I’m glad somebody made this point. “3% is so low we should ignore it”, isn’t very different from, “3% is so small that eliminating it wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway.”
Then again, you might consider 3% a bribe to have the organization reach out to lower and middle income communities. Then again2, they would probably want to do that anyway.
Right. So attending a popular Christmas performance is not supporting the arts, while attending a fall concert is. No irony there: I believe that is typically the case.
Snip the PBS point. Just ask why high culture is good for society. Because now we’re discussing the principle. If opera on PBS can be justified, so can subsidies for the Kennedy Center. Anyway,
-
Arguably we’re not discussing high culture (which will exist) but access to high culture. In a democracy, provision of the latter leads to a stronger nation.
-
Why spend funds on cultural heritage? Because it’s valued.
(Admittedly I think you weren’t arguing against high culture but rather against subsidies for US National Cultural Treasures. I guess my take is that I’d rather have the public be a stakeholder in such enterprises, as a expression of cultural pride. I admit I care less about funds extended to Backbridge, NE or even my locale, aside from political horsetrading.)
Here my disagreement is more pronounced. Look. We’re talking about factors of five or so (WAG). I makes no sense to whine about $1.2 million in direct outlays and pass over $5.4 million in indirect outlays from the federal government. Unless we’re discussing RO.
I think all individual deductions (1040, page 2) should be converted to 15% tax credits, incidentally.
This is defensible point. My problem with it is basically one of scale. Art subsidies are dwarfed by Hollywood revenue by what? 10,000x? 100,000x? If you can spend a tiny amount of money to prop high culture, it seems to me like a good investment for any country with a modicum of pride. And cultural diversity is a virtue.
As it happens, I am dubious about opera as an art form, and am basically deferring to the opinions of others on that score. (Ha!) I won’t do that for multi-billion dollar weapon systems -for those I need considered arguments. And I’d be interested in a fair audit of the NEA. But I simply think that in terms of governmental spending there are far bigger fish in the sea.
ETA: “It adds up.” That’s an empirical claim. Demonstrate it.