By Gel Santos Relos
If there was one icon which stuck to people’s minds after the first presidential debate between Obama and Romney, it would have to be our favorite 8-foot yellow, feathery friend called Big Bird of Sesame Street--thanks to the special mention of Romney, who said that despite liking Big Bird and moderator Jim Lehrer of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), he would have to de-prioritize funding for PBS, in order to solve the deficit problem.
The Obama campaign seized this opportunity to hammer on the Romney campaign, arguing their differences in policy whereby Democrats contend Romney should cut back on defense spending instead of slashing the $445-million federal funding to PBS, which they say is but a small fraction of the money the US government burns, in fighting the war in Afghanistan.
In fact, the campaign even put up an ad mocking Romney, sarcastically casting Big Bird as a shady criminal corporate mastermind (like Bernie Madoff) behind a lot of financial scandals. The Sesame Street Workshop abjected and asked the Obama campaign to take down the ad, saying, "Sesame Street is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns."
The Romney campaign fought back and accused the Obama campaign of using Big Bird as a “diversionary tactic” because it cannot run on the merits of its own policies on more important issue such as the economy and national security.
We asked viewers of Balitang America about this same issue, and a big majority -- 69 percent of voters sided with Romney, echoing his view that PBS will survive “with less or no federal spending,” adding that PBS can rely on advertisements and private sector sponsorships as other mainstream programs do.
Only 39 percent sided with Obama, pointing out that it would be “better to cut spending on the military, and not on educational and enlightening programming from an American institution like PBS.”
“Mamaluktot kapag maiksi ang kumot,” is one lesson we Filipinos were taught, emphasizing the need to be frugal, and not to spend money that we do not have. However, the debate on this issue is again reflective of the differences between the two party’s approach to what will be better for the country in the long run.
Republicans believe if we are serious about solving our deficit problem, then we should make hard choices and give up spending for things like PBS which can be better left to the private sector to make it survive.
Democrats, on the other hand, contend that while it is important to cut spending (and to add revenues) to solve the deficit problem, America also needs to invest in the future, and to allocate $445-million for PBS is one way of helping the youth and ordinary Americans benefit from educational programming that, otherwise, will not be supported by commercial stations, who compete for ratings and commercial viability to survive.
PBS, they say, gives the ordinary Americans more options in getting what they “need” (educational and cultural programming) instead of just what many "want" (showbiz, reality shows, trash talk, etc.) that rate well in commercial television.