully.

鈥� Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz)

Should conservative media be subsidized with taxpayer dollars as NPR is?

Imagine the uproar if your tax dollars were used to subsidize commercial talk radio, like “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. Social media would flare up instantly: 鈥淲hy is the government bankrolling right-wing radio?鈥� 鈥淭his is propaganda for conservatives!鈥� 鈥淗ow dare they use taxpayer money to push a partisan host?鈥�

You鈥檇 see fast-track legislation, public editorials, hearings鈥攄ozens of op-eds accusing the administration of weaponizing public funds for ideological gain. But that outrage is conveniently muted when it benefits NPR.

It’s a point that Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) made on X this week, floating the idea to push a bill to publicly fund “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. Democrats would, of course, reject that bill. They’d own the hypocrisy by pretending NPR isn’t clearly left-wing.

When tax dollars go to liberal-leaning media, the left applauds it as 鈥渋ndependent journalism,鈥� 鈥渃ultural enrichment,鈥� or 鈥渃ommunity service.鈥� Yet if that funding goes to conservative talk radio鈥攅ven a transparent, well-known platform鈥攕uddenly it鈥檚 鈥渟tate-sponsored propaganda.鈥�

This isn’t even about media bias

This is not about saving one institution or crusading for media bias. It’s about fairness and principle. If it’s unacceptable to tax the public to fund any media outlet鈥攅specially partisan ones鈥攖hen it鈥檚 inconsistent to defend that subsidy only when it aligns with your worldview.

Advocates for NPR say this week is 鈥渁 test鈥� 鈥� a referendum on public broadcasting鈥檚 place in our society. But the real test is consistent logic, not partisan double standards. If the government shouldn鈥檛 pick winners and losers in the media landscape, then none of it deserves special treatment 鈥� left, right, or center. KTTH exists because there’s a marketplace for it. Is there a marketplace for NPR? I think there is. So, why would the government be compelled to fund it? Exploring the is not doing a public service, no matter what MSNBC hosts claim.

This is why removing the CPB funding stream is justified鈥攏ot as an attack on journalism, but as a step toward a genuine free-market media. If a station serves its community, it will thrive on listener donations, sponsorships, ad and digital revenue (which can include government funding of ads). If it can鈥檛, it shouldn鈥檛 be kept alive by the sacrifice of taxpayers who will never tune in.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3 p.m. 鈥� 7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on聽,听,听, and聽.