Let's take ‘Sesame Street' out of the equation for PBS funding
As Congress threatens to defund public broadcasting, the defenders of PBS and NPR keep defending themselves by pointing to the importance of their longstanding signature program: 'Sesame Street.'
At a recent fiery House Oversight hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green denounced public media as 'radical left-wing echo chambers.' The response by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was to urge his colleagues to 'fire Elon Musk, save Elmo,' while displaying a full-sized image of the iconic puppet.
But making 'Sesame Street' the foundation of their defense is a dated and suspect tactic for the defenders of public broadcasting — and not only because Bert and Ernie's home has long since migrated to HBO, nor even because newer, commercially produced children's programming such as the 'Octonauts' (ecology and sea life) and ' Bluey' (creative solutions to problems) clearly have educational dimensions once confined to 'Sesame Street.'
The limits of using 'Sesame Street' as the justification for public broadcasting goes back further. It can be found in the single best (and under-appreciated) evaluation of the program's impact on young children, a 2015 National Economics Journal paper by economist Melissa Kearney and Philip Levine, 'Early Childhood Education by Television: Lessons from Sesame Street.'
In a clever analysis reminiscent of Freakonomics, Kearney and Levine examined the effect of this show in its early days by using a long-forgotten aspect of television technology. Since many households were unable to receive PBS if they lacked Ultra High Frequency (UHF) televisions in the pre-cable era, it was possible to compare education effects in areas where 'Sesame Street' was available and where it was not. It was what the economists call a natural experiment.
On one level, the impact of the program was strikingly positive. It did a good job of preparing young children to be ready for school and to start their education at 'grade-level.' According to Kearney and Levine, exposure to 'Sesame Street' in the early 1970s 'led to positive impacts on the educational performance of the generation of children who experienced their preschool years when Sesame Street was introduced in areas with greater broadcast coverage.'
That's exactly the sort of finding PBS likes to promote. But the Kearney-Levine paper also reached a less positive conclusion: that the positive impact of 'Sesame Street' was not sustained.
Indeed, the data can be interpreted, they say, to conclude that 'any effect of the show on either academic achievement or socio-emotional development had completely faded by the time a child reached the latter stages of his or her high school career.' No one who has followed the decline of student proficiency in recent years should be surprised by that result.
Nor can we even be certain that 'Sesame Street' caused the positive results in the analysis. Numerous studies have found that parental involvement with children, whether through shared activities, reading aloud or homework help, is the secret sauce in promoting success in school. A Journal of Educational Psychology study concludes that 'family involvement in school should be a central aim of practice and policy solutions to the achievement gap between lower and higher income children.' A study in the journal Family Issues found that parental involvement led to 'positive growth in children's attention, persistence, motivation to learn, and receptive vocabulary; and decreased problem behaviors.'
Even a more recent study done for PBS made clear that the goal of a math education through 'family engagement' was key to any positive impact.
'Sesame Street' was a bona fide phenomenon when it was introduced in 1969. There is every reason to believe that parents were inspired to watch it with their kids — in other words, it sparked parental involvement. Indeed, it may be that watching almost any age-appropriate program with an 'involved adult' would be a boost. For example, my wife and I found that explaining the cultural references in 'The Simpsons' was a great way to teach American history at home.
In that context, it's worth noting that Kearney, the MIT-trained economist who co-authored the 'Sesame Street' study, has attracted far more attention of late for her new book. In it she writes that 'the decline in marriage and the corresponding rise in one-parent homes has widened the gap in opportunities and outcomes for children of different backgrounds and today poses economic and social challenges we cannot afford to ignore.' Parental involvement is inevitably less likely when there is only one parent at home.
This is not a 'Sesame Street' message, it is worth noting. A segment titled, 'It Takes a Street' features a video montage of various types of families, with a background song proclaiming that 'people living together, loving each other, that's what makes a family.'
There may be reasons not to defund PBS and NPR. But 'Sesame Street' is not one of them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's big bill could affect your taxes
President Trump's bill to cut taxes and spending centers on an extension of his previous round of tax cuts, which Republicans slated for expiration at the end of this year back in 2017. As such, it will preserve the status quo on many big parts of the code so that taxpayers won't see any change in things like the amount of money the government takes out of their paychecks. Other tax cuts in the legislation now moving through Congress will be brand new, though most of the new additions are scheduled to end after a few years. Here's a look at some of the big-ticket items in the latest round of GOP tax cuts. Trump's 2017 tax law cut many individual income tax rates, and those would continue into the future through the current legislation. Under current law and moving up the income spectrum, marginal rates are 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. The new GOP law will lock those rates in place. The extension of those rates will reduce federal revenues by $2.2 trillion through 2034, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). If they were allowed to lapse, rates would change to 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. Only the 10-percent and 35-percent rates were left alone by the 2017 tax cuts. Trump in recent weeks floated letting the top rate go back to 39.6 percent from 37 percent as a way to lower the $3.8 trillion cost of the bill's tax portion, but he has since backed away from that idea. The law preserves — and temporarily boosts — the higher standard deduction, which was nearly doubled back in 2017. The new boost is $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for couples filing jointly and will last for four years. This is paired with getting rid of personal exemptions, making tax filing simpler for many taxpayers. In 2024, the standard deduction was $14,600 for individuals and $29,200 for married couples. The higher standard deduction is projected to reduce revenues by $1.3 trillion through 2034. The loss of personal exemptions will add $1.9 trillion to federal revenues, resulting in a net revenue gain between the two measures. The bill creates a temporary full deduction for tips and overtime pay, allowing taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on those types of compensation. Taken together, the tax breaks will reduce revenues by about $164 billion through 2028 when they expire. People who work in the restaurant industry say they're concerned that the tax break will motivate customers to pay fewer gratuities, since tipping is left to the discretion of individual shoppers and diners as opposed to being a component of the employer-paid wage. 'I'm afraid that people are going to want to tip less with that income not being taxed,' one New York City bartender, who asked not to be named, told The Hill. The person also expressed concern that the no-tips rule could add to tensions in his restaurant between the front-of-house staff, who work for tips, and the kitchen staff, who do not. 'In the industry, the bigger concern is, why would the front-of-house not pay taxes when the back-of-house will still be paying taxes because they don't get tips?' the person said. Tax experts told The Hill the measures could add to the amount of paperwork that tax filers — both employers and employees — need to fill out, depending on how the IRS interprets the law and modifies its regulations and forms. The law gives an additional $4,000 tax break to seniors below a certain income threshold, which would be added to the $15,000 standard deduction and an already existing $2,000 deduction for seniors. Trump promised while campaigning to remove taxes on Social Security, which is funded through a payroll tax and then taxed again, above an income threshold, upon disbursal to bolster the Social Security fund along with Medicare. The enhanced deduction for seniors is a close substitute for the Social Security tax cancellation promised by Trump but is technically a different tax. According to congressional rules, the Social Social program cannot be altered through budget reconciliation, which is the legislative workaround Republicans are using to allow a party-line vote on their bill and avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Republicans haven't agreed on the most controversial provision of their tax bill — the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — but they're getting close. The initial proposal from the Ways and Means Committee raised the cap to $30,000, but members of the SALT caucus shot it down. Another proposal floated late Tuesday would bump the SALT deduction cap up to $40,000 — four times the current $10,000 cap — for people making $500,000 or less in income, three sources told The Hill. That level would increase by 1 percent a year over 10 years, according to one of the sources. Whatever they agree to, it will be expensive. Various estimates from the JCT put the cost of canceling the cap — which is a top priority for many blue-state Republicans — at around $1 trillion over 10 years. The SALT cap interacts with different parts of the tax code, including the higher standard deduction and the extended effective repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which costs more than $1.4 trillion in revenues. 'Even if you live in a place like New York, the combination of repealing the AMT and the $10,000 SALT cap was actually still positive for you. You were better off with the SALT cap because you lost the AMT than you would have been if the law hadn't happened at all,' Tax Policy Center senior fellow Howard Gleckman told The Hill. 'It was actually a good deal for people,' Gleckman said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the borderor sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's conservative allies warn Congress faces critical 'test' with $9.4B spending cut proposal
Some of the White House's conservative House allies say they're interpreting the upcoming vote on President Donald Trump's $9.4 billion spending cut proposal as a "test" of what Congress can achieve in terms of rolling back federal funding. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he would not speak for members of the Trump administration but added, "I do think it is a test." "And I think this is going to demonstrate whether Congress has the fortitude to do what they always say they'll do," Roy said. "Cut the minimal amount of spending – $9 billion, NPR, PBS, things you complain about for a long time, or are they going to go back into their parochial politics?" House GOP leaders unveiled legislation seeking to codify Trump's spending cut request, known as a rescissions package, on Friday. It's expected to get a House-wide vote sometime next week. Meet The Trump-picked Lawmakers Giving Speaker Johnson A Full House Gop Conference "The rescissions request sent to Congress by the Trump Administration takes the federal government in a new direction where we actually cut waste, fraud, and abuse and hold agencies accountable to the American people," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement introducing the bill. Read On The Fox News App The legislation would claw back funding that Congress already appropriated to PBS, NPR, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – cuts outlined by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year. And while several Republican leaders and officials have already said they expect to see more rescissions requests down the line, some people who spoke with Fox News Digital believe the White House is watching how Congress handles this first package before deciding on next steps. "You're dead right," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked if the rescissions package was a test. "I think that it's a test case – if we can't get that…then we're not serious about cutting the budget." A rescissions package only needs simple majorities in the House and Senate to pass. But Republicans in both chambers have perilously slim majorities that afford them few defections. Republicans are also racing the clock – a rescissions package has 45 days to be considered otherwise it is considered rejected and the funding reinstated. Mike Johnson, Donald Trump Get 'Big, 'Beautiful' Win As Budget Passes House Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, did not directly say whether he viewed the spending cuts as a test but dismissed any potential concerns. "This is very low-hanging fruit, and I don't anticipate any problems," Gooden told Fox News Digital. "I've heard a few comments in the media, but I don't think they're serious comments. If someone on the Republican side can make a case for PBS, but they won't take a tough vote against illegal immigration, then we've got a lot of problems." Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), told Fox News Digital last week, "This first rescissions package from President Trump is a test as to whether Congress has the ability to deliver on his mandate by canceling wasteful spending through a filibuster-proof process." "If they can't then it's a signal for the president to turn up the dial with other tools at his disposal," Winfree, who served as Director of Budget Policy in the first Trump administration, said. Both Roy and Norman suggested a process known as "pocket rescissions" could be at least one backup plan – and one that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has floated himself. "Pocket rescissions" essentially would mean the White House introduces its spending cut proposal less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. In theory, it would run out the clock on those funds and allow them to expire whether Congress acted or not. Vought told reporters after meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday that he wanted to "see if it passes" but was "open" to further rescissions packages. "We want to send up general rescissions bills, to use the process if it's appropriate, to get them through the House and the Senate," Vought said. "We also have pocket rescissions, which you've begun to hear me talk a lot about, to be able to use the end of the fiscal year to send up a similar rescissions, and have the funds expire. So there's a lot of things that we're looking at." Still, some moderate Republicans may chafe at the conservative spending cuts. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., refused to comment on whether he'd support the legislation before seeing the details but alluded to some concerns. "Certainly I'm giving you a non-answer right now until I read the details," Bacon said. "It does bother me because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they've been great to work with, and so that would be one I hope they don't put in." He also raised concerns about some specific USAID programs, including critical investments to fight Ebola and HIV in Africa. The legislation is expected to come before the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most legislation sees a House-wide vote, on Tuesday afternoon. It's separate from Trump's "one big, beautiful bill," a broad piece of legislation advancing the president's tax, energy, and immigration agenda through the budget reconciliation article source: Trump's conservative allies warn Congress faces critical 'test' with $9.4B spending cut proposal
