• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

Nobody’s Firing Big Bird

October 8, 2012 By Mark Draughn Leave a Comment

I get a lot of political email these days, especially from the Obama campaign. Yesterday, for example, I got one from Stephanie Cutter, one of Obama’s campaign managers.

Over the course of this election, we’ve seen that both Romney and Ryan avoid telling the truth about their plans and how they’d actually affect the middle class. It doesn’t matter if they’re talking about taxes, health care, Medicare, education, or clean energy — the Romney-Ryan status quo is to misrepresent their positions and their practical effects.

But Stephanie isn’t above telling a few lies herself:

One of the few specific policy proposals that Romney offered at the debate was to fire Big Bird to cut the deficit. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Except she kinda did.

PBS only receives about 15% of its funding from the government, so eliminating their federal funding would not be much of a hardship. They might have to cut some programming, but surely not Sesame Street, their most well-known show. And even if they did such a crazy thing, PBS doesn’t own Sesame Street. Big Bird’s employer is actually the Sesame Workshop, a non-profit corporation that makes a lot of money through licensing of its famous characters all over the world. If one of the television networks that carries their video product lost a bit of its funding, they’d still be able to get their product out. Nobody’s firing Big Bird.

On the other hand, I don’t understand why Republicans have a bug up their ass about PBS. I agree that in an age of cable television and the Internet, we really don’t need publicly-subsidized television, but we’re talking about a very small amount of money. If Romney were serious about reducing government spending, he be talking about cutting energy and agricultural subsidies.

Filed Under: Political Science

Reader Interactions

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Swift Falling
  • Renovations
  • A familiar war in Iran
  • On the shooting of Renee Good
  • Swift Descending
  • GOA on Trump
  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • DrugWar Rant
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat

Blawgs

  • appellatesquawk
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending People
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • Probable Cause
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Civil Rights Lawyer
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate

Bloggers

  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Frozen in Amber

  • a Public Defender
  • Agitator
  • Bert P. Krages II
  • Dan Heller
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Indefensible
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Copyright © 2026 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress