NPR should be defunded, but not because it's liberal. If NPR were right-wing (stop laughing!) it'd still be wrong for the federal government to be in the news business or to subsidize one set of views over another. The same goes for PBS. I have no huge problem with funding documentaries about bears and mummies, but state-run television news is an embarrassment in the age of C-SPAN and YouTube.
Heck, it already dropped the word "public" from its name -- it's now just NPR. If it can stop being public in name, it can stop being public in deed.
Still, Republicans would be crazy to make this a priority after the midterm elections. Andrew McCarthy, my friend and National Review colleague, insists that defunding NPR should be a test case about the fiscal seriousness of the coming GOP House majority. He compares NPR funding to a person wildly in debt charging a fancy chandelier to his credit card while defaulting on his mortgage and his kids' tuition. If we can't defund NPR, he asks, how are we going to repeal ObamaCare?
I take his point, but the analogy is flawed. Take it from a former public television producer: PBS and NPR have spent decades target-hardening their budgetary bunkers. Busting them quickly would take an enormous amount of time and effort, with miniscule reward. Indeed, Democrats would love it if Republicans allowed themselves to be baited into what would essentially be a culture-war fight over public radio (the last "war on Big Bird" was a disaster for the GOP).
Meanwhile, ObamaCare's roots are weak, it's exposed and unpopular -- and it represents a far greater threat to fiscal health. Forget chandeliers; going after NPR now would be like fixing a leaky faucet while your house is on fire. You can get around to that, after you've dealt with the crisis at hand.
Poll: 46 Percent Of Americans Want Stephanopoulos To Stay Away From 2016 Election Coverage | Matt Vespa