Burton's primary objection was that "it's for the children" and we need to educate "all the children."
See, I always thought that was what schools are for, not television, but Mr. Burton seems to be quite passionate stating that subsidizing the Bird is truly the root of educating lower income children.
O'Reilly did not argue with Burton, simply praising him for his "eloquence" and "passion" for his defense of borrowing money from China to pay taxpayer subsidies of puppets.
I think now is a good time to remind Mr. Burton and all the Leftists that tax breaks and subsidies are different.
A tax break is offered to offset the costs of doing and starting businesses; tax breaks also serve to curb or discourage certain behaviors.
Subsidies are handouts from the government when an enterprise cannot seem to make it on its own, pull its weight or have enough appeal to a broad audience that will support it.
Radicals want to fund education through an oil tax (yes, it's true. California).
These same radicals claim we need to end subsidies for oil, upon which our nation runs and our structure depends, while at the same time subsidizing wind energy and education at vastly greater amounts.
Unfortunately oil companies do not actually receive subsidies, as do wind and solar energy initiatives. They receive tax breaks, not unusual for any business, especially one so necessary to free enterprise.
So, Mr. Burton.
Yeah, we pay taxes (and a lot of them!) to educate children, particularly in the inner city where Head Start (which has proven to be ineffectual) so we really don't need to borrow even more money to keep Big Bird in diapers. He can do that himself.
Now, the quality of education children are receiving in school is a different story.
And if Mr. Burton were honest, he'd have to admit that that is a whole different set of problems.