that's good, obviously the state could afford it, unlike the federal government which spend 1.2 trillion more a year than it takes in.

Better come up with a bigger smoking gun than that

Why would these Republicans care...PBS is for people who actually want to learn something...Fox is where they go to become as polls, have shown, the most "uniformed" viewers of a so called news station. Don't be reporting facts Globe, spew right wing hate and these comment boards will be jammed with agreement.

The Glob's Wallace needs to go take a civics lesson that would teach him the difference between stae and federal governments. Gov. Romney made his Big Bird statement during a debate over presidential actions at the federal level. His signing a tax credit bill that includes WGBH was a state level issue and had nothing at all to do with either the federal tax code or the federal deficit. It may have had a bit to do with negative Massachusetts finances, but Wallace's treatment of it puts it in the mixing fresh fruit in the bowl with the deteriorating skate (the fish).

PBS came into the picture before there was The History Channel, Discover Channel, Bravo and about dozens off similar stations. It's time to move on

Though I am a liberal, I still have to take some issue with the tone of this article.  There is a difference between line item support for PBS and signing a bill that is intended as an global entertainment industry tax break.  Whether I agree with it or not (I actually don't), Romney signed off on a budget item he believed would benefit the state and WGBH, among other business concerns, benefitted from its terms.  Perhaps it was done as stealth support for public broadcasting (questionable).  But I still get the sense this writer is trying to tar Mitt with being hypocritical:   that would be pushing too far from the information presented. 

“The federal funding is really important,” said Hopkins of WGBH. Without it, “the whole system would be in jeopardy.” Baloney! Any funding shortfall would be replaced by additional private and corporate donations. Ted Kelly could pay the fed's share of WGBH with two months salary.

What a strange article. Is the point that this is evidence that Romney is a hypocrite, because as governor of Massachusetts he SIGNED a bill that came from Democrats in the legislature in an overwhelmingly Democrat state?  Seems more likely this is evidence that the Boston Globe has it's Republican attack machine working overtime and they are not finding much.

This article really muddies the issues. Romney said that he wants to cut funding for PBS. PBS is an educational and entertainment treasure for everyone. Like public libraries,public transportation,public parks, PBS is empowering and life-enhancing to people who access it and,therefore, in the eyes of a true "conservative" has to be defunded. Romney may have accidently or somehow allowed funding for PBS in the past but he has very recently said he wants to CUT FUNDING FOR PBS. He's ok with further tax cuts for the rich and higher taxes on the middle class but not for PBS funding.

Just showing the hypocrisy of the flipper.....

you have many rich individuals, like the ones that funded Pres. Obama campaign in Brookline this year and if they can affordf $37,500.00 PER plate fund raiser they should help PBS.  And the money for PBS can be used for our wounded veterans,   you know the one's coming home without legs & arms.

What the US needs is MUCH MORE PBS -- like the reputation the BBC has for being non-partisan, fair, reasonable, and, most of all, informative. There are many, many people in the US who are stupid, and many, many more who are reasonably intelligent, or even smart, but just suck up what they believe from others and are not capable of thinking very well for themselves. It goes without saying that, in addition, many of the things people believe (like most Human Beings) are pure superstition and myth.  As long as this is the case we need MUCH MORE PBS. It is simply obvious that you can't rely on cable and broadcast TV -- whose motives are to spend as little as possible researching things, publicize and emphasize the things that appeal to Human Nature, not to reason and logic (to the extent that individuals are able to pursue it), and, by doing that, MAKE AS UCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. There is nothing wrong with making money. It's just not the same as providiing information. Information is frequently boring, and entertainment is what makes money.

PBS could run some more programs to appeal to the right wing: How to Maintain Your Semiautomatic, Duck Hunting, Fishing, Building A Canoe, Food Canning and Storage, Catholic Belief, Protestant Belief, Computerizing Small Business, Advertising, ...

We do not need to spend $450 MILLION dollars a year to see Big Bird.  Let it fund itself.  They do a fair amount of that already.

OMG- The Globe is really desperate when dredging to find 'dirt' to throw at Gov. Mitt Romney.

Wallack is trying to make a connection between Gov. Romney's governing of a state known to be Democratic, with an 87% Democratic house, and different economy, with what was said in a debate speech(?) That appears to be the situation here.

Gov. Mitt Romney asked the question,"Does it make sense to borrow money from China to provide funding to PBS?"

The U.S. budget debate very relevant for the U.S. economic crisis - Someone needs to explain this to Obama - maybe John Kerry could try & make the point more clear to Obama.

Then perhaps there would be less smirking & scoffing from Obama & his Chicago gang.