Dems playing Big Bird
Mitt Romney sure ruffled a lot of feathers over his proposal to eliminate taxpayer funding for government-sponsored TV. As soon as the GOP presidential candidate singled out PBS for cuts during the presidential debate in Denver, the hysterical squawking commenced.
Left-leaning celebrities immediately erupted on Twitter. “Mitt is smirky, sweaty, indignant and smug with an unsettling hint of hysteria. And he wants to kill BIG BIRD,” actress Olivia Wilde despaired.
Social media activists called for a Million Muppet March on the National Mall to “show your support for Big Bird, Muppets, PBS and all that is good.”
Indignant PBS, which employs not-so-neutral debate moderator Jim Lehrer, issued a statement decrying Romney's failure to “understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation.”
And President Obama, awakened from his beatdown-induced stupor, scurried the next morning to the safe confines of a campaign rally to mock Romney for “getting tough on Big Bird.”
The kiddie character kerfuffle is a manufactured flap that may play well to liberals in Hollywood and Washington. But beyond the borders of La-La Land, desperate Democrats who cling childishly to archaic federal subsidies look like cartoonish buffoons.
In 1967, when Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act, family options for quality children's programming were severely limited. More than four decades later, there's a vibrant marketplace for educational broadcasting — on radio, TV and the Internet — that teems with furry friends and information-packed shows.
PBS speaks of itself with cultish self-reverence: “For more than 40 years,” the government network said, “Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission — harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they (sic) live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse.”
In reality, of course, PBS affiliates have become increasingly corporate. As GOP Sen. Jim DeMint noted last year, franchises such as Sesame Street “are multimillion-dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, ‘Sesame Street' made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.”
Sesame Street has also become increasingly politicized. Under the Obama administration, Elmo has lobbied for the FCC's national broadband plan and the first lady's Big Nanny nutrition bill.
President Obama sneered at Romney for daring to mention PBS subsidies in the context of deficit reduction. But Obama's own Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction commission singled out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. “The current CPB funding level is the highest it has ever been,” the panel noted after Obama proposed hiking yearly appropriations to $450 million in 2012. Doing away with the appropriation would save nearly $500 million in 2015 alone. Over 10 years, those savings would total $5 billion (or roughly 10 Solyndras).
Romney's right: It's time for government media to grow up and get off the dole.
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.