No. of Recommendations: 14
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/big-373719-bird-mitt.html

Okay, I may be taking this further than Mitt intended. So let's go back to his central thrust. The Corporation of Public Broadcasting receives nearly half-a-billion dollars a year from taxpayers, which it disburses to PBS stations, who, in turn, disburse it to Big Bird and Jim Lehrer. I don't know what Big Bird gets, but, according to Sen. Jim DeMint, the President of Sesame Workshop, Gary Knell, received in 2008 a salary of $956,513. In that sense, Big Bird and Sen. Harry Reid embody the same mystifying phenomenon: they've been in "public service" their entire lives and have somehow wound up as multimillionaires.

Mitt's decision to strap Big Bird to the roof of his station wagon and drive him to Canada has prompted two counter-arguments from Democrats: 1) half a billion dollars is a mere rounding error in the great sucking maw of the federal budget, so why bother? 2) everybody loves Sesame Street, so Mitt is making a catastrophic strategic error. On the latter point, whether or not everybody loves Sesame Street, everybody has seen it, and every American under 50 has been weaned on it. So far this century it's sold nigh on a billion bucks' worth of merchandising sales (that's popular toys such as the Subsidize-Me-Elmo doll). If Sesame Street is not commercially viable, then nothing is, and we should just cut to the chase and bail out everything.

Conversely, if this supposed "public" broadcasting brand is capable on standing on its own, then so should it. As for the rest of PBS's output – the eternal replays of the Peter, Paul & Mary reunion concert, twee Brit sitcoms, Lawrence Welk reruns and therapeutic infomercials – whatever their charms, it is difficult to see why the Brokest Nation in History should be borrowing money from the Chinese Politburo to pay for it. A system by which a Communist Party official in Beijing enriches British comedy producers by charging it to American taxpayers with interest is not the most obvious economic model. Yet, as Obama would say, the government did build that.
---------------------------------------------------------
Steyn is GardenBunny.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Quoted: ...half a billion dollars is a mere rounding error in the great sucking maw of the federal budget, so why bother?

Because it's demoralizing for hard working Americans to have their pockets picked when the government isn't even trying to be frugal and efficient.

I believe Romney when he says, "I will ask a simple question about every federal program: is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?"

From Romney Revealed on CNN:

GLORIA BORGER: As the Romneys were struggling to get Ann's MS [multiple sclerosis] under control, they were about to face a challenge of an entirely different sort.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Could the scandal over Salt Lake's Olympic bid shatter on the city's quest to host the winter games?

BORGER: The 2002 Winter Olympics were in trouble. Salt Lake City was embroiled in a bribery scandal that threatened to bring down the games. So the search was on for someone to repair the damage.

SCOTT HELMAN: The list of people who could have come in and saved the 2002 Olympics began and ended with Mitt Romney.

BORGER: Romney knew finance, politics and was a Mormon. And that made him the top choice. A. ROMNEY: They called me instead of Mitt because they knew that Mitt would turn them down flat.

MITT ROMNEY: She called me at work said, you know, I want you to -- don't say no, Mitt. I think you ought to go run the Olympics. I said don't be ridiculous. That's absolutely crazy. I'd never do that. But over time, she convinced me.

BORGER: So despite Ann's health issues, the Romneys left Bain and moved to Utah in 1999. But when Romney really left Bain capital is now controversial. On paper, he remained chief executive officer, raising the question of his responsibility for companies that laid off workers when he was in Utah. He says that he was gone from the company completely, that the Olympics were all consuming.

TAGG ROMNEY: When he got there, it was a disaster. And -- he was panicked. He really seriously considered saying, you know, we -- it's not going to work here, there [are] just too many problems.

BORGER: Romney need help, so he rallied an old friend from Bain Capital, Fraser Bullock, to be the games' chief operating officer.

FRASER BULLOCK, former COO, SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPICS: Mitt did describe it as stepping into an empty elevator shaft because you're not sure -- you're falling and you're not sure when you're going to hit ground.

BORGER: Bullet joined the team that tried to do damage control. They created an operating plan, tried to convince sponsors to stay on board, and took a critical look at the nearly $400 million budget deficit staring them in the face. And even got rid of the usual catering at Olympic board meetings.

F. BULLOCK: We had Domino's Pizza. And it was a dollar a slice. Because he knew he could buy a pizza for five bucks, cut it into eight slices, sell them for a dollar a slice, get $8 of revenue for every pizza at a cost of $5. He turned the lunches from a cost center into a profit center.

M. ROMNEY: The Olympics is like putting on seven Super Bowls a day for 17 days straight.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I still can not believe this is being seen by some as a Romney mistake

It was a statement of principle, is it worth borrowing money from China to do this. Seems about time a politician claimed a rational question for spending.

Do people really believe it is worth borrowing money from China on an ongoing basis to fund PBS? Seriously?

The arguments? Well the funding really is not important and well it is only a small part of their budget?

Hunh??????????????? Then doesn't that make it a whole lot more obvious?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Do people really believe it is worth borrowing money from China on an ongoing basis to fund PBS?

To the left wing nut jobs, its not a silly question. Big Bird is obviously an adult avian that hasn't left the nest and is still being spoon fed by his parents. Just like the basement dwelling libs living off their parents because they can't get a job with their poly neolithic pre-domesticated art interpretive degree and flipping burgers is so beneath them.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To the left wing nut jobs, its not a silly question. Big Bird is obviously an adult avian that hasn't left the nest and is still being spoon fed by his parents. Just like the basement dwelling libs living off their parents because they can't get a job with their poly neolithic pre-domesticated art interpretive degree and flipping burgers is so beneath them.

JLC
----------------------------------------------------
Think about that, really, they are outraged about hypothetical cuts to PBS, does anyone really think they intend to cut anything if given complete power to do so.....besides the military?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
2828 wrote: does anyone really think they intend to cut anything if given complete power to do so.....besides the military?

Has the government EVER eliminated a tax that, once imposed, is found to be unnecessary? Hardly ever, or it takes nearly 100 years to cancel a tax. Take the tire tax.

The excise tax on tires was first levied in 1918 mainly because of revenue needs brought about by World War I. The tax was reduced after the war, and then repealed in 1926. The levy was reintroduced during the Great Depression at a time when federal individual income tax revenues were plummeting, and was increased to help finance World War II. A general reduction in rates was in the offing just before the outbreak of the Korean conflict but revenue needs brought about by that war prevented the lowering of rates. More recent history shows that in 1956 the rate of the tax was raised in response to legislation enacted to build the interstate highway system and to create the Highway Trust Fund. Scheduled reductions did not occur after the construction of the interstate highway system had been extended. A goal of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 was to redistribute highway costs between car and truck users. At that time, the tax structure was changed so that the tax was imposed only on heavy tires with tax rates that are graduated, and increased along with the tire’s weight. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the exclusion of the value of the tires from the 12% retail excise tax on heavy highway trucks, trailers, and tractors, but provided a credit offset to the retail tax for the tire tax paid.

Under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 the tax based on tire weight was replaced with rates based on the load capacity of the tire. The federal excise tax imposed on tires was scheduled to expire on October 1, 2011.

More at http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/957.pdf...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To the left wing nut jobs, its not a silly question. Big Bird is obviously an adult avian that hasn't left the nest and is still being spoon fed by his parents.
--------------------

http://jeffzelaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Big-Bird-Wi...

Is working for food such a bad idea?

arrete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
arrete wrote: Is working for food such a bad idea?

Tell me about it! I work for food every damb day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is working for food such a bad idea?

The American taxpayer works for about one-third of my food and starting next month will be working for two-thirds of my medical expenses. No, it's not such a bad idea from where I'm sitting.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
To the left wing nut jobs, its not a silly question. Big Bird is obviously an adult avian that hasn't left the nest and is still being spoon fed by his parents.

Does ANYONE believe that Sesame Street is NOT a big money-maker?

Pretty much everything PBS offers - except its self-serving fund-raising drives - is closely equivalent to the standard fare of some for-profit channel, so does not need tax funding. Its big hits are, well, big hits, so certainly ought to not only be self-supporting but also be big money-makers assuming they have competent management; they don't need tax funding either.
Print the post Back To Top