jeff_r
Login to Send PM
I saw this LA Times post yesterday and thought I'd share. I'll warn you though, if you believe the federal government should play a role in supporting the arts, it's kind of depressing.
There's a local angle too, as it gives a shout out to John Boehner for essentially having a tin ear when it comes to arts and culture funding (see Congressional Report Card here).
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM
This is not surprising. The NEA budget was drastically slashed after the 1994 Republican takeover in Congress. It's a convenient punching bag for the GOP and the conservative base.
But really, the money involved is trivial. Cutting discretionary spending (such as arts funding) only skims the surface of the budget deficit. If the GOP was in any way serious about fiscal discipline, they'd be having those promised "adult conversations" about entitlement reform.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Its such a joke. 150 million in cuts if they eliminated it completely accomplishes what exactly? If they really wanna save 150 million bucks, how about we cut 5% of our foreign aid to Israel next year, and keep helping our artists at home.
Chris Sherman
East Franklinton
Login to Send PM
lets send mint berry crunch to Washington!
rus
Login to Send PM
Conversely, why should there be any arts funding at all?
In a constrained budget environment, why is arts funding more important than, say, funding for enforcement of environmental regulations?
Brant, I do agree that entitlement spending would be part of any serious budgetary reform.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Conversely, why should there be any arts funding at all?
.I know I can point to an almost immediate return on investment in arts funding via the multiplier effect.
I'm not convinced I can point to it on a number of other budget items.
So then if there's a measurable effect an arts program can be evaluated on that basis. No observed multiplier effect, no more funding.
Of course, you'd also have to make the argument that such funding wouldn't generate more economic activity elsewhere.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Conversely, why should there be any arts funding at all?
.I know I can point to an almost immediate return on investment in arts funding via the multiplier effect.
I'm not convinced I can point to it on a number of other budget items.So then if there's a measurable effect an arts program can be evaluated on that basis. No observed multiplier effect, no more funding.
Of course, you'd also have to make the argument that such funding wouldn't generate more economic activity elsewhere.
The argument is more why cut something that is working and has virtually zero effect on the budget deficit?
The problem I have with the cut is it is a GOP pet project because taking money away from hippie artist types is popular with their constituency.
If the GOP wants to effect real change with their new victories in congress, pandering changes with no actual impact aren't the best way to start. Strikes me a lot more as business as usual.
ETA: Things like the C17 or F35 Alternative Engine programs are hugely more wasteful and much larger expenses...and 100% logical cuts...but since they're defense, we're hearing about the NEA budget again.
rus
Login to Send PM
First, prove arts funding is working. Hard numbers that show the economic benefit.
There's already talk that defense spending has to be cut as well. The Navy has been saying their current structure isn't sustainable and opened the discussion months ago on where the Fleet should be: business as usual ( with the decay in readiness that brings, already in progress ), a two hub Navy, a single hub, or even retreat from a large global presence to a largely CONUS based presence with some surge capacity.
As to Chair Force cuts... well, might be the old inter-service rivalry talking, but they always seemed a bit more bloated to me. Don't think I'm alone in that.
Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Conversely, why should there be any arts funding at all?
.I know I can point to an almost immediate return on investment in arts funding via the multiplier effect.
I'm not convinced I can point to it on a number of other budget items.So then if there's a measurable effect an arts program can be evaluated on that basis. No observed multiplier effect, no more funding.
Of course, you'd also have to make the argument that such funding wouldn't generate more economic activity elsewhere.The argument is more why cut something that is working and has virtually zero effect on the budget deficit?
This is begging the question, though. You say it's "working" like that's a given. If there is that observed multiplier effect that leads to a return on investment, then good. However, not all "arts" projects are the same and the NEA has definitely shot itself in the foot in the past by funding "art" that has extraordinarily little redeeming value and makes an almost effortless target.
You're right that the amount of money involved is trivial, but symbolism matters in politics as well.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?
Again, my problem is more that is the first thing trotted out because of the cheering response it gets from the GOP fanbase. These new R congressmen are supposed to be coming in with a plan for real fiscal change and reform, and the idea that the NEA even comes up is ridiculous. After I stuff my face and nap, I'll dig out the figures as to ROI for arts funding, but the first number that comes to mind is the 150 billion dollars in economic activity generated by the non-profit arts industry in the US.
The current state of the economy means its time for serious people having serious conversations, not pandering about meaningless changes to get a boost in the polls. That goes for both parties, but in this case it happens to be the GOP doing the pandering.
cyclist II
Short North & Peach District
Login to Send PM
Will this effect those artsy hillbillies who carve totem poles, bears, and eagles out of logs with chainsaws? That's the GOP base!
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?
Again, my problem is more that is the first thing trotted out because of the cheering response it gets from the GOP fanbase. These new R congressmen are supposed to be coming in with a plan for real fiscal change and reform, and the idea that the NEA even comes up is ridiculous. After I stuff my face and nap, I'll dig out the figures as to ROI for arts funding, but the first number that comes to mind is the 150 billion dollars in economic activity generated by the non-profit arts industry in the US.
The current state of the economy means its time for serious people having serious conversations, not pandering about meaningless changes to get a boost in the polls. That goes for both parties, but in this case it happens to be the GOP doing the pandering.
We reading the same article?
Reads like an advocacy group is getting worried about their funding. There's no quotes from anyone in the GOP in that article.
rus
Login to Send PM
Corey Aumiller wrote >>
"Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?"
Because there are some things that enrich people's lives and can't be objectively quantified. Do you value anything other than money?
When it comes to spending taxpayer money no I don't value anything other than ROI.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Corey Aumiller wrote >>
"Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?"
Because there are some things that enrich people's lives and can't be objectively quantified. Do you value anything other than money?When it comes to spending taxpayer money no I don't value anything other than ROI.
What's the ROI on defense spending? (I usually hear things touted like sense of security and protection of freedoms...not all that different)
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Corey Aumiller wrote >>
"Guess a better question would be, if everything is on the table why should arts funding be spared?"
Because there are some things that enrich people's lives and can't be objectively quantified. Do you value anything other than money?When it comes to spending taxpayer money no I don't value anything other than ROI.
What's the ROI on defense spending? (I usually hear things touted like sense of security and protection of freedoms...not all that different)
Political influence ( either through direct control or soft power such as humanitarian missions ) and economic stability of trading partners.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Political influence ( either through direct control or soft power such as humanitarian missions ) and economic stability of trading partners.
First, prove defense funding is working. Hard numbers that show the economic benefit.
I don't doubt there is some measure of those things generated as a result of defense spending. I do doubt there is enough measurable ROI to surpass the 660 billion spent.
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
Political influence ( either through direct control or soft power such as humanitarian missions ) and economic stability of trading partners.
First, prove defense funding is working. Hard numbers that show the economic benefit.
I don't doubt there is some measure of those things generated as a result of defense spending. I do doubt there is enough measurable ROI to surpass the 660 billion spent.
Which is why I support some cuts to defense spending as well.
Seriously though: Why should arts be funded with public money at all? If enough people like something, they pay for it via ticket sales ( theater, movies, ballet ) or direct purchase ( paintings, sculpture, books, etc. ).
Or is it than not enough people like the "right" things to make them viable? If so, who's to say those things are "right"?
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
