I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but even if "we had the money" it still shouldn't be spent on PBS and NPR. I cringe every time I hear someone say "we can't afford blah, blah, blah". Just because the government takes in tax revenues, doesn't mean it should spend the money on something.
...it still shouldn't be spent on PBS and NPR. ...
OK, I have to disagree with you on that. Having worked in commercial radio in my youth, I know the Program Department always has to have its eye on ratings and audience numbers, which means that programming that doesn't pander to the greater public just doesn't happen. There was a reason that all the "God" programs ran on Saturday at 4 am local time -- the Arbitron numbers showed that the audience was as close to zero as you could expect. (Other markets may have had troughs at different times.)
In many markets, true classical music was available only on public radio stations, usually stations affiliated with universities and colleges. One friend located in rural Nevada listened to the local "National Poor-People's Radio" station because it was the only station within range that ran classical programming.
Notice that a lot of smooth jazz radio stations are gone? The market dried up.
Now, there are NPR network programs and NPR stations that don't follow the charter -- requiring any controversial topic be handled fairly -- originally put forth when Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation -- which is why we hear about "left-leaning" coverage from NPR "news" here on Free Republic.
(disclaimer of personal bias: I used to regularly listen to A Prairie Home Companion regularly -- and that was the only public-radio show I listened to.)