Romney’s view on who deserves federal help — big corporations, hedge funders, private equity managers, and every else who’s already wealthy.
Tonight, Mitt Romney set off an avalanche of criticism and satire following his remarks that at the Republican convention that he likes “Big Bird,” but he will be cutting all funding to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
Here’s the clip of him saying that:
It’s worth pointing out that federal subsidies only account for a tiny minority of public broadcasting budgets. Only 15 percent of PBS’s budget comes from the federal trough.
In fact, all public broadcasting put together under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), only accounts for $420 million from the federal government.
So Romney wants to wipe out this funding, which amounts to $4.2 billion over ten years if the funding stays consistent. But his corporate tax plan — which involves a huge tax giveaway to Big Business — would blow a $1 trillion hole in the federal budget over the next ten years.
That means that Romney’s corporate tax cuts cost 238 times more than all public broadcasting funding combined.
Maybe the satire is onto something. It’s possible Romney doesn’t actually like Big Bird very much, or at least 238 times less than he likes ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, and other corporations he’d be rewarding with his tax plan.
Join the fight to save Big Bird. Click here.
Mr. Romney,
Educational programming is fundamental for millions of children in our nation, and the impact of shows like Sesame Street goes far beyond entertainment. I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO RETHINK YOUR POSITION. REALLY: Keep your hands off Public Radio.
YOU MAY THINK YOU ARE THE OTHER EXTREME OF MR. CHAVEZ, but ultimately you would be doing the same thing he’s done in Venezuela, block the airwaves, a means to obtain YOUR OWN AGENDA!!
You may disagree with national public broadcasting because they SHOW YOU FOR WHAT YOU TRULY ARE…. THEY EXPOSE THE TRUTH, AND THAT BOTHERS POLITICIANS WHO ARE LIKE CAMILIONS, AND CHANGE THEIR STAND IN FRONT OF DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.
Promoting educational programming and objectivity is essential in a free society. You would allow religious one sided radio stations, and cut the funds off for fair reporting. That position is undemocratic.
If I had any doubt who I would vote for; you have made my decision extremely easy… Furthermore, you have motivated me to rally against your stands.. You would rally for more guns, but less objectivity. Cutting NPR FUNDING IS EQUAL to reducing freedom of speech and educational opportunity, and limiting thought provoking programming, it is absolutely wrong!