Democrats: Proud to be the “Big Bird” Party
The
recent presidential debate and Team Obama’s reaction have perfectly illustrated
the state of the political debate in this country. You may recall Governor Mitt Romney suggested that it might
be time to discontinue funding of Public Television. But it is worthwhile to consider the statement Romney made
leading up to his comment on Public TV.
“First of all, I will eliminate all
programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical
it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid
of it.”
It
has all come to a head with Team Obama’s 30 second advertisement featuring the
well known Sesame Street character Big Bird. The ad references Wall Street criminals Bernie Madoff and Enron’s
Ken Lay, and then implies that Governor Romney believes Big Bird is behind
their crimes. Of course it is
intended to be humorous, but Team Obama is trying to make a point or two.
So
apparently Obama’s thinking goes something like this: Big Bird is good,
therefore the federal government should take taxpayer money to support the show
and the network that features Big Bird.
Ah . . . would somebody please point me to the provision in the
Constitution that supports this position.
I don’t recall such a mission for the federal government stated in
Article I, Section 8.
And
of course Team Obama doesn’t even understand the point. The point is that if we are ever to
reign in the deficit and at some point reverse the accumulation of national
debt, we are going to have to stop spending money on projects that have nothing
to do with the proper role of the federal government. But for modern day Democrats, the thought of cutting
anything . . . ANYTHING out of government is not only wrong, but also worthy of
derision.
On
the one hand this President would have us believe he is serious about debt and
deficit reduction. On the other
hand he is willing to ridicule Mitt Romney for suggesting that we cut
government funding from an enterprise that is hugely profitable on its
own. It has been estimated that
the marketing rights to Sesame Street and Barney were worth approximately $1.3 billion as of 2005. The left wing Huffington Post admitted
that in 2011 Sesame Street produced $46.9 million in revenue through the
licensing of Big Bird, Elmo, Cookie Monster and other characters. But according to Democrats it is nigh
unto treason to suggest that we quit taking taxpayer dollars to support the
enterprise!
I
can only hope and pray that Romney and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan
have the courage to call out the ludicrous notion that we can’t cut anything,
including cash cows like Sesame Street.
The media moguls of the world will try to portray Romney and Ryan as
unsophisticated and anti-children.
Ignore the media! Talk to
the folks. The American people get
it. Apparently Columbia journalism
school destroys any and all ability to think rationally.
Senator Thompson, I think you are underestimating the importance of PBS and the work they do to offer early education free to the public through Sesame Street and other educational programming. Studies show that student success and achievement rates are higher if they had a regular dose of Sesame street and other PBS educational programming in their early childhood. It aids in education at a very low cost to the public ($1.03 per year for each tax payer). That is the role of government to promote good education.
ReplyDeleteSecondly trying to balance the budget with small cost items like PBS funding (0.0001% of the budget) while not addressing big budget items like tax loopholes for corporations especially those that ship US jobs overseas to avoid taxes is terrible prioritization of improving government income and spending. Try cutting the defense budget or reducing the cost of medications paid for by Medicare and you can really impact the bottom line.
I don't think Sen. Thompson is underestimating the importance of PBS. First of all, in the 1970's, there were 5 TV channels. Today, there are tons (including at least 4-8 geared towards kids) and they are doing fine. Secondly, Sesame Street does haul in a profit. Why not let them compete in the free market? Third -- just because something is good or desirable, does not mean that government should fund it. Lastly, Romney is not ignoring other items that do not belong in the Federal Government's budget. Many things are on the table. Romney only mentioned PBS because of Leher -- If we are overwhelmed by the pure obesity of the Federal Government and therefore do nothing, then we continue to borrow from China to fulfill wants. (Lastly lastly -- Romney wants to lower the rates, and close many deductions -aka loopholes. But please specify the ones you claim are given specifically to companies if they "ship US jobs overseas" -- Where in the IRS code do you find that?) I would like someone, somewhere out there, to someday provide that particular rule. It's a nice talking point, but I would like to see the proof please.
ReplyDeleteKingsMama. You just made the argument as eloquently as anyone possibly could. Excellent! I have nothing to add. Dave Thompson
ReplyDeleteThe question is, why did Gov Romney use PBS as an example of a program/loophole he would cut to offset his tax reductions? Sure, Leher was the moderator, but it was a serious question that deserves a specific response, not just something off the cuff. It leaves a person wondering if he really knows what programs or loopholes he would eliminate, or if he is just talking off the top of his head?
ReplyDeleteWhat I find remarkable is that so much effort exists to question and vilify reason on such an issue. Rather than address the important concepts of the debate such as Obamacare pushed through without public support, record high unemployment, trillion plus deficits each year, and increase of food stamp recipients...instead, the issue is that Big Bird and PBS wouldn't receive government funding. We used to say, "God bless America". I now am a proponent of "God Save America", as our priorities have digressed to this level.
ReplyDeleteLori, I think your skepticism is justified. Republicans have campaigned endlessly on fiscal restraint and then failed to deliver. I do not know whether Romney will follow through on promises to reduce federal spending, or whether he will be a big spending Republican like George W. Bush. What I do know is that the current occupant of the White House has run up over $5 trillion in debt in 3 1/2 years. And in a recent appearance on the Letterman show stated that the debt and deficit can be dealt with later. For now, spend, spend, spend. So, at least with Romney I have someone who advocates for fiscal responsibility. With Obama, I have a president who obviously has no comprehension of the risk posed by our irresponsible spending.
ReplyDelete