Say Something Real
By Michelle Bryant
Michelle Bryant
When I couldn’t afford cable, I had NPR and PBS. When I wanted a balanced perspective on national and world news, I relied on NPR. When I wanted to learn about an array of topics, cultures, and people, I tuned in to these outlets. Never thinking liberal, conservative, or anything in between, I just listened and wanted to learn more. Likewise, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) served as a college without tuition or SAT scores. So, yes, it’s fair to say I, and many Black folks in the community, grew up on and even cut our political and global teeth listening to National Public Radio (NPR).
Nielsen research indicates that annually, 19 million Black viewers consume PBS and that PBS KIDS ranks #1 in reaching diverse audiences. Data further suggests that NPR has a 10% listenership that continues to show growth. It is through this lens that we have to evaluate the recent decision of the Trump Administration, with the support of Republicans in the U.S. Senate, to claw back $1.1 billion in federal funding for these two media outlets.
Claw back means exactly what it sounds like: an act to take back money already allocated and approved by Congress for the support of these networks. At first glance, you questioned whether this is legal or even constitutional? If appropriations can simply be overturned by an incoming administration, what is the purpose of Congress? While the Constitution is clear that a president cannot spend money without a Congressional appropriation, the rules are murky about whether they have to spend money that Congress has appropriated. And while it would be easy to discuss Trump’s insistence on blowing through legislative and presidential norms, we can actually thank former President Richard Nixon for breaking the appropriations ice.
In 1972, Nixon refused to spend money that had been appropriated for several social programs as a part of his New Federalism initiative. Instead, he sought to shift more responsibility to state and local governments, targeted welfare programs, urban renewal, and job training programs. Sound familiar? Think Trump’s assault on Medicaid and Wisconsinites health coverage, cuts in SNAP/Foodshare benefits, dismantling the Job Corps, and Trump’s claw back of funding previously awarded through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s for the Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program. Milwaukee lost 30 million dollars with this move.
Nixon was successfully sued to stop all but one of his attacks. As a result, Congress passed a law to restrict a president’s ability to hold up money that they had allocated. I guess Trump or the current crop of legislators missed that history lesson. And as George Santayana, in his book “The Life of Reason,” wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” It’s just maddening that we all have to pay for this lack of education.
So, how did Trump get away with taking back money intended for the aforementioned, as well as international aid programs, totaling $9 billion? Formally, it was through a rescission request to Congress. Unwilling to completely take away a president’s ability to take back funds, Congress created the rescission process. Allowing themselves 45 days, they can either approve or ignore the president’s request to stop appropriated funds from being dispersed. Yep, the whole unfair, unsustainable, and messy practice of claw backs is legal. This is one education we should never forget and one problem that we need to fix.