The Forum > General Discussion > Public Broadcasting V Public Works
Public Broadcasting V Public Works
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
There has been a proliferation of publicly-funded broadcasting and most if not all services are either made redundant by government agencies themselves or by what is readily available free from the Net and from private suppliers.
For many years the public (and taxpayers of course) have been advised by government that there is no money to provide services that have always been regarded as essential and were previously paid for out of the usual annual Budget. Consequently government introduced user pays and has withdrawn, sold off or otherwise limited services.
There are more taxes and more service limitations every day.
Since no-one has been able to put up a business case for continuing the $billion plus waste on redundant national broadcasting, the money should be directed instead into much needed and worthwhile public works. For example, LendLease has developed a new 750 bed hospital at the Gold Coast for $1.76 billion. What about instead of the national broadcaster the feds fund a new 750 bed hospital every two years? Check out this beauty,
http://www.lendlease.com/australia/projects/gold-coast-university-hospital
There are narrow bridges that regularly claim lives on Highway One, Australia's national highway. There is never the money to widen the bridges. What about some bridges every year instead of the endless stream of political comment and repeat nature programs from the proliferation of national broadcasters who are even redundant to one another?
What worthwhile projects come to mind for you?