Mitt Romney plans to cancel Sesame Street

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP who didn't read everything.

Many years ago there was a news story about why PBS was receiving government subsidies (I wish I could find it). They make more than enough to stay on the air, so why give them tax dollars they don't need? It's the same as subsidizing a healthy business.

You are DEAD. WRONG. In many smaller (read: rural) markets, the local PBS station is a critical source of news and quality kids programming for people who either don't have cable or can't afford it. And they absolutely cannot exist without government subsidies. And, for people who actually work in this realm and understand it (as in, not you), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is one of the most efficient and effective public-private partnerships ever, and one that most Americans cherish. Independent non-partisan studies have found that hte majority of Americans don't want cuts to PBS (which is a miniscule portion of the federal budget anyway). Learn something about an issue before you post ignorant uninformed tripe, okay?

http://valuepbs.org/

You're not doing your 'cause' any good by being insulting. I did read something about it (said article which I really do wish I could find). It discussed the revenue from licensing that PBS makes from Seasame Street and a few other shows that resulted in enough income to keep the program on air. IIRC, PBS doesn't have to use those funds for that because they use the government money (kind of a use it or lose it deal). Just because they use it, doesn't mean they can't survive without it. If you have evidence (as in revenue/expense reports) that show otherwise, then I'll happily stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

These shows are commercial enterprises.. They will be just fine on their own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the federal government have to pay for tv programming? If people like it they can donate. Unreal.

Is this a serious question?

Research the history of TV. It hasn't always been fiber optics and satellite and 57 channels with nothing on.

The air waves are a public good. Ensuring they were used that way (education, news) in the beginning was the perogative of government. I'd argue that government funding now more than ever is needed to counterbalance the utter crap that is broadcast. If I have to tolerate Jersey Shore on the public spectrum, by golly the government can underwrite Sesame Street.

When I was young there were 3 channels-ABC, NBC, and CBS. Plus an antenna on the roof or rabbit ears. Sesame Street produces about 26 shows per year domestically and the production budget is 17 million. Marketing returns are huge but that show isn't all the company does and PBS contibutes 4 million plus there are government grants.

So yes , the production company could continue making the show, and stuff would still be sold. Obviously Sesame Street could have been functionning like football at a big school - funds help support the other programs. But that clearly has not been happening.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/explainer/2012/01/does_sesame_street_lose_money_.html

[Anonymous]

Shows like Sesame Street are multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, "Sesame Street" made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

If you break that down, it works out to over $50 million a year "Sesame Street" is taking in from all that merchandising.

Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama still wants you and I to still carry his freight

[Anonymous]

Mitt has promised to sing "It's not easy having green."