Time for Big Bird to Retire? Probably not.

It is really time for Big Bird and Elmo to retire?  In last week's first Presidential Debate, Mitt Romney said that he loves Big Bird, but he would cut public funding for PBS.  Is that really fair? 

For the record, about 1/100th of the Federal Budget is spent on PBS.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR get about 281 million from Congress.  210 million go directly to the individual stations.  71 million goes to PBS directly.  Not much of that 71 million goes to produce episodes of Sesame Street.  Overall, the CPB gets about 12% of it's revenue from Congress.  88% comes from other sources.

PBS in the budget or not, cutting PBS will not save the US Tax Payer a lot of money.  Chances are, if every American will look under his or her couch cushions, we will find enough money to keep PBS operating.  It is more akin to your favorite sports bar taking down 1 TV to save electricity.  Every little bit helps, but this alone will not do the trick.  It will not even come close.

The real problem, if the CPB is dismissed, is the amount of money that goes directly to your local stations.  Now, those of us who watch PBS regularly will occasionally have our favorite shows and concerts interrupted with pledge drives.  We, as individuals, often directly support our favorite PBS stations through our own pledges.

That is likely where most of the money your local PBS station needs to operate comes from, directly from your pledges.  But every little bit helps, and whatever comes from Congress helps keep some of those stations on the air.

Here is the problem with Federal Funding.  Getting overloaded on the monthly budgets happens the way it does for you and for me.  A dollar here and a dollar there adds up to hundreds each month.  A library fine, a late fee for a credit card payment.  New wiper blades.  Too much of that and one is in the red.  When the Public Deficit is as high as it is, every little bit that can be cut helps.

PBS can likely get by without Federal Funding.  Even if PBS goes away, Big Bird will find a new home on either Nickelodeon or on the Disney Channel or some other station that caters to youngsters.  It will not be difficult at all.  Sesame Street is a brand that sells, and would make a valuable commercial property.  Other PBS shows will have to find ways to enter America's living rooms, and many will.  Sesame Street does not need public dollars to survive.  Some other shows do.  Many that are produced locally and shown locally would not hit the airwaves without public dollars.

There is one other service that PBS provides.  Experience.  Most PBS stations are run out of local colleges and universities.  Many who work behind the scenes in TV and Radio get their start at PBS and NPR stations.  Yes, there are other ways to break into the biz.  Many people start directly at commercial TV and Radio stations.  It is very hard to buy experience; without PBS, a channel that is used to get students from the classroom to an actual paying job will be lost.  Even if federal dollars are cut, the practical experience that many young people get working for PBS and NPR stations is worth trying to keep these stations going.

Sure, we can kill the CPB if we wish to.  But let's keep the valuable training ground going.  Let's find another way...even if PBS stations have to begin showing, gulp, commercials.

Distorting Mormon Views on Welfare and Taxation

Harry Reid has accused Mitt Romney of distorting the LDS view on welfare and assistance to the poor.  I believe that Mr. Reid and others who support this accusation, for political gain, are the ones who are wrong.  Here is why.

First off, the LDS Church is politically neutral.  The use of LDS church doctrine for political gain by a Latter-day Saint such as Harry Reid is unethical.  Anyone who claims or implies that their views are supported by LDS church doctrine or belief for political gain are wrong to do so, even if their views are correct.  Harry Reid is not the only one guilty of such an offense.  Spend an election season here in Utah and you will see what I mean.

Second, the LDS Church does indeed encourage it's members to assist the poor.  In fact, it is considered a commandment.  However, the church does not say anything for or against collecting and taxes for this purpose.  The Church does not say HOW we should render our assistance to the needy.  Members are encouraged to fast once a month and donate the money that would have been spent on food for assistance to the church administered by the local Bishop.  Tithing that is collected from the church is used for the purposes of administering the mission of the church.  That is the minimum that is expected of those who only have enough to take care of themselves.  Everyone else in strongly encouraged to give much more, but it is left to them to determine how and to whom to give.  The thing that should be remembered is that taxes can be used for any purpose once it is in the hands of the government.  The Book of Mormon definitely decries outrageously high taxes, but does commend assistance to the needy.

When considering this point, one should also remember the advice given in the Doctrine and Covenants, "It is not meet that I should command in all things."  Meaning that the greater blessings from giving go to those who choose to give out of their own free will and choice and are not compelled by the church or government to do so give.

Third, the LDS Church puts a high importance on self-reliance and emphasizes to the poor and needy that any assistance from any source should be temporary.  They encourage people to save money and store food so that when a financial difficulty arises, that people have the resources to endure the trial without going to anyone for assistance.  An LDS Bishop can refuse to provide assistance from the church to anyone he feels is abusing the system or not doing enough to help himself.

Fourth, the LDS Church states the first source that anyone should go to if they need assistance is their extended family.  That church and government resources should be used after family resources have been exhausted.  Church bishops have encouraged people to seek help from government resources when it is available.

Fifth, the LDS Church strongly encourages welfare recipients to work for the assistance that they receive.  When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, he told them, "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread."  (Genesis 3:19)  This is still true today, the Lord expects each adult individual to pay their own way first, then to give any excess that they have to the poor.

Sixth, we should not expect that people should become themselves poor by giving to the poor.  Mormon Apostle Neal A. Maxwell once said, "A good gift should not impoverish the giver."

Seventh, it is never right to question the giving of everyone else.  Bishops are not instructed to pry how people pay their tithing, only to ask whether or not they pay it.  Good Latter-Day Saints should never question the giving of another.  Jesus said, "do not let the left hand know what the right hand doeth."

I will leave to the reader to determine whose views are closer to LDS doctrine and teachings.  Chances are that neither Mitt Romney's view nor Harry Reid's view are an exact match of LDS Church doctrine on welfare assistance.  But one thing is for certain, the status quo is unsustainable and if living beyond one's means is bad for the individual, it is bad for the government too.  Harry Reid is wrong for saying that Mitt Romney's views are not the face of Mormonism, even if Harry is correct and Mitt is wrong. 

The one thing to consider

Those of you who read this blog, know who I endorse in the presidential race.  Those of you who are undecided should only consider one thing.

Think of the most successful president in your lifetime.  Most of the Republican leaning people will think of Ronald Reagan.  Most of the Democratic people will think of Bill Clinton.  Now think of what Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had in common.  Give up?

Ronald Reagan was a Republican who, for most of his presidency, had a Democratic majority in Congress.  Bill Clinton was a Democrat who had a Republican majority in Congress.  The relationship was not always smooth, but Clinton and Reagan had to reach across the isle in Congress to get things accomplished.  This means that these successful presidents did not always get what they wanted, but were able to get things done.

If there was one great failing in the administration of both Bush administrations it was this.  Both George W. Bush and his father had a difficult time reaching across the isle to work with the opposite party in Congress.  Some say that Jimmy Carter, a Democrat with a Democratic majority did not have to reach across the isle, but that was his great failing.

Bill Clinton did not always get along with Congress, he was impeached, after all.  But when push came to shove, Clinton and the Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to push legislation that both could support.

Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill did not see eye to eye.  There were some budget battles that shut down the government.  But in Reagan's second term, the relationship between Mr. Reagan and Congress was more smooth.  Not perfect, not uncontentious, but better.  America benefited from it.

Now, let's think about the current race.  How has Barrack Obama been with the Republicans in Congress? 

How well did Mitt Romney work with the Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature?

You may think that the President and his party will gain a political mandate in this coming election.  The truth is that  469 members of Congress will also arrive in Washington with their own political mandates.  Every member of the House and every member of the Senate, when the next Congressional session begins, will have won his or her last election, just like the President. The president is going to get judged by history.  Constitutionally, he can get very little done without collaboration from Congress.  He will, no matter what you have been taught to believe, be judged on how well he worked with Congress.  No matter what Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have in their agenda, it will matter little without help from Congress.


In any presidential election, the one thing that matters is this: which candidate is more likely to get along with Congress.  Without help from Congress, the president is little more than a figure head.  When the President and the opposite party in Congress find common ground and work together, America prospers.  When they do no, we all suffer.  Yes, it's a two-way street, Congress is not exactly popular right now, either.  But the one who should extend the olive branch of peace is the one in the Oval Office.  This is the one thing that matters.