F U N D I N G   T H E   A R T S

If we're going to pay for "the Arts," let's do it because it's the right thing to do--not because it's cheap.

I won't argue there. I wasn't stating my opinion on whether the arts should be funded or not...although I obviously have my opinion. What's yours? Should the government supoprt the arts...via the NEA and such?

Phrasing the question as "support the arts...via the NEA" is what we logic-minded types call a "leading question." *grin* It sort of presumes without evidence that what the NEA spends our income on qualifies as "art," doesn't it?

At any rate, although I enjoy being contrarian from time to time, this is one case where I find myself in agreement with the cultural conservatives. No, I do not believe the federal government (and probably state and local governments as well) should be spending public monies on "art."

Art is of necessity subjective. Art is about meaning, about internalizing reality to make it comprehensible, about being human. How does one measure that?

But the government has an obligation to use the money it takes only in ways that can clearly be shown to be of objective benefit to the people from whom that money is taken. The ability of citizens to provide for their families is a serious business; nothing should be permitted to diminish that ability unless it provides unmistakable benefits to everyone--and only benefits which can not or should not be provided by private citizens for themselves.

I think government spending on art fails to meet each of those criteria. Therefore we should not do it.

Please note that I am in no way suggesting that appreciating art isn't an important aspect of being fully human. What I'm saying is that such subjective aesthetic judgements ought to be left to private persons and organizations.

My conclusion: De-fund the NEA, the NEH, the CPB, NPR, PBS, and all the rest. If what they provided had value, we'll find a way to keep it (and probably improve it). If what they provided had no value, then we're better off not being forced to waste our money on it.

So. There you are.

What's your opinion on this? And why? (For what it's worth, I don't plan to jump up and down on your views should they differ from my own. I'm mostly curious to hear other viewpoints on this matter.)

I would take the opposition's arguments more seriously if they were proposing remedies rather than actual elimination.

You speak as if "the arts in America" was a problem which needed a remedy.

Not so.

Last year's NEA budget was $99.5 million. Does that seem like a lot to you or not?

If it doesn't... then losing it can't--by definition--hurt.

If it does... then how would you characterize the $10 BILLION in annual private philanthropic donations to the arts? How about when you add in the non-philanthropic sums spent every year on theater tickets and concert-music recordings, on ballet tickets and nights at the opera, on literary magazines and jazz festivals, and constant pledge drives?

How about if we consider what Hollywood produces as "art?" (A lot of folks in Hollywood--from whence came NEA chief Jane Alexander--certainly seem to do so.) Men In Black took in about $35 million last weekend. That's one movie, over one weekend.

Given all this, how is it possible to seriously claim that government subsidies are all that keep the arts alive in America?

Nor do federal arts subsidies fail solely on utilitarian grounds. On August 18, 1787, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina rose to speak at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. He urged that Congress be authorized to "establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences." His proposal was voted down immediately. As one delegate reminded the others--and as we apparently need to be reminded--the only legitimate role for government in the promotion of culture and the arts is "the granting of patents"--that is, protecting the right of authors and artists to profit from their creative effort. Picking winners and losers was a non-starter with the Founders... so when did we suddenly discover a constitutional mandate to do so? And where is it?

If it is acceptable (not to say desirable) for the federal government to reward certain artists, why not government-approved churches and newspapers as well? After all, if our government leaders are wise enough to know which artists to approve in order to promote "culture," then surely they are also wise enough to know which religions and news reporting organizations also improve society.

Or maybe not. Maybe those entrusted to operate our government should not be in the business of choosing favored artists for us with our money, just as we do not expect those trustees to choose our churches and information sources for us.

Bottom line: There is no credible evidence to believe that the arts will wither and die without the NEA, any more than any evidence exists to support a belief that there was no American art until 1965. It was a flawed idea then, and it has not improved with age.

Take it out behind the barn and shoot it.

"...it would be fine to have a Ministry of Fine Arts in this country. Then we'd know where the enemy is." -- American painter John Sloan

If you want to trim the federal budget (and I agree there's much to be trimmed), let's look at everything else as well.

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Put everything on the table. If some part doesn't clearly fulfill a direct constitutional mandate, it's history. All federal tax rates are frozen for five years or until the national debt is retired, whichever comes soomer. And after that, we pass the savings on to you!

Nice idea, anyway.

Last year's NEA budget was $99.5 million. Does that seem like a lot to you or not? If it doesn't... then losing it can't--by definition--hurt.

Sorry, the "definition" isn't there, Bart. Please explain how "not a lot" absolutely means "superfluous."

"Not a lot" means "superfluous" when the absence of the thing in question goes unnoticed.

There are differences between government providing a nominal funding level for promotion of art and culture, and for providing accessibility thereto for its citizenry, and government "approving" churches and newspapers, Bart, although you cloud them for your argument.

No. In fact, you ignore the real similarity.

Specifically, at this heart of this debate is whether political position confers special wisdom unavailable to private citizens. Only if it does can we justify allowing government, through its officials, to favor one cultural institution over another--and that means churches, newspapers, TV stations... and artists.

Otherwise, individuals--including you--ought to be free to make their own decisions as to what forms of cultural expression they will support.

Given all this, how is it possible to seriously claim that government subsidies are all that keep the arts alive in America?

It ain't what I claimed, Bart.

the arts won't die--just wither a bit.

Possibly, in which case we'll still be better off overall. Fine art is worthwhile... but not as important as liberty.

OTOH, it's also possible that "the arts" will improve without government elites sticking their thumbs on the balance scales. Given the quality of NEA decisions, private citizens deciding for themselves what to support can't do any worse.

They might even do better. Either way, I think the Union will survive if we risk returning a little power to the people.

And isn't risk-taking part of being an artist? *grin*

if I am not mistaken, neither PBS nor NPR is actually "owned" by the Government. They are private corporations, with IRC 501(c)(3) status. Their affiliates are generally owned by universities, some governmental and some private. Thus, they are not quite comparable to the government ownede media of which you speak.

That's a fair assessment. It's why I've tended to encapsulate "owned" in quotes, as you did above.

I think it's fair to do so, given the way the funding works. We say "follow the money" because we know that whoever controls the purse strings tends to control content; it's perfectly natural human behavior. So, as I see it, the spinning off of PBS and NPR as private corporations is essentially the same kind of "plausible deniability" dodge as Haley Barbour is being accused of doing with that alleged adjunct to the Republican National Committee.

If it's OK for us to suspect Barbour, then it must be OK for us to cast a critical eye over the CPB. The principle behind the suspicion is no different.

Is learning to program a computer = "producing software?" Well, if the program created in the learning experience is capable of being copied and transferred to another computer, yes.

You begin going astray here, which leads to rejecting the distinction between ideas and action which I think make funding art education different from funding art. Given that this is how I earn my living--and that the study of such things is an avocation as well as a vocation--I'm in a position to let you know that the correct answer was "no." (Tell me you're not suprised. *grin*)

Learning about programming, even if it entails developing actual software, does not a programmer make, any more than moot court practice entitles one to Bar membership. Or would you, if sued, be willing to retain a student for your defense?

Education--particularly at the college level--is not so much about learning how to do some particular thing as it is about ideas. One can learn to do something on the job, but to learn how and why a particular approach is used, and why it matters... these are, I would argue, far more important. They support thinking. And that seems to me a reasonable candidate for public funding (assuming that we're talking about real thinking and not the "identity politics" that passes for thought in some universities today).

But I don't think individual private action is a good candidate for public funding. If some action has public utility, people will be willing to voluntarily support that action financially, whether we're talking about computer programming, law... or art.

Needless to say, I'm not inclined to be swayed by the "commercialization degrades art" argument. *grin*

But I hope this helps clarify the thinking that led me to be willing to consider public funding of art education, though not some particular artistic expression.

Our bureaucrats practice their trade in buildings, and even these are architecturally planned -- complete with statuary, etc. to make them supposedly more beautiful. In fact, even the street layout of our nation's capitol was "planned" using government funds.

One notable exception to my complaint about government paid for art is the memorial in Washington, DC to the servicepeople who died in the Veitnam conflict. It is moving. Have you ever visited it?

In fact, I lived for a full decade a few miles outside of Washington, D.C.; I visited the Vietnam Memorial often.

Like you, I personally found it moving. In fact, I personally consider it "good art"... especially when compared to the hideous statuary (also paid for with public funds) just south of the western Smithsonian Metro exit on the Mall.

My point is that my personal preferences in art are immaterial. My choices about what I like and don't like could be reversed, and they would still have no bearing on the more fundamental question of whether "art for art's sake" is a proper subject for public funding.

Consider that a national capital area and the offices located there were considered a necessary part of a national government. As we required these things anyway, it was not inappropriate that we make them artistic. Thus L'Enfant's plan for the heart of the District of Columbia could be beautiful as well as functional.

But that's not what we're talking about when discussing the CPB, and the NEA, and the NEH, and so on. To call the products of these agencies "necessary" is to stretch that word to meaninglessness. I appreciate art--there is a painting in the National Gallery I liked so much that I not only dragged every one of my visiting friends to see it (and the other art displayed there), but I bought a full-size copy of it. But it is not sufficiently "necessary" that I would be justified in forcing you or anyone else to yield any part of the fruits of your labor that I might enjoy it. Nice as it is, it serves no purpose sufficiently important to justify overriding the principle that those who labor should be considered absolute masters of the rewards of that labor except where and when it is absolutely necessary to deprive them of it.

I honestly do not see any such justification for the arts endowments for which Americans are currently being taxed. It's possible that I am misinformed on some significant aspect of this issue, or have reached an incorrect logical conclusion using the information I have... but I do not believe either of those to be the case.

Thus, my conclusion that our government should get out of the business of the direct endorsement of particular cultural artifacts.

It's wrong.

Where campuses are taking public cash, they ought to be competing for it so that only the most potentially fruitful research paths get followed; to do otherwise is inefficient at best and immoral at worst.

Why are a handful of appointed officials considered more capable of deciding which parts of the art market to reward and which to penalize than the people who actually worked to earn the money being spent?

The problem with your argument is that it applies too universally. It also applies to the sciences. That would stop all truly fundamental research, all progress in mathematics, all astronomical work, and everything else not of "immediate" utility. Once that happens, the new development of useful items would lack the base upon which to build.

I've heard this one before. It sounds good... but, to put it politely, it lacks reasonable support.

It is at least as possible--if not more so--that businesses don't fund longer-term R&D at levels which would satisfy you because they don't have to so long as the federal government does it for them.

Suppose all federal spending on research was cut, and the money which had been diverted in the past to that use was left with the businesses and individuals whose labor generated it. Your theory seems to be that this money would somehow remain untapped, that despite the social value of long-term research, private organizations either would not or could not satisfy that need at or above current (i.e., federally-funded) levels.

So far as I can tell, this is the theory (though never expressed by those who consider it axiomatic) that underlies virtually all calls for preserving non-Constitutionally mandated federal funding programs.

(Not all, though. The same people who congratulate themselves for their "long-term thinking" when they defend something like the federal mohair subsidy--or welfare, or "education," or "international development" payoffs to socialist dictators--are often the same people who brush off serious concerns about multi-billion-dollar cuts to the first priority of a national government--national defense--with unexamined "peace dividend" PR guff.)

This "if the feds don't do it, it won't get done right" belief also appears to be the premise on which the defense of federal arts funding rests. Like all unsubstantiated beliefs, it's a rotten foundation on which to build a case for preserving either federal research subsidies or rewards to certain federally-favored artists and art groups.

And it still doesn't answer the question: Why are a handful of appointed officials considered more capable of deciding which parts of the art market to reward and which to penalize than the people who actually worked to earn the money being spent?

It is likely that NO significant "pure research" would be done if left to private enterprise. Why? ... The reasoning is that the managers of a corporation musr, absolutely MUST, take no action not reasonably calculated to result in profits, long or short term. "Pure" research is far too speculative for "reasonavble" expectations to exist.

That's an interesting argument. (You should know that that's one of the nicest things I say about views which dispute my own. *grin*)

I think one problem with it is that it presumes some bright line between what is "pure" research and what isn't. This gives corporate managers and directors more leeway to direct income to research than I believe you suggest.

The other problem with your argument is more fundamental; I think you minimize the effect of competition. Just because research results weren't being provided for "free" by the federally-funded academic institutions does not mean that the perceived business need for those results would vanish.

And markets evolve specifically to satisfy needs. I think it is short-sighted to say that, because we currently see no free market in "pure" research (because who can compete with the government?), none can exist. We've seen other markets evolve to satisfy needs, both private and public--so why not research as well?

It happens that I agree with what I think is your view that pure research is indeed a little different from other goods in that it's more of a long-term investment than other things are. But where I disagree with you is that I don't see this as a qualitative difference; in other words, I don't think pure research is sufficiently different in kind from other goods to exempt it from being satisfied by an evolving free market.

After all, companies match employee contributions in their own stock... and what is that if not a long-term investment?

That being given, I submit that while mistakes may well be made in some private opinions, the Government is every bit as able (or unable) to make the right judgements as to art to fund as it is to make judgements as to which "pure" research to fund.

Ah, but I don't give it. *grin*

No doubt you're familiar with the "Golden Fleece" awards instituted by Sen. William Proxmire, in which examples of federal research into such things as the sex lives of castrated mice (McGill, T.E. and Tucker, G.R. [1964], "Genotype and sex drive in intact and castrated male mice," Science, 145, p.514-515) and whether holy water makes plants grow (Lenington, S. [1979], "The effect of holy water on the growth of radish plants", Psychological Reports, 45, 381-382). Would private investment in research be able to do better?

I suspect so... and funding for art follows precisely the same line of reasoning.

Additionally, there is a difference between federal funding and private funding which your argument ignores, and that is the penalty for error. The reason why private spending should generally be preferred to public spending is not because private entities (individuals and businesses) are any wiser than public bureaucrats--it is because private entities, with less power, do respectively less damage when they're wrong. And because they do it to themselves, since it's their own money they're spending, not someone else's.

If you blow your own money on something stupid, you only hurt yourself. But when the government takes money from everybody to do something stupid, everyone gets hurt. Obviously it's in everyone's best interest to minimize stupidity... but given that 100 percent elimination is impossible, it's in everyone's best interest to spread the stupidity around so that it can do less damage.

This is why devolution is good, and why federal arts funding isn't. If you want to sponsor bad art, that should be your privilege... but it is inappropriate for you to expect me to help you pay for the expressions of that privilege which you favor, just as it would be wrong for me to expect you to subsidize artists I like.

I think subsidizing matters of taste is a profound misapplication of the power to tax.

considering the small amount of money involved here, Bart, I think that your reasoning carries much less weight than if we were talking about some really big-bucks items, like a new highway or a B-2. Sure, if the NEA were abolished, I could spend my portion of the savings on other arts. Or I could blow it all on an annual can of Diet Pepsi.

Once again, this argument blithely ignores principle in order to force individuals to help satisfy whatever those who make this argument personally feel is a public good.

OK, maybe the amount taxed annually to fund government-approved artists is a "small amount of money." So what? It's not your money. When we're talking necessary national requirements--national defense, law and order, the courts, programs that have an absolutely clear and Constitutionally mandated public purpose and which cannot or should not be controlled privately--that's one thing. It is reasonable to argue in support of public funding of these things, since everyone derives an equal and direct benefit from them. In fact, without them, there'd soon be no "public" left.

But non-mandatory public spending, spending that is not required by both law and necessity... this is spending directly out of the mouths of families, and it is wrong for any of us to insist that someone else be forced to pay for our beliefs of what we happen to think would be a public good.

It's wrong because it does for individuals what they can and should do for themselves. And anything that diminishes that capability of the members of a society is destructive of that society, no matter how wonderful the public good gained thereby may be.

Your intentions may be the best in the world; I don't for a moment question them. What I do question--and will continue to question until provided with a convincing response--is this willingness to simply assume that because the feds can do a thing, they should do that thing, even if it's not a fundamentally necessary justification for diminishing the ability of private citizens to provide that good for themselves.

Tell me: Do you think that private citizens are capable of making their own choices of what public goods to fund?

I think they are. That's why I disagree with federal arts funding. If you think they aren't, let's see your reasoning.

Are those who choose the public facilities--parks, libraries, etc.--over the commercial ones somehow the Undeserving or the Great Unwashed? No, not in my book.

In fact, it's just the opposite. Those who prefer to let those darn "market forces" shape our society are the ones considered to be the Great Unwashed.

Don't believe me? Here's National Endowment for the Arts chief Jane Alexander on the subject, as she commented to Congressional Quarterly when asked why a state like Arkansas would get turned down on 11 of 12 of the NEA grants it sought: "The arts, Alexander explained, are much like the apple industry. Most apples come from a few states with ripe growing conditions and are then shipped around the country for everyone to enjoy."

Did you get that? We hicks down here in the hinterlands should pay up and be grateful if one of the Enlightened from New York City or San Francisco deigns to send us'ns some Real Art. Why, good heavens, what are the chances that any of the yokels whose obligations are to pay taxes and shut up (or else) would think to sponsor fine examples of Real Art like the uplifting Mapplethorpe photos or the charming and completely apolitical "Sex With Newt Gingrich's Mother"?

Let's look at what the non "market forces" of the NEA have given us for our rube dollars.

The NEA's administrative costs are 20 percent of its funding. (Apparently it costs a lot to give the public's money away.)

A third of the NEA's direct grants go to only six cities: New York City, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington. (Hint: Where are there a lot of liberal, big-government voters?)

Democratic congressional districts get $3 in direct grants from the NEA for every $1 that goes to Republican districts. (Hint: Where are there a lot of liberal, big-government voters?)

A third of the country's congressional districts never get any direct funding from the NEA. (Well, you know those rednecks can't appreciate Real Art, anyway... even if they are forced to pay for it.)

A fifth of the NEA's grants go to arts organizations with multimillion-dollar budgets. ("Corporate welfare," anyone?)

You get the picture, I hope. The "public" arts funding as directed by those with the power to tax--and supposedly superior to pure market forces--generates condescension, diminished family income, waste, and political payoffs.

And that's on top of ignoring the principle that the federal government has no business doing "good"; it ought to be limited to the promotion of freedom, peace, and justice--and that's it. Anything else does more harm than good because it diminishes the ability of private citizens to be responsible for the promotion of civil good.

That's why no one is answering my question asking for a rationale by which any money at all is taken away from private citizens and given to elitists to lavish on their friends and political comrades. Not because of any nonexistent mistaken assumption that public funding completely replaces private funding of the arts (dispensed with, in fact, in an earlier message to the tune of $10 billion annually). But because no one can offer any such rationale without admitting the NEA's (and the rest of the Arts racket's) failures.

And its complete lack of any sound justification for its existence.

You may feel that most things public such as libraries, public broadcasting, parks, etc. must be sacrificed for the sake of market ideological purity, but you'll probably find that the vast majority of Americans--whether you refer to them as "hicks" or whatever--will disagree with you.

You'd be right, if I'd ever said any such thing.

I haven't.

In fact, this is a straw man argument that I shouldn't even be expected to defend myself from; at no time have I suggested "sacrificing" libraries or parks or other worthwhile common-use things. The notion of "sacrifice" comes from you, not me.

The only way "sacrifice" comes into this discussion is if one believes that private--or even local public--funding won't provide such common goods, that federal taxation and redistribution are necessary to provide common goods.

Where's your evidence for that?

The fact is that we suffered no lack of art before the establishment of the NEA in 1965. We were capable then of satisfying our public interest in art through private means, and we still are. That a federal program (among many) which ignores this currently exists is insufficient grounds for continuing that program's existence.

An acceptable defense for federal arts funding would address that directly, rather than resorting to "sacrifice" scare tactics.

One other thing: I don't think of Americans as "hicks"--that's the attitude of the elites running the NEA and other federal hand-out agencies.

Yet one more reason to encourage them to seek employment in the private sector.

Remember the public outcry when Newt suggested that PBS be zeroed out? That protest didn't come only from New York, Boston, and San Francisco. It came from Small Town USA, too, from people who wanted to keep this outlet to worlds that weren't right outside their doors.

After thirty-plus years of being told that they don't need to feel responsible for generating their own public goods, that the wise and benevolent leaders in Washington will take care of such things for them... is it any wonder that the unified national media stories talking of "killing" federal arts funding would provoke such a reaction in some citizens, who were then trotted out by the same media to confirm their biases?

But of course you don't believe in "media bias." So let's suppose that most citizens really did object to ending special preferences for select artists.

Were most citizens also correct when they objected to ending special racial preferences in the '50s and '60s?

Or will you concede that it's possible for popular programs to be wrong, and therefore deserving of termination whether popular or not?

anything that diminishes that capability [of being responsible for creating their own good] of the members of a society is destructive of that society, no matter how wonderful the public good gained thereby may be.

Again you show no sense of proportion, Bart. Diminish, diminish, diminish. Yeah, sure. Zero tolerance is like swinging for the wall on every pitch, Bart: you strike out a lot.

Look at what you're saying. You quote me (correctly) as disapproving diminishment of private capability, then you immediately restate it as approving "zero tolerance" and chastise me for lacking a sense of proportion.

Rather like an umpire whose big thick glasses make every pitch look like a ball, I'd say.

On the other hand, you have yet to provide any rationale whatsoever which explains why taxing private citizens to pay for art they never see is necessary. You appear to be willing to criticize my reasoning showing why federal arts funding is unnecessary; let's see you offer superior reasoning which shows why federal arts funding is necessary. Not "desirable"... necessary.

You do have such reasoning, don't you? Or is your position so weak that your only defense to attack my arguments?

How much are we "diminsihed" (as you would define it) by funding the arts? Practically zero.

Well, thank you for the "practically," anyway.

Since you ask, we're diminished not only in the money taken from us, but in the independence to be able to make our own decisions with those taxed-away resources as to what constitutes public good. That's your independence being stifled, too, I might point out.

And we're diminished further when everybody else gets into the act. "Oh, it's just a small amount for this worthy cause--practically zero!--you'll never miss it." "C'mon, if it's OK for the arts guys to take a little bit from you, it must be OK for us to do so, too."

Which is how Tax Freedom day winds up this year on May 9, later than it's ever been before. We now spend nearly half our year paying for the various "good" things someone else decrees, sticking our kids into day care (soon to be Yet Another federal funding "good") because both parents have to work in order to make enough to pay for crucifxes in jars of the artist's urine.

That's how I define "diminished."

You seem to want art to be kept for the elite who will pay dearly for it, but I feel there are places for everyday folk to have a chance to attend concerts and museums, etc.

Boy, talk about the guilty accusing the innocent! "I didn't rob that man, your Honor; he forced me to hit him on the head and take all his money."

What I "want" is to be a citizen of a nation which is strong because of a shared understanding that governments should be restricted to doing only those things which are necessary to insure freedom, peace and justice, and that private individuals can be and ought to be responsible for creating all other public good. Because the alternative is a nation of people too busy minding everyone else's business to see to their own.

Keeping art for the elite I leave to the arts elitists, such as NEA head Alexander with her "apple" metaphors that I notice you didn't bother trying to defend.

that's on top of ignoring the principle that the federal government has no business doing "good"; it ought to be limited to the promotion of freedom, peace, and justice--and that's it.

And where's the conflict with arts, Bart?

If you can explain how art keeps Americans free, or how art preserves law and order, please do so.

What's your feeling on NASA--should we be exploring Mars? Should the Smithsonian Institution exist?

Apparently you feel your two examples are similar. They aren't, because one of them (NASA) does what private citizens currently cannot. I would also argue that planetary exploration is necessary, so while I would prefer that space development were more of a private sector activity, I can accept government involvement. (As you could have foreseen had you given reasonable consideration to the view--which I've stated repeatedly--that governments should do only those things which are necessary and which private citizens either cannot or should not do for themselves.)

As for the Smithsonian... once again, you express the view that some nice-to-have cultural institution would not exist but for the benevolence of our public officials and the wisdom of their counselors.

Where do such ideas come from? And how does anyone hang on to them without defending them, especially when presented with evidence of their failures? (Or have we already forgotten the Smithsonian's attempted political revisionism of the Enola Gay exhibit as "American imperialism?")

I know it's your fantasy for me to say that private citizens are incapable making their own choices, Bart.

I'm going to skip the "fantasy" crack because I don't think taking our disagreement personally gets us anywhere.

But i won't. Because private citizens do make those choices every day. And as I said before, that's fine. No one's taking that choice away, are they? No.

Yes. They are. Unless you think paying taxes is a "choice."

This is where you try to have it both ways. You defend taking money from private citizens so that a few distant bureaucrats can reward artists they like--"taking that choice away," in other words--but then claim that you believe citizens are capable of making their own artistic choices.

No one can assert both these things and be consistent. Either people can decide for themselves what art to support (or not), in which case they should be permitted to do so since to do otherwise would insult their independence... or else people are not capable of making "correct" decisions in this matter, which is the only possible grounds by which their resources can be taken from them.

This inconsistency--and the unwillingness to address it--is what dooms the pro-federal arts funding position.

Home

Heart	Body	Spirit	Mind
Art	Writing	Religion	Personality
Music	Travel	Politics	Computers
Genealogy	Work	History	Reasoning
Fiction	Games	Economics	Science