Conservatives have always hated PBS.
The national network of stations has high-quality programming that is educational, informative, and up-lifting. Therefore by the standards of the three-thumb crowd it must be a liberal network of free-thinkers and readers.
There is no Nascar, wrestling, or wet t-shirts on PBS.
Instead there is NOVA, Ken Burns, and Gwen Ifill.
Of course conservatives would find fault with that.
Anything that expands horizons or broadens perspectives has always been in the cross-hairs of conservatives. Look at the disdain conservatives have for college professors, and higher places of learning. PBS is no different.
During the debate on Wednesday night Mitt Romney made his plans for PBS quite clear.
“I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS.”
That statement has far more to do with Romney, and other conservative’s hatred for PBS than for any fiscal plan for the nation.
Maybe Romney is not aware of it, or just pretends not to be aware of it, but the federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget.
Because I think Romney is so politically devious and manipulating (given his debate performance) I need to spell this out for him–and other confused conservatives.
Stopping the subsidy to PBS will have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.
Many people do not have access to cable, and are in search of solid educational programming that PBS broadcasts each night. In addition, many households like mine who have cable turn to PBS for the informative and high-quality shows that no other network provides.
There is widespread support for the continuing programming that PBS offers, and I am confident that if there was ever a real threat to funding there would be a national outburst that even thick-skulled conservatives could hear and understand.