Skip to comments.PBS Doesn't Need Government Money
Posted on 10/09/2012 5:18:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: This is Dennis, Covington, Louisiana. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. I guess the new narrative is that conservatives want to kill Big Bird. Well, we have witnessed decades of toy, merchandising, movie theater revenues that have to amount to the hundreds of millions, which would put Big Bird up there with Bill Gates. So to subsidize Big Bird, isn't that the epitome of tax cuts for the rich?
RUSH: Try this. Sesame Street received a million-dollar grant from the stimulus bill, and they reported that it created 1.47 jobs. This is from the Washington Examiner. They were inspired to look into this after Big Bird hopped on board the Obama campaign. They found out that Sesame Street got $1,067,532 via Obama's Porkulus bill. Now, remember what that was. That was for shovel-ready jobs. The stimulus bill was to put you back to work. Yes, my friends. It was to find jobs in the middle of a recession. We find out now that it went to unions, teachers, and now Sesame Street, the Children's Television Workshop, which if you knew who runs that, the wife of a billionaire.
What business are they getting $1 million of stimulus money? But they did. "Sesame Workshop, the independent nonprofit corporation that produces the popular childrens program Sesame Street, received a $1,067,532 stimulus bill grant in August 2010, via the Department of Health and Human Services." Okay, folks, we got much more straight ahead. There's another, almost as shocking as that, when we get back.
RUSH: So, in addition to Big Bird and Sesame Street -- I'm not kidding. The people that own and produce that whole network, the Children's Television Workshop, they're billionaires. There's no reason they should be getting government money. There's no reason PBS should be getting government money anyway. Romney's right about that. But it's an easy target, I admit, 'cause little children, they love Big Bird. But they've pulled it. Big Bird said, "I don't want to be a part of Obama's campaign," just like Andrea Mitchell said, and it didn't work as well. You know, the idea that Romney wanted to kill Big Bird didn't get as much traction as it would normally get.
PBS should be taken off the government teat.
Big Bird and Sesame Street take in enough money that PBS should be paying taxes instead of sucking up taxpayers hard earned money.
Most of the stuff on PBS is either unmarketable crap or an infomercial disguised as educational kids programming. The merchandising revenues alone should pay for the airtime they use to promote their toys, videos, etc.
New poll nums out today showing Obama has a 20 point lead among preschoolers. So he’s got that going for him...
I applied for one of those stimulus grants and was turned down because it created too many new jobs. No kidding. I know other people who applied for and got a stimulus grant and they created zero new jobs.
This is one reason why my formerly grudging support for Romney is now enthusiastic.
I’ve been asking for years, why do Repubs keep funding NPR and PBS.
Romney is the first guy since forever to announce that he is defunding them, and he did it right to their faces. He just created the political space to do just that.
Every line item of the entire federal budget must be qualified based on the simple question: is this item so urgent to national survival that we must borrow money from China to fund it?
It was a terriffic way to knock Jim Lehrer off his game. Instead of Jim being in control, Romney bluntly stated he would have the power to cut him off. How many candidates have ever threatened to fire their moderators? Maybe only Reagan with his "I paid for this microphone."
AARP doest need giverment money either...
excerpts from june 2012
QUESTION: Yes. My question is about the report of USAID cutting off funding for the Pakistani iteration of Sesame Street.
MR. TONER: Okay. Are we ready to move to Pakistan Sesame Street?
QUESTION: Yeah. That was number two. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Im sorry, Matt. I know you had number two.
QUESTION: No, no, no.
MR. TONER: I apologize.
QUESTION: Its fine.
QUESTION: Just my question was —
MR. TONER: Yeah. Go ahead. Sure.
QUESTION: — the conflicting there was a sourced report in Pakistani media it was a matter of corruption in the theater company that was producing it. The theater company itself alleged that the U.S. simply ran out of money for it. My question is: Why, specifically whether it was at all related to the report last week that Gitmo detainees were forced to listen to Sesame Street music in their ears?
MR. TONER: Your last question first. No. Theres no relation. Look, what happened here was theres an anti-fraud hotline that was set up by U.S. the U.S. Agency for International Development in Pakistan. And we did receive via that hotline what we believe were credible allegations of fraud and abuse by the Rafi Peer Theater Workshop, which is the workshop theater workshop that manages the Sesame Street program in Pakistan. So we did launch an investigation into the allegations. Weve also sent the theater workshop a letter that terminates the project agreement.
And just in case you were asking about the scope or this allegation that we ran out of money. The initial agreement between USAID and the Rafi Peer Theater Workshop was for $20 million, of which 6.7 million has been spent as of the last fiscal quarter ending March 31st. So there is an investigation underway looking at these allegations. No ones questioning obviously the value and positive impact of this kind of programming for children, but this is again, as I said, this is about allegations of corruption.
QUESTION: So —
QUESTION: So Mark —
QUESTION: — how much was spent? You said 6.7 —
MR. TONER: 6.7 million.
QUESTION: But and theyre not going to get the rest of the 20 now?
MR. TONER: Thats correct.
QUESTION: You said 20 million a year?
MR. TONER: You know what? It says the initial agreement, so I dont think it was an annual contract, but simply the original scope of the project between USAID and the workshop.
QUESTION: Mark, do you know whether in at least theoretically the United States would have the right to get that money back or to file some type of —
MR. TONER: I dont. But lets look at as I said, theres an investigation underway. Well wait for the results of that investigation. Im looking at these —
QUESTION: Well, I dont understand well, if the results of the investigation arent back, why are you why have you terminated the agreement, if you dont know that anything was actually wrong?
MR. TONER: Again, we deemed that the allegations were serious enough that we wanted to suspend or cut off the program until we were able to complete this investigation. Because we take —
QUESTION: So its well, but you didnt say suspended. You said it was terminated.
MR. TONER: — misuse and misspending of Pakistan Im sorry misspending of U.S. taxpayer dollars very seriously.
QUESTION: Well, but you didnt say it was suspended; you said it was terminated.
MR. TONER: No, I said terminated. Sorry. A correction.
QUESTION: But so I dont understand. I mean, anyone can make a phone call to a fraud line and say something outrageous that theres —
MR. TONER: I understand that.
QUESTION: So what was it what was the fraud? I mean, were they funneling this money to al-Qaida or something? What —
MR. TONER: There was again which is why I said these were serious and credible allegations made against the workshop.
QUESTION: Fine. But it sounds like the investigations over, if you decided to terminate the —
MR. TONER: The investigations still ongoing.
QUESTION: Well, then I dont understand why you terminated the funding. If you dont that there was something wrong, and you acknowledge that this programming is beneficial why would you —
MR. TONER: We do acknowledge the programming is beneficial, but we had what we believe were credible allegations, so rather than continue to throw good money after bad, we thought it was prudent to suspend I misused that word again to cut off this program —
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: — and wait for the results of the investigation.
QUESTION: By my recollection, this is the second time in probably about six months that you guys have cut off funding for this. What do you have against Sesame Street? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Look, we have nothing —
QUESTION: There was the Palestinian one and now this one.
MR. TONER: Let me be very clear that we strongly support the goal of the Sesame Street and the Sesame Workshop worldwide. These are valuable programs teaching kids worldwide values as well as math, reading skills, et cetera. This is simply two very different cases but in the latest case, in Pakistan, concerns that U.S. taxpayer money was being misused.
QUESTION: And you cant say at all —
MR. TONER: And this is something, by the way, weve been in conversations and I believe that Sesame Street or Sesame Workshop rather has issued a statement as well surrounding this.
QUESTION: But you cant get in at all, even to broadly, what the claim what the allegations were?
MR. TONER: No. Not at this point.
QUESTION: Any reaction from the Pakistani Government or different agencies?
MR. TONER: No. Im not no.
QUESTION: Or the children of Pakistan?
MR. TONER: Whats that?
QUESTION: Or the children of Pakistan? (Laughter.)
Then there are those ads for Beaches Resorts where you can go and meet Elmo and Cookie Monster. These guys are living large; they moved out of the hood long ago.
I like the “this old house hour” and they have sponsors on there. Its not a big deal , dont understand why having sponsors for a show is such a big deal
To be honest, you might have a case where nine out of ten four-year olds in America do watch Sesame Street as a kid. But the viewership dwindles drastically after age six. I’d make a guess that only five out of one hundred citizens view PBS on a weekly basis....regularly. I haven’t watched PBS in twenty years....that’s about eight billion dollars ago.
My suggestion is to give them a three-step process....cutting one-third of the budget each year. I’d bring in the top ten executives of the network and discuss the idea of cutting their salary by twenty percent, and look over the benefit plan. The idea of them comparing themselves to ABC or CBS’s executive salary structure...is silly. They all need to think “small-footprint”, and accept the fact that PBS is not going to survive beyond 2015 as a government-sponsored vehicle.
I also believe the government will find that several government agencies were extending out grants in support of the PBS folks....that weren’t directly attributed to them. Those grants need to be cut as well.
Take back the LANGUAGE!!!