Contrary to popular opinion, Big Bird is not an endangered species. Neither is that stupid purple dinosaur named Barney. In fact, any show or character with an appreciable audience will most certainly survive.

What I'm referring to, of course, is the absurd notion by many in the media and on the left that elimination of public subsidies to "non-profit" organizations will eradicate valuable public services. The organizations in question include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS and National Public Radio), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).

In response to the assertion by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and others that these organizations may be cut off from the public trough, the panicky squeals from liberals and their allies in the press have become almost deafening. Indeed, The Daily Collegian was flooded with letters, including its own editorial, forecasting a cultural doomsday.

Big Bird need not worry, however. "Sesame Street" currently generates $800 million from marketing of its characters. "Barney" products are pulling in $84 million. These two shows alone are raking in almost a billion dollars, which hardly sounds like something that will meet its demise when subjected to fair competition.

The Collegian argued about how the "nonprofit arts world" will bring in $3.4 billion in federal taxes. This seems to indicate that there is no reason to think that the strongest assets of the NEA and NEH will have any problem in a free market competition.

Big Bird is just a tool the liberals use to appeal to the nation's compassion, since they know that programs like "Sesame Street" aren't really in danger. Why, then, are the liberals so worried? There are three main arguments they give.

First, their advocates like to state that these organizations take in only a small proportion of their funds from the federal government, so cuts will hardly dent the deficit. For instance, they give the fact that PBS gets only 14 percent of its budget from federal funds and that the NEA's budget is only $167 million. If we are ever to tackle this deficit, though, everything, no matter how small it is, must be put on the table. Besides, "little" things like $167 million add up after a while. It is not the government's money, anyway; it is ours, the taxpayers' money.

Supporters point to a claim that these are some of the most efficiently run organizations in the government as the second explanation. However, reports indicate that 75 cents of every dollar they spend is spent on overhead.

Finally, they cry about all of the "quality" programs we'll lose because they won't be represented in the market. Let me just say that as I was growing up, I spent much time watching PBS and its nature and science shows such as "NOVA." In fact, I still enjoy them. These are indeed quality programs. Discovery and A&E are excellent examples of how this type of programming can succeed in the free marketplace. The difference is that these latter two stations make their money through commercials, by those who want to watch them, instead of through taxpayer money and the painful "Beg-a-Thons" they call "Pledge Week."

The real worry of the elites is that the liberal propaganda in these "nonprofit" organizations will no longer be represented. Well, they're right! These despicable, anti-establishment, anti-American, and sometimes downright immoral and grotesque programming and "art" will not survive in the free market. No one wants to see an AIDS-infected man's back get carved up and then have his blood-soaked rags dripped over the audience in the name of art. Similarly, no one wants to hear the multicultural, revisionist history they shove at us on PBS. The loss of this taxpayer-funded garbage won't offend anyone but those few downtrodden liberals.

Many liberals, including President Clinton, talk about the need for a leftist Rush Limbaugh to counter the conservative trend. They just don't get it; in the battle of ideas, liberal socialism can't hold its own in open competition with the American principles embodied by the conservative ideology.