Small stations such as KEET in Eureka, Calif., could face big challenges because of their heavy reliance on government funds. (Photo Courtesy of KEET)

Big Bird and the rest of the Sesame Street gang have been entertaining kids for more than 40 years on public television stations nationwide. But the yellow-feathered fowl and the rest of the show’s assorted menagerie might soon be dancing and singing on fewer television sets, as public television faces perhaps the biggest threat to its government funding in decades.

Patrick Butler, who heads public television’s lobby in Washington, recognizes that he faces a tough fight. “We have to understand that the government is in economic challenge, and we don’t think we’re immune from any possible budget cutting,” he said. Butler, whose formal title is president and chief executive of the Association of Public Television Stations, hopes to convince Congress to at least leave some money on the table. “What we’re saying is that we do provide value to your constituents, and we don’t want to be disproportionately cut, or defunded altogether.”

Even minor cuts could have a catastrophic effect on smaller stations that provide both national and local programming to rural areas. Ron Schoenherr, executive director of KEET in Eureka, Calif., said a reduction of just $10,000, or less than 2 percent of last year’s taxpayer grant to KEET, would result in canceled programming. Deeper cuts could have a devastating effect.

“We’re already into furloughs,” Schoenherr said. “Beyond that we don’t know if we can continue to do what we’re expected to do, or even operate.”

Ever since the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, was created by Congress in 1967, it has been the target of conservative politicians who argued that the government has no business funding the “liberal” media. Yet despite numerous attempts, the CPB has escaped budget battles relatively unscathed, suffering only one funding cut in the last 15 years.

But this year is different. The firing of National Public Radio commentator Juan Williams in October angered conservatives, who renewed their calls for the defunding of the CPB. Then, in November, candidates pledging to make steep cuts in government spending swept the Republicans into control of the House of Representatives. With reductions in big-ticket budget items like defense and entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare considered politically risky, the CPB’s $420 million budget is a ripe target.

And while past attempts to cut CPB funding generally split along party lines, with more Democrats coming to its defense, this time spending cuts are garnering broader bipartisan support. In November, President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended cutting funding for the CPB altogether.  On Feb. 14, President Obama, viewed as a staunch ally of public broadcasting, announced his budget which would increase funding to the CPB by $6 million for 2012, but also included a proposal to cut $25 million in other funding meant for equipment improvement for stations.  The proposal is only a starting point for the budget debate; the previous week, the House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers, R-Ky., proposed eliminating the CPB budget entirely.

A complicated funding model for public broadcasting was designed to protect stations from government meddling. Federal money does not go directly to the stations. Instead, Congress appropriates funds two years in advance to the CPB, which is a private nonprofit corporation. It in turn distributes most of the money to more than 1,100 television and radio stations nationwide.

Even though the appropriation to the CPB for fiscal year 2011 was approved more than two years ago, Congress can cancel part or all of the allocation through a process called rescission, meaning that funds that have been budgeted — and essentially spent by stations — can suddenly be taken away. Public television stations would face the toughest challenge if this happened because television is much more expensive to produce than radio and local television stations rely on the CPB grants for a much larger percentage of their budgets.

For smaller stations in particular, this would be especially traumatic because many receive upwards of 40 percent of their budgets from CPB grants. Those funds have an even bigger impact because they are crucial for local fundraising. “That money serves as seed money for raising money as well as for garnering local support, being there as a vote of confidence that public television is one of the most trusted sources in media,” said Marianne Potter, president of KSMQ in Austin, Minn.

If cuts do occur, local programming would be the first major item to be axed, the station managers said. This can lead to a downward spiral of diminished funding, according to Bill Sanford, general manager of LPTV in Bemidji, Minn. “Without any local service, the local support would tend to dry up,” he said.

Not all station managers are pessimistic. Norm Silverstein, president and CEO of the WXXI stations in Rochester, N.Y., believes that the CPB funding will be spared, despite the threat. “We are rallying our troops around the country,” he said.

Several station managers cited a 2010 poll conducted by GfK Roper for PBS that found that a majority of Americans consider public television to be the second most valuable tax-supported service after defense spending. “Our funding is not going to solve the deficit,” Silverstein said, adding, “it’s hardly a rounding error in the deficit.”

Steve Bass, president and CEO of Oregon Public Broadcasting, pointed to a past episode when state funding was cut and stations made up the difference through private donations. This time, however, many states are facing record budget deficits and private donations to charities are down 35 percent nationally.

Ron Schoenherr of KEET in California voiced a common concern among station managers when he said: “They’re a very giving community here, but the economy is not the best.”