A bigger Big Bird question.

[PhilFish]

With PBS funding standing at some, what, 1/10th of 1% of the federal budget...you've got to wonder what the point of that utterance was, given the mammoth hole we're in and the plainly obvious fact that there are significantly greater savings to be had elsewhere...

anyhoo.. point I think that has been overlooked.. Considering that Big Bird has been on the job for some 43 years..and the likelihood that he didn't join Sesame Street as a spring chicken (labor laws and all)..by my calculus I'm thinking we can peg ole BB at a cool 61 (give or take).

That being said, perhaps the bigger concern should be focused on the effects of cuts to Medicare on the aformentioned feathered fowl..

Be it the possibility of cuts to MC reimbursement rates, or the voucherization of services and the need to shop it around to find the best rates...I think there is some cause for concern.

I for one would hate to see Big Bird receive any less that the best of the best, considering his influence and positive effect on so, so many of us and our children.

THoughts?

 

[GordonGecko]

Cutting NPR/PBS is "red meat" to the Right....and an easy and TOTALLY DISHONEST dodget by "fiscal conservatives"...Romney or otherwise.

Especially in Mitt's case....totally eliminating spending on NPR/PBS would be a pittance of his tax cut's loss in revenues.

But the stupid....or dishonest....or both....still buy the idea that somehow getting rid of NPR/PBS will "save tens of billions". Or they use the lame "Well, that's just a start..."....but never say where else they would cut that would add up to significant money....since we all know the REAL money is in Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense.

 

[PhilFish]

if anything..i say INCREASE their funding.. if only to shut up the g'ddamn fundraising drives..dag nabbit.

 

[Arkady]

Cute.

I suspect Romney's reasoning for going after Big Bird was to counter the idea that he hadn't provided any specifics about what spending he would cut. He has now provided a specific. It's an infinitesimal part of the budget, but probably most people watching the debate don't realize that.

There have been studies about this in the past. When you ask people whether we spend "too much, not enough, or about the right amount" on government funding for public television, very few will say "not enough." But if you instead ask them "what percentage of the budget should we spend on government funding for public television," they'll come up with something like 2%, which means they think we should spend twenty times as much as we currently do. People think we spend enough, or too much, because they have a wildly inflated notion of how much we spend.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Romney's talk of firing Big Bird is what the public will remember of his debate performance. it was a ridiculous move on his part and leaves the public feeling confirmed in their belief that Romney is out of touch with average Americans.


[video=youtube;WOzNR4eDsP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WOzNR4eDsP0[/video]

 

[Bo-4]

Indeed Phil, it was a fairly dumb utterance. But isn't that kind of a traditional GOP thing?.. keep the folks 16% dumber so they'll vote for us? ;-)

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/what-we-do/our-results/literacy-and-numeracy.html