Arts Fund Expendable In Era Of Tight Budget Anti-Nea: Subsidized Culture Is Frill We Can Live Without

The United States cannot afford the National Endowment for the Arts.

This simple, unemotional fact has been obscured by a chorus of largely irrelevant cultural arguments over the NEA, which last year received $170.2 million dollars from taxpayers to subsidize the arts .

Religious conservatives see the NEA as a promoter of immoral expression and a contributor to moral decay. Liberal elites see government support of the arts as a key to civilized society. These two groups have dominated - almost monopolized - debate about the NEA.

On balance, the endowment probably does more good than harm. It allots money to symphonies, civic theaters and museums, as well as the less reputable organizations and artists that conservatives rightfully attack.

But that’s not the point. Most Americans don’t give arts funding much thought. However, they do think about taxes, big government and the federal budget deficit that threatens their children’s future.

If they were in financial trouble - and an increasing number are - they wouldn’t buy a new painting or CD. Neither should the government.

This may be a painful admission for cultural elites, many of whom can afford anything they want. But that’s the second reason the government should stop funding art.

Who attends symphonies, plays and art exhibits? The vast majority can afford to pay more for tickets. Yet, the debt-burdened federal government subsidizes these events.

Looking at ticket prices a different way, it’s cheaper to go to the symphony than to most pop or rock concerts. Does that make sense, given the comparative incomes of the audiences?

Some would claim that defense of the arts has more to do with protecting freedom of expression than making art affordable. That argument doesn’t wash either. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech; it doesn’t say the government will pay us for exercising that right.

But when it comes to the NEA, myths and emotion have controlled the discussion. It’s time to debate the issue on the most pertinent point - can we afford public funding of the arts?

At a time when government is considering cutting everything but Social Security, the answer is clear.

No.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: SUPCAT = COLUMN, EDITORIAL - From both sides