Conservatives have been trying to get rid of the NEA ( National Endowment for the Arts ) for decades, and most liberals understand why. Conservatives don't like government spending in general, they certainly don't like or giving money to liberal artistic types, and they become absolutely incensed when they find out that their tax dollars are being used to fund art that they find sacrilegious ( see Christ, Piss ).
The NEA has been in the news again lately because President Trump has made it clear that he'd like to completely eliminate the NEA. I'm completely against Trump's plan for the NEA because he clearly has no intention of diverting the $148 million of NEA funds to any worthwhile projects. He either intends to give that $148 million to the well-off in the form of tax breaks, or if his latest military spending plan is to believed, he might use that $148 millions on some additional weapons that we do not really need.
All, that said, if I had to power to control the federal budget, I'd divert all the NEA funds to something like the food stamps program tomorrow.
I know a lot of people who love the arts ( as well as many talented artists in various fields ), so I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but I honestly feel that a strong liberal argument can be made for eliminating the NEA and diverting its funds to more worthwhile programs.
Before going forward, I want to make it clear that I'm by no means anti-art. I enjoy art in many forms, and while I don't have much of what most people would consider to be traditional "artistic" talent, I do hope that some of my own modest artistic endeavors ( poetry in high school and college; this blog; the 120 or so YouTube videos I've produced; the several small plays I wrote, directed, and acted in for my kids' birthday parties; scores of songs of song parodies I wrote for YouTube/parties ( and about a thousand more I've created at the spur of the moment to make my kids laugh ) ) have brought at least a little bit of joy to at least a few people.
I'm also writing this to the background music of my kids' trumpet playing. Between the trumpet, the piano, and occasionally the guitar, my kids fill the house with music on a daily basis. I can certainly understand how art enriches people's lives because it enriches my life every day.
However, while I have no issue with art itself, I do have an issue with how some art is funded and who that art benefits.
I did a little research into how the NEA allocates money and that $148 million is spread thin enough across the nation that no single project or organization gets a lot of it. I wasn't able to find a good breakdown of where the money goes specifically, but from I've read it seems that some goes to relatively small grants to individual artists and artistic projects, some goes to states and cities to allocate as they please, and least some percentage of it goes to art education.
Regardless of exactly what percentage of the money goes where, this NEA funding undoubtedly brings more art into the world - certainly more than would have existed without this NEA funding. As I considered that earlier today, I asked myself "Who actually benefits from all the extra art the NEA brings into the world?"
The simplest answer to that question is "people who like art". So, who likes art? Well, any specific person can love any kind of art, but in general some groups of people spend more of their leisure time enjoying art than others.
Think for a moment about the people you know who actually dedicate some of their free time to enjoying art. Think about the people in your life who go to art galleries, who occasionally purchase pieces of art, who enjoy opera or ballet performances, or might go to a performance of their local symphony. What do all these people have in common? Well, the vast majority of these people are well-off. Most of them may not be what you would consider "rich", but most have at least an upper-middle glass income.
So, if the NEA funding brings more art into the USA, and the people who are most likely to enjoy this art are well-off, then some of the NEA funding is being used to subsidize the entertainment of the well-off.
I realize that criticizing the NEA for benefiting the rich is a rather big generalization, and I certainly understand that not all NEA funding is benefiting people with lots of money. I understand that it benefits struggling artists and music education and there are plenty of poor and working class people who love art. However, there is no denying that some forms of art can be expensive to consume and the primary consumers of that kind of art ( opera, ballet, symphonies, art sales ) are people who have incomes far higher than the average American. Some NEA funding does subsidize the art the high-income Americans consume, and those subsidies almost certainly make that art slightly cheaper to consume.
Perhaps the NEA funding that benefits the wealthy is only a small percentage of the NEA's budget ( as noted above, I was never able to find a breakdown of what money goes where ), but even if it is just a little bit of money, the thought of using public money to fund something the most privileged people are the biggest consumers of rubs me the wrong way.
I understand that entertainment and enrichment are an important element of a full life, but why should "fine art" that caters to a richer clientele get public funds while entertainment like soap operas and sitcoms do not. When I was growing up in a middle class neighbor well all watched stuff like "Happy Days" and "One Life to Live" for entertainment, but very few of us spent any time at the ballet or an art gallery.
Now, don't get my wrong, I'm not saying "blue collar" entertainment like "The Jerry Springer Show" or pro football teams should get government funding ( I've always been complete against public funding for sports stadiums, and I also believe the companies should not be able to write of the cost of stadium luxury boxes as a "business expense" ). I really don't think any form of entertainment should get government funding when kids across the nation are still going to bed hungry.
Also, just because I think supporting the arts isn't the most valuable thing we could be doing with federal funds, doesn't mean I don't think art brings value to society. Art bring lots of joy to many people, and I think there are plenty of private donors who would be willing to increase their own personal donations to the arts if the NEA ceased to exists. After, we are are only taking about $148 million a year. It would only take 30 million people donating $5 a year to replace the funding of the NEA. I can think of few rich patrons of the arts who would certainly chip in millions of dollars to help the arts if NEA funding dried up. There has always been a tradition of patronage for the arts and I don't see why that tradition could not continue to fund the kinds of art projects that the NEA currently supports. I'd much rather have NEA-style art projects be sponsored by a new private charity funded by the rich and the well-off than by federal money that could be used to help the less fortunate in our nation. Of course, if I was friends with some billionaires I'd probably encourage them to donate millions to help people in 3rd world countries with food/water issues rather than donating to art projects, but I'd be fine if they donated to the arts if they were passionate about the arts.
I know that some my liberal artistic friends are probably unhappy with me right now, and I can't say that I'd blame then if they told me I was full of shit. To be honest, the idea of making a liberal case to eliminate the NEA just popped into my head today, and I'm still not 100% sure it is is a good idea. However, I do firmly believe that it is an idea that is at least worth discussing, so I've decided to stir the pot a little bit and put my crazy idea out into the world.
I can already anticipate what some the the questions/objections might be from some of my friends, so I'm going to spend the rest of this post trying answer at least some of the questions I think my readers might have for me.
Q: What the fuck Rich? Seriously, what the fuck! Don't do Trump's work for him.
A: As I stated earlier in this post, I do not support Donald Trump's plan to eliminate the NEA. If I was a member of Congress, I would not vote in support of any Trump/Ryan budget that eliminated the NEA. I'm not going to vote for any budget that eliminates the NEA funding and puts that money in the pockets of the rich. However, if I happen to find myself sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives when President Warren is in charge, I'm going to propose moving NEA funding to something like food stamps on day 1.
Q: No, seriously, what the fuck Rich? Don't you realize that the NEA budget us a tiny part of the federal budget. I don't even think anyone ever quotes the amount of the federal budget in terms of tenths of a billion. The $148 million NEA budget is nothing more than a rounding error when it comes to the federal budget. Don't you realize the USA Defense budget is so bloated that it is bigger than the combined defense budgets the 11 countries that are 2 to 12 on the list of the biggest defense budgets. You could cut $100 billion from the our nations's defense spending, and our defense spending would still be more than three times as great as China's defense spending ( China is the number 2 country on this list ). You should divert $100 billion of defense spending to more worthwhile programs before you touch a penny of NEA money.
A: If I was in charge of the federal budget, I would certainly divert $100 billion or so of defense spending to more worthy projects ( food stamps, school lunches, Head Start, infrastructure, college aid, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran's benefits, etc. ), but I would still also divert the $148 million of NEA funding to the same kinds of worthy projects. Why? Well, I'll try my best to illustrate why using the following analogy:
Let's pretend you are cashier in a grocery store in a poor neighborhood. Let's also pretend that you are a bit of an asshole, and occasionally steal from pennies from some customers by shorting them on change and pocketing the difference. You deposit those pennies in your bank account, and occasionally use that money to buy a song on iTunes when your ill-gotten gains grow large enough. So, you are stealing a little money from the poor and are using it to be buy a little bit of art.
However, even if somebody ever noticed your penny filching, it would be a small concern compared to what was going on just outside the store. For about a year, a thief has been preying on the store customers and stealing bags of groceries from them when they leave the store.
So, the thief if doing a lot more damage than you, but if your conscience every gets to you about your penny stealing, you wouldn't say to yourself "I'm not going to stop stealing these pennies until that thief stops stealing groceries." On the contrary, if you knew these poor people were still getting robbed outside the store on a regular basis, it would be even more immoral for you to steal pennies from the potential victims of these thefts than it would be if the thief didn't exist.
So, yeah, I was in Congress, I'd fight to divert defense spending to more worthy projects, but I'd also fight to divert NEA spending regardless of how the fight the divert defense spending went.
Q: How far are you will to take this? You do realize that the NEA isn't the only example of federal spending that goes to the arts. Do you want to get rid of all of it? Do you want to get rid of Smithsonian? What about the Smithsonian?
A: Ummmm....
Uhhhhhh....
My wife asked me this question when I mentioned the topic of my blog post for this month, and I still don't have a good answer to the the question.
On the one hand, there are lots of homeless people in DC, and Smithsonian buildings could certainly function as a really big homeless shelter. If the art in the museums were sold, they could certain pay for a lot of meals.
On the other hand, the Smithsonian museums are free to everyone, rich and poor alike. Of course, many poor people could not afford a vacation to DC, but there are still plenty of lower-income people in or near DC that could enjoy all of the Smithsonian's free exhibits. Also, the Smithsonian is a huge tourist attraction that probably helps generate a lot tax revue for DC.
I think I'd like to keep the Smithsonian around ( or more accurately, the federal funding that keeps it free - the Smithsonian Institute probably would have enough money to run those museums independent of the federal government if they charged entrance fees ), even though I know that might conflict with my willingness to throw the NEA under the bus. I don't know - I'd probably feel differently if the Smithsonian charged entrance fees, but considering that they don't I kinda feel like the Smithsonian museums are a national resource like the national parks.
In any case, I'm not claiming to know all the answers - I just wanted to ask a question. I eagerly anticipate hearing what my readers think the best answer is.
Rich
