A group is planning a march in DC to protest against the idea that maybe the government shouldn’t be subsidizing PBS. The Million Muppet March is the result of Big Bird being the only cut that Romney was actually specific about when he spoke of getting rid of waste and things that we have to “borrow money from China” to pay for.
Liberals everywhere are losing it. They say the money the government gives to CPB (which funds PBS) is miniscule compared to the $3.8 trillion the government spends. Is this really an argument for the continuation of the subsidy? Because I see it as being indicative of how little liberals actually understand about what our problems are. If they are unwilling to cut a miniscule $445 million, how in the world can we expect them to get serious about solving our debt problem?
“But all we need to do is make rich people pay more, no?” The government spent $1.8 trillion in the year 2000. In 2012, they spent $3.8. That’s $3,800,000,000,000. This means the size of the government has more than doubled in the last twelve years. Are we really to believe that the government will stop “needing” money if we just give them a little more? Is revenue really the problem here, or is it the spending?
The Democratic party knows how to get their base energized, and it is by tapping into the envy many people have towards those who are more successful than themselves. It is more important for some to make those “evil rich people” pay more, than it is to actually figure out how to solve our problem and make sure the government doesn’t continue spending money that we do not have.
Mitt Romney should have been attacked, but not for suggesting we stop subsidizing Big Bird, but for not being specific about the bigger cuts that are needed. Our debt has grown by $6,000,000,000,000 since Obama moved into the White House. We cannot even convince liberals to consider cutting the $445 million given to CPB, or the $154 million spent on the National Endowment for the Arts. By the way, only 12 percent of PBS’ income comes from the government, and less than 1% of the arts industry’s income comes from the National Endowment for the Arts. Why are liberals so quick to predict the death of these TV or radio programs (in the case of NPR), if the government isn’t there to help? How many other TV programs exist without a government subsidy? If there is a demand for these programs, they should be able to stand on their own, shouldn’t they?
- Be Thankful for Income Inequality
- The One and Only Thing this Election Can be About
- When Selfishness Masquerades as Liberal Compassion
- How ObamaCare is Already Costing Jobs
- Proof That We Will Never Get Rid of Poverty