Sure, you might be tired of hearing about Big Bird and Romney’s attack on PBS during last week’s debate, but it sure is strange of him to bring it up in the first place. How much money does he think public broadcasting is sucking from our budget? Maybe somebody should ask Mr. Numbers himself, Paul Ryan. He might be able to smack some sense into Romney, because one-hundredth of one percent of the national budget isn’t really something of national importance. His cutting of the funding itself would be a devastation to the low-to-middle income families who rely on PBS to bring them to the Met, Carnegie Hall, space, and beyond.

“I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS,” Romney said. “I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.”

So making sure that one-hundredth of one percent of our budget isn’t owed back is his number one priority. We could name quite a few things that deserve to be placed above PBS funding as far as national importance goes, but what the hey — you won the debate Mr. Romney.

What are his motives? Why would he cut something that would have no effect on our debt? No one wants to point out a possible clash of classes. We’re not trying to say that Romney wants kids to stop watching Sesame Street, which helps those children whose families cannot afford preschool learn to read and understand other concepts. What we’re saying is that Romney doesn’t have a valid reason to cut funding to public broadcasting.

And if Mr. Romney wants to protect local businesses, why go after some of the most community-driven? PBS issued a statement regarding this issue:

“A key thing to remember is that public television and radio stations are locally owned and community focused and they are experts in working efficiently to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every $1.00 of federal funding invested, they raise an additional $6.00 on their own – a highly effective public-private partnership.”

It just doesn’t make any sense. Please, Willard Mitt Romney, if this somehow gets to you, we’ll offer you two columns in an upcoming issue for you to explain why cutting public broadcasting from the homes of the families, especially the underprivileged, who enjoy it is such an important issue to you.