In its effort to cut the National Deficit, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has a big, red bull's eye painted on its back, but will eliminating this program end up doing more harm than good to our national character and our future? by Bill Gee
(centrist)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Following the President's State of the Union Address, Liberals and Progressives found themselves scrambling to fight for what little funding they receive from the Federal Government. If the Tea Party had its way, we would see the elimination of such Liberal gems such as the Department of Education, the Affordable Housing Program, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the State Justice Institute. Especially troubling, but what should come as no surprise, is the proposed elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
First, let us examine the hard numbers. The funding of the NEA is pitifully low. In 2010, the cost of the program was $167.5 million to help fund arts programs in all 50 states. That roughly translates to less than 25 cents for every American each year. That is less than 0.012% of the overall Budget Deficit (compared to the 2009 budget since Congress never passed the 2010 budget). In other words, the elimination of this program will have a negligible impact on reducing the Deficit.
So let us assume for a moment that the Budget Hawks win out and the NEA is eliminated. How will this affect you and me?
To do this, we will need to examine the NEA's Annual Statement, which is available at www.nea.gov
Access to Artistic Excellence
Project Support: $41.1 million
This program supports the Smithsonian Institute and other nationally recognized museums across the country. It also includes an $800K grant to help preserve our National Treasures. Without this funding, museums would be forced to increase admission rates, cut staff, and auction parts of their collections just to keep their doors open. Many museums in "low travel" areas would close.
This program offers grants to small and mid-sized organizations with the goal of providing arts education and historic preservation to underserved communities. Without this funding, municipal history projects would need to depend on donations for their survival. These projects serve their communities to build up local pride among its residents and to promote tourism. Without it, historic sites could be torn down, neglected, or simply forgotten.
This program offers one-time grants for exhibitions and performances, which highlight the wide tapestry of the American artistic landscape. These include free educational programs for schools, national tours of famous pieces of art to cities that may not have access to large museums, dance tours, music festivals, and the list goes on. Without this funding, children in rural communities may never get to see famous works of art or have exposure to a live performance beyond their immediate neighborhood.
Learning in the Arts: $13.4 million
This program provides grants to artistic educational programs to serve major metropolitan areas as well as underserved communities. Funds are provided for scholarships for talented youth and for artistic partnerships in both public and private schools. Without this funding, talented children in poor communities may never see that talent fostered. Countless future musicians, dancers, graphic artists and actors will never know their artistic potential because they happened to be born into poverty.
Partnerships for the Arts: $51.1 million
This program provides "partnership grants" to arts programs that are already supported by state and local governments including underserved communities. The specific grants are extremely varied, and many of these programs, including regional theaters, museums, and educational programs, depend on this funding for their survival. Many of these programs also solicit funds from individual donors, but their budgets are already very tight, and some have already to laid off workers or closed their doors.
Speaking as a parent
I have a two-year-old son who absolutely loves to go to museums, and I am grateful that I live in a region that has many to choose. He is also starting to display a talent in music, drawing, and acting. I would like to support him with his artistic and educational choices.
Like all Americans, I have to be very careful about how much money I spend in order to provide my son with the opportunities he needs. Each week we check the local newspapers for free events, and free performances. We also spend a lot of time watching PBS Kids programs and listening to public radio programs that are designed for young listeners. Countless studies have shown that exposure to music and the arts have a profound effect on a child's ability to learn mathematics, reading and science. Without public funding for the arts, my son's opportunities to experience the wonders of the American experience would be limited, at best.
In our mad rush to "cut the fat" from the Federal Budget, rather than take aim at the smallest line items, we have to first consider the long-term consequences that such an elimination would have on our quality of life and the lives of our children.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Bill Gee only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Bill Gee is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Don Goins
Date: January 31, 2011 09:02:45 PM
Art is a horrible waste of money. It can't be used to invade a country based on false assumptions. Have you ever tried to cram a work of art into a $200 million F-35? It would interfere with the guidance system while we try to use it to track down a woman with a $10 bomb under her hijib. No, I say cut art and put that money to good use expanding our empire.
(Sorry, I can't seem to locate my dripping sarcasm emoticon)
Funding the Art IS another government waste program.
The Federal Government should in no way subsidize the arts.
I am an artist (not professionally) of different mediums and I LOVE art. My love for art is such that I don't want the nasty hands of the Government in them. The art as a form of free expression should be protected under the first amendment and that's the ONLY government intervention we should see into the arts.
Posted By: mardev
Date: February 4, 2011 10:51:06 AM
When we look at any civilization throughout time, we understand them through their cultural aspects. Our arts are an essential aspect of our society.
True there should be limits on how involved the Federal government is involved, both in regulations and in funding. Yet, national Arts programming and museums, such as the Smithsonian are a means of developing and preserving our heritage and our society. The arts demonstrate our uniqueness - our values - and our advancements. Without the arts, a society is barren.
As an advocate for strong defense and a supporter of our military, I ask you to think about what exactly our military is protecting...If not our culture, our values, our society, then what would be the point? As for cramming art into an F-35... really??...we don't cram our children there either, yet we value them above everything.
