Big Bird fired? Cut wouldn't end PBS or balance budget.

Mitt Romney's Big Bird comment in last night's debate took over Twitter and reignited the age old debate over federal arts funding. But would the subsidy cut really mean all that much for Big Bird's fate – or the budget?

Matt Sayles/AP/File
This 2009 file photo shows Big Bird, in Los Angeles. Big Bird became a Twitter star in the wake of the presidential debate, with Mitt Romney pledging to cut funding for PBS despite his love for the popular Sesame Street character.

The most memorable soundbite of last night’s first presidential debate involved Mitt Romney, public broadcasting, and a giant yellow muppet.

Halfway through last night’s proceedings in Denver, the Republican nominee reiterated his long-standing plan to slash “unnecessary” parts of the federal budget. His targets? Obamacare, PBS News anchor and moderator Jim Lehrer (well into what would prove to be a trying evening where the candidates constantly interrupted him), and the popular Sesame Street character Big Bird:

"What things would I cut from spending?” Romney said. “I will eliminate all programs by this test: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare's on my list. ... 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 like you, too. But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for [it]. "

Obamacare and poor Jim Lehrer aside, Twitter erupted in jokey defense of Big Bird.  The #savebigbird hashtag immediately caught fire. Mentions of the giant yellow puppet on Twitter increased 800,000 percent, according to CNN.  A slew of Big Bird Twitter avatars were born: @BigBirdLives, @BigBirdRomney, and @FiredBigBird among them.

But when the jokes died down, PBS’s status as a lightning rod for the debate over arts funding and federal budget priorities in general reemerged (Romney has also pledged to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities). Adovcates for public arts pled their case, while opponents cited an old, popular stat about PBS CEO Paula Kerger’s salary.  “Big Bird will starve?” Tweeted blogger David Burge, @iowahawkblog. “:The president of PBS makes $632k/year. I think she can afford to chip in for bird seed.”

But even if Romney cut the government’s PBS subsidy, it would hardly spell the demise of public broadcasting, much less Big Bird. As Forbes contributor  and tax lawyer Kelly Phillips Erb points out, only about 12 percent of PBS’s funding, funneled through the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, comes from the government subsidy. 60 percent, meanwhile, comes from private donors and grants, as well as dues paid by PBS’s 350-plus member stations.  Eliminating the $445 million set aside in the federal budget for PBS would be a blow, no question. But it wouldn’t be the end.

Furthermore, the budget benefits would be miniscule.  The CPB’s two-year, $445 million government grant makes up less than 1/100th of a percent of a Federal Budget worth upwards of $3.5 trillion.  Think Progress blogger Alyssa Rosenberg details all of the proposed arts funding in Obama’s 2013 budget, including subsidies for the Smithsonian Institute and the National Endowment for the Arts.   The total funding is $1.55 billion, still a tiny fraction of overall spending.

So despite making a splash on Twitter, Big Bird’s fate won’t have nearly the same impact on government spending. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.