Mitt Romney’s call to indefinitely detain Big Bird, Grover and Mr. Snuffleupagus in the private sector during the first presidential debate created quite a stir.
Romney targeted PBS for the budget cutter’s axe.
“I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. Actually, I like you too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for us.”
And the American people went apoplectic.
Mitt wants to kill Big Bird!
We all love Big Bird. Most of us grew up watching Bert and Ernie banter. We giggled as Cookie Monster spewed crumbs all over himself and wondered why Oscar the Grouch lived in a garbage can. Come to think of it, maybe that’s why he was grouchy!
Yup. Mitt skewered a sacred cow, and the blogosphere lit up.
Joan E. Dowlin offered an impassioned defense, not only of Sesame Street, but PBS in general, in a Huffington Post article.
“Ending the station of “Sesame Street,” “Antique Roadshow,” “Masterpiece Theatre,” “Live From Lincoln Center,” “Frontline,” “Nova,” “Bill Moyers Journal, ” “Charlie Rose” and countless specials and concerts? Blasphemous. Tell senior citizens you are taking away “The Lawrence Welk Show.” See what kind of reaction you get. And the PBS “NewHour” [sic] (with Jim Lehrer) is probably the only fair and balanced news show on television. They present just the facts without a bias one way or another.”
Some on the right were also quick to criticize Romney. After all, PBS funding represents a tiny drop in an ocean of debt. Why pick on Big Bird when we have so many other giant programs that need trimming?
Both sides of the argument miss the real point.
Yes, PBS arguably adds value to our society.
Yes. Defunding PBS will do absolutely nothing to white out the red ink spilling all over the Potomac.
But lost in the argument, the most basic question: does the federal government have the authority to fund public television?
No, it does not.
And it shouldn’t receive federal funding on that basis alone.
Doesn’t matter how much quality programing it offers up. Doesn’t matter how many people watch it. Doesn’t matter how awesome Big Bird is. The people did not delegate the federal government the power to fund public television. Therefore, it may not do it.
Some will argue that the following clause in Article 1 Sec. 8 authorizes funding for arts and sciences.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
But they completely ignore the most important word in the enumeration – by.
The first clause tell us the purpose of the power…the second clause defines the power. The federal government may promote science and art BY securing the rights to writings and discoveries. It serves as a limiting clause.
It doesn’t say – “…by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries and any other damn way Congress chooses to do so.”
By including a limiting clause, it logically EXCLUDES all other ways of promoting the arts and sciences. “Designato unius est exclusio alterius” – “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” If the framers meant for Congress to have unlimited support of the arts, they would not have included the limiting clause. It would have simply read, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
Nope. No authority to fund PBS there.
So, what about the “general welfare clause?”
Become a member and support the TAC!
I’ll let James Madison take this one.
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
No authority to fund PBS there either.
In fact, you can pick apart every phrase of the Constitution, and you will not find any federal power to fun television.
As a result, every other argument should fall to the side.
Too often, Americans get all caught up in arguing about whether the federal government should do this or that and ignore the most basic question: can it?
If I was Mitt I would have said “The free-market can still bring those shows to television. Just check out the garbage on Netflix. I’m sure you will find whatever show you are interested in”. Why do we act like the free-market won’t provide the things we want?
@onetenther exactly!
There are sooooo many things our Servants make us pay for that are not authorized.
I am constantly amazed at both sides’ ability to dupe the American public with such an inane argument you wonder who, with a brain, would fall for it. Answer: a gullible American public, eager, on one side to put up a smokescreen in the way of attacking one of the smallest expenditures in the Federal budget, but in the process pitting one side against the other (you know those elitist, educated people who watch PBS). And if you don’t think THAT was the aim, you really are gullible).
How dumb can people be? And, just for the record, LOTS of stuff isn’t specifically outlined in the Constitution for the government to pay for. How about the $6,000 to $10,000 per month paid to nursing homes when the rich put all their parents’ assets into their names, and then put their loved ones on the public dole? Why don’t you times that $10,000 by the number of the elderly in nursing homes. And then add in another $2,000 per month for their drug bills, paid by Medicaid. You think THAT might have anything to do with why most states are in dire straights these days, while the owners of these “facilities” are raking in billions of our tax dollars.
Of course, many point out that this doesn’t come from the Federal government, but it certainly does. Can you say Medicare–sometimes paying $1,200 PER DAY, as the elder one waits to die in a “skilled nursing” wing of the nursing home. And I know because I have had friends whose loved ones have done just that after they have spent ALL their own money. What a joke. PBS indeed!
This is a purposeful sound bite thrown out to throw off the American public, (which isn’t that difficult to do these days) whose tax dollars are funding an insane military budget and keeping in business insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations.
Good God, REALLY–PBS costing so much. Give me a break!
Oh, yea, BTW–Ryan the wienie sure did address the 2nd Amendment, didn’t he? Another joke!
The president is an Islamist. How do we get this Big Brid and his terrorist friends out of the country? The proof is on his ring finger. Been there for 30 years.
@GovernRight despite somebodys interp of the Const Why not fund something like PBS? Ratherthan send out billions in aid annually #gop #dnc