A significant percentage of grants benefit those who have fewer opportunities to participate in the arts:
• 65 percent of Arts Endowment grants go to small and medium sized organizations, which tend to support projects that benefit audiences that otherwise might not have access to arts programming. • 40 percent of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty neighborhoods. • 36 percent of Arts Endowment grants go to organizations that reach underserved populations such as people with disabilities, people in institutions, and veterans. • More than half of NEA-funded art events take place in locations where the median household income is less than $50,000.
Oh, that's why. Anything that benefits the poor in any way is something they'll fight against on principle.
Not to derail, but this reminds me of mass transit. Other issues aside, I know of at least two conservative-leaning folks who will oppose any and all mass transit initiatives or improvements, basing their decision solely on the idea that folks who are too poor to afford a car + insurance should not be allowed to ‘get anything’ partially funded by taxes that would allow them to have an alternative transportation method. It’s both a strangely myopic and weirdly punitive attitude.
I have trouble getting excited over the arts-funding issue. I find most of the arguments pro and con to be within the realm of reasonableness. Is supporting the arts a core function of the federal government? I'd say no. Should we only fund the core functions of the federal government? I'd say it depends on what the voters choose.
I don't find the "it's only a small percentage of the budget" argument to be persuasive. It's like they say: a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:I have trouble getting excited over the arts-funding issue. I find most of the arguments pro and con to be within the realm of reasonableness. Is supporting the arts a core function of the federal government? I'd say no. Should we only fund the core functions of the federal government? I'd say it depends on what the voters choose.
I don't find the "it's only a small percentage of the budget" argument to be persuasive. It's like they say: a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
My issue is that it has been funded for almost nothing since 1965 and yet Republicans pretend as if 1) it is a reason why the deficit is so high and 2) if they defund something like this, then suddenly they earn the right to call themselves fiscal conservatives who strive for small government.
Never mind the mind blowing $4.75 trillion budget they'll support because of Lord Trump's insistence. They don't want to be called names on Twitter so they'll support it.
Res Ipsa wrote:I have trouble getting excited over the arts-funding issue. I find most of the arguments pro and con to be within the realm of reasonableness. Is supporting the arts a core function of the federal government? I'd say no. Should we only fund the core functions of the federal government? I'd say it depends on what the voters choose.
I don't find the "it's only a small percentage of the budget" argument to be persuasive. It's like they say: a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
My issue is that it has been funded for almost nothing since 1965 and yet Republicans pretend as if 1) it is a reason why the deficit is so high and 2) if they defund something like this, then suddenly they earn the right to call themselves fiscal conservatives who strive for small government.
Never mind the mind blowing $4.75 trillion budget they'll support because of Lord Trump's insistence. They don't want to be called names on Twitter so they'll support it.
I understand. I suspect there’s some virtue signaling in some of the expressed opposition.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951