Money is fungible, but words are not. Federal funding is the federal government spending or giving money. A federal tax break is the federal government not taking money from someone or something else. If you think these are equivalent, then…okay, we’re in non-standard word usage territory. Under this rubric churches are federally funded. Do you think they are?
But who decides what arts are to be funded?
Yeah, I’m a redneck. Do any country or blue grass groups get funded?
How about rock and roll? Why isnt that funded?
And why does most of the money go to New York and other big cities?
You see the way I see it is I see some kids struggling in their garage band and then trying to get gigs while this symphony gets this big free paycheck. why? Because certain high people like symphony music more than rock.
So yeah, unless they can make the funding equitable I say cut it off.
Thank you. It’s still much more specific than what I was finding. I just gave it a cursory glance and I see an emphasis on education and underserved populations, which I see as more justifiable than subsidizing my opera ticket.
So you would say that churches are federally funded?
Also, I wouldn’t call paying for advertising “federally funded” either.
I’m not sure what either of you are arguing. Are you arguing against the specific word “funding” and your objection would disappear if I’d used the word “benefits”? Or are you arguing that tax breaks don’t result in additional money? Basically, are you claiming that the federal government didn’t provide a millions of dollars in benefits to NASCAR because it was in the form of a tax break, or are you saying that they did provide millions of dollars in benefits, but we should use the word benefits instead of funding?
If you objection is to form rather than substance, feel free to replace the word “funding” with “benefits”.
Would you be open to studying whether such effects exist, and changing your support if they were minimal?
Thanks for the many intelligent comments.
But many are not directed at the question in OP Title: Why do Trump and others want to defund NEA?
To pretend it’s just about the money makes a mockery of simple arithmetic. How much money have the Secret Service and other law enforcement already spent indulging Trump’s life style? Will we worry about a paltry $150 million when fighting our new-found enemies in the Middle East? What about the huge tax subsidies for Major League Baseball?
No, it can’t be primarily about the paltry money. For some Republicans, making it harder for citizens to get broad humanitarian and cosmopolitan perspective is a worthwhile goal. Others are indulging petty hatreds — stick it to opera lovers, who are mostly left-wing! And for many, I’m sure, it’s just about poking “libtards” in the eye — they do it with contempt just because they can.
Speaking of tax subsidies, it also shows innumeracy to pretend that grants are intrinsically different from forgoing collections. I’m reminded of Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package. His enemies trotted out this phrase over and over and over, emphasising the [SIZE=“4”]$800 Billion[/SIZE] to make sure we knew Obama was wasting a lot of our money. Yet about $300 billion of that package was in the form of tax cuts.
Will those pretending that tax breaks differ from grants now come clean and agree that, from that perspective, harping on Obama’s [SIZE=“4”]$800 Billion[/SIZE], instead of just $500 Billion, was wrong-headed?
The $150 million saved will presumably be used up in munitions next time Trump decides to bomb a Syrian town.
Is it your belief that the $300,000 research on the value and impact of the arts in the United States has a worth dwarfed by any of the cruise missiles Trump wields next time he decides to kill some Syrians?
I think the tax breaks were to the racetracks themselves and not to the organization known as NASCAR
With that definition of funding, then everyone and everything in the US is federally funded.
NASCAR and International Speedway are jointly controlled.
I don’t know what this means.
In any event, I don’t really care that much. I was just surprised at the definition of “federally funded” being used. My definition is “The government gives you money to do something” and not “tax breaks” or “pays for Army ads to be placed on cars”
This seems to imply that no wasteful spending can be cut unless it is all cut. The amount of money spent on national parks has no effect on the money spent on the NEA, which has no effect on the money spent for NASA. Each program stands or falls on its own. Attempts to change the subject suggest an acknowledgement of a poor argument.
However since you asked, I don’t see how music classes increase the money spent on schools, I don’t care if the schools are teaching music or basket weaving if it has a pedagogical purpose. If they don’t have that purpose I would have no problem cancelling music classes. I don’t support NSF money spent on esoteric projects, they should only spend money on science likely to lead to discoveries that benefit the general public. I am against any public money being spent on professional sports though I understand the pressure that makes local politicians do it. For that reason I would like the federal government to pass a law that removes highway money sent to local governments by the same amount the government spends on professional sports teams.
It has nothing to do with money (which is paltry) or even the argument about who decides what kind of art to fund. It is purely a philosophical objection to education for the sake of being a well-educated and critically thinking person, and opponents of public funding of the arts always highlight the few overtly offensive examples, e.g. “Piss Christ” that probably should not have been funded, and ignores the massive amount of funding for arts that are of general public use and value. Examples like opera or play festivals are art forms that are dying, both because of lack of exposure in primary education and because of a media diet oversaturated with more accessible transitory entertainments. Why go watch a production of Hamlet when you can stay home and watch kitten attack videos on YouTube.com? Never mind that Hamlet is the origin for many common words and sayings in the English language, and challenges the viewer with the disconnect between words and actions; it is a play (one of many) that every educated person should be exposed to, and yet, the closest that most high school students ever get is watching a few scenes from the terrible Zeffirelli production with Mel Gibson and Glen Close, leading them to believe that Hamlet is boring and totally lacking in humor.
From a political standpoint, it would be smart for progressives to stop supporting the National Endowment for the Arts because it loses them votes and bites them in the ass everytime it funds some exhibit that becomes a public outrage of waste and offensiveness. But from a philosophical standpoint, we support the arts for the same reason that we do public education, basic health care for children, and fundamental scientific research: because it benefits society as a whole, even if some aspects of it are of little apparent value.
Stranger
Society is just a collection of the individual choices of its citizens. If millions of individual citizens value the contribution of a person throwing a ball around with skill then that person gets millions of dollars. If a fat lady singing about killing a rabbit does not inspire millions of people to spend their hard earned dollars on it, then society has determined that the ball throwing is worth it and that type of singing is not.
Our country spends hundreds of billions of dollars on arts. There is no reason to think that the 150 million contributed by the NEA is the difference between a great country and a smoking hellscape.
Ending the NEA would not mean that there would be no more music produced. It would only mean there would be less of a certain type of music. That music type is enjoyed by rich people who could afford to pay more if they wanted to. I see no difference between subsidizing rich people’s taste in music and spending tax money on importing caviar to serve at country clubs.
Trumpites and their supporters in Congress who want to defund the NEA are motivated by memory of the Piss Christ and Mapplethorpe affairs, and their continuing perception that projects funded by the NEA do not reflect most Americans’ tastes and in some cases are a direct spit-in-the-eye by artists who have contempt for those values. Oh, and that said art is defended largely by left-wing elitists who share contempt for religious and other traditional values.
A lot of the same conservatives will happily go to the opera, concerts and art museums to sample fare they like, so it’s not a generalized hatred of the arts.
I don’t really give a rat’s ass if the NEA budget is maintained or not. It’s not that much money, and the funding can be made up by foundations and private contributors. There’s something to be said for the idea that the quality of art has suffered because it’s become uncoupled from the need to please those who buy the tickets.
Maybe conservatives could be more easily persuaded to spend money to get kids involved in the arts on a general basis, rather than grants to bozos of questionable talents who want to rile up the Philistines while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.
As for the comparison to taxpayer funding of sports stadiums, it’s my impression that local and state politicians are primarily guilty of funneling cash into the pockets of rich team owners, not the federal government. I’m all for ending such abuses.
Money has value because society and government create the conditions for it to have value. One is able to earn money because of the conditions that society and government create the conditions that make earning money possible.
One’s personal skills, talents, and efforts make one more or less able to earn money are heavily dependent on government and society and the accidents of personal history and economic and technological circumstances that put someone on the right place and the right time to take advantage of them.
Conversely there will be a lot more people who are not at the right place at the right time who will beget the short end of the stick. We know this will happen. There is no economic model in which everyone will be a winner. The system guarantees that there will be losers.
So it’s perfectly fair for society to claim a share to improve all of society— to make sure that people with varying degrees of success are not surrounded by the hopeless and the downtrodden, so that we do not have to live on a society with castle walls and private armies to protect the advantaged from the disadvantaged.
And you know what everyone benefits if those policies are reasonably well balanced. The rich can still be rich, they can still have the incentive to because me richer, but the poor aren’t so desperately poor.
And society benefits by empowering the largest number of people possible by giving them a path to contributing to the improvement of society, even if they started out in a tough circumstance.
And the last century of American history proves it all. America (and other Western countries) is relatively successful and rich and innovative and pleasant and safe because over time it has empowered more and more of its people—women, minorities, etc.
But that series of empowering is not done. There are still unjust obstacles in place and our job is to systematically remove them. We might not have come upon the best balance yet but we keep trying, and little steps have brought small improvements. There are always some steps back, but our job is to push past them and through them.
But that is the argument used for most smaller programs. ‘You can’t cut X. It isn’t that much money and won’t make a difference!’
And so nothing gets cut and the federal budget deficit keeps on growing. Heck the CBO is no projecting that the deficits will triple from 2.9% to 9.8% in the next 30 years. In short, we will be fucked. Really fucked.
But, hey, this program is only $148 million, right? No big deal.
You know. You are right. The cost of Trumps Secret Service protection ought to go down and Trump ought to stop all the shit that is causing it to cost a ton. And we ought to stop fighting wars. And MLB ought to pay for itself. All those are fine ideas along with cutting the NEA.
Got a cite for this? Or are you just making it up?
Once again, got a cite for this? Your argument is turning into a giant ad hominem.
Slee
Based upon this definition then **we are all **federally funded because we either get a standard deduction or an itemized deduction as laid out in the IRS tax code which decreases our tax payments.
Now think about how ludicrous your statement sounds.
I’m sorry, I understand that people are tying to debate me about this, but I’m literally don’t understand their position in order to respond to the debate.
Maybe you can help–suppose I pay $100 in taxes to the federal government. Then they give me $10 dollars back. In what way is the $10 different if they call it a tax rebate versus if they call it a funding payment? Do I have to spend it differently? Does the federal government finance the lost $10 differently?
Again, are you arguing about the word “funding” or are you arguing that the dollars are in some way different?
It means there’s a reason that NASCAR spent so much time and money lobbying for a tax break that you seem to think didn’t benefit them.