The world's laziest blogger--copyright applied for--is back. Like millions of other Americans, I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night. The near unanimous verdict, with which I concur, was that Romney won by looking and sounding presidential, while President Obama lost by appearing tired and flat. I have nothing to add to this.
However, I do want to take a look at Romney's insistence that he would cut funding to PBS. For while the challenger was better prepared than the empty suit our President appeared to be, there remains a deep lack of seriousness that pervades and perverts our presidential politics.
PBS accounts for just .012% of the federal budget. It's true that it makes little to no sense to fund something so inconsequential at a time when the nation is bankrupt. At the same time, PBS's paltry nature makes it one of the best uses of our taxpayer money: I'd much rather subsidize Sesame Street than be compelled to pay for the bombs that rain down on Pakistanis.
I remain convinced that our debt is, or rather, ought to be, the most important issue in this election. Obama seems to have no idea how we are to balance our budget. Yet, for all his talk about how it is immoral to pass debt along to our children, Romney's pollyannish plan is to simply grow our way out of debt. Obama is in no position to ask, but I wish someone would find out what Romney plans to do if the economy remains stagnant well into his first term. At that point, will he try to cut funding for other programs? Will he reconsider his plans to increase military spending?
Or will we continue to bicker over Big Bird?