Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Budgeting out the arts

I got nothing against the arts or the humanities....I just don't think government should be supporting them.
Now National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service is another story, if they are going to engage in propaganda then the groups who benefit from said propaganda should support them financially.


Trump budget proposes entirely eliminating National Endowment for the Arts
President Trump's proposed budget would cut entirely the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities (NEA), according to a new report by The New York Times.

Federal officials told The Times that the chairwoman of the arts endowment told her staff the news Wednesday. It was reportedly met with a mix of sadness and surprise.

Chairwoman Jane Chu reportedly told staff that the arts endowment would continue business as usual as the budget process moves forward and said she called the meeting because she didn't want staff hearing from the media.

Trump's plans to eliminate the NEA were first reported in January, shortly before his inauguration.

His administration considered privatizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CBP) and eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).

While public broadcasting and the two arts programs have been popular conservative targets for decades, control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue gives the GOP a real chance to achieve a long sought-after goal.
Funding for the national endowments is a relatively thin slice of the nearly $4 trillion federal budget. The NEA secured $148 million from the federal government in 2016, roughly the same amount requested by the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
You know some of the greatest works of art and music where created  by artists and composers who went out and found patrons:
a person who gives financial or other support to a person, organization, cause, or activity.
"Charles became a patron of Rubens and van Dyck"
They had to convince someone to support their artistic vision and pay for their time and materials. If they could find someone who felt their art was worth sponsoring then they were on easy street.
If not then tough noodles.
Taxpayers shouldn't be shouldered with the bill for someone who's "vision" is so bereft of redeeming value that they can't get a private person to embrace it financially.
Maybe it's time for the artists and humanity ....whatever they reevaluate the appeal of their respective disciplines to figure out why more wealthy people don't want to invest in them.

No comments: