My father told me when I applied for and received my first credit card never to use it to buy groceries. I was already out of college and working full time (back in the 80′s credit cards were not handed out willy-nilly as they seem to have been in later decades). I don’t quite remember the circumstances but his admonishment stayed with me for many years. It’s not that he was against using credit – not at all. But within his words was a cautionary tale – if I had to go into debt for basic necessities of life I needed to rethink my spending habits.
So when Mitt Romney was reported to have said that PBS should have ads I wondered along with @PaulB67 if this was “the end of life as we know it, or a reasonable idea for #PBS funding?” Romney’s litmus test (if I can call it that):
During an appearance in Clinton, Iowa, Romney said “My test is — is a program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”
How simple and elegant a solution. Isn’t that the question we (should) ask ourselves before spending money on extras when money and credit is tight? And I don’t mean to demean the value of PBS – I love PBS. But I have been lately immersed in the notion of sustainability – particularly as it applies to the social enterprise. If PBS could become self-sustaining, shouldn’t it? And could it do so and maintain the quality and diversity of programming we have long enjoyed?
Secured by