The NEA is in trouble and the liberals are whining

Oatka

New member
This was posted on the FreeRepublic site.
Besides writing our Congressmen about gun control, we ought to ask them where they stand on funding this organization. I don't see it as a free speech problem as we are not asking them to be silenced, just that we not have to pay for the antis spreading anti-gun misinfo and other questionable pursuits.
Let the liberals pay for it out of their own pockets.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38de564336f0.htm

Supreme Court supports Congress to cut the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts

"In a message dated 03/22/2000

<< Dear All:
On NPR's Morning Edition, Nina Totenberg reported that if the Supreme Court supports Congress to cut the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts, it is in effect the end of NEA. This situation creates great concerns about Congressional funding for creative arts in America, since NEA provides major support for NPR (National Public Radio), PBS (Public Broadcasting System), and numerous other creative and performing arts. If NEA is lost or weakened, our lives will be similarly diminished. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as not worthwhile.

Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment For the Arts equals $.64 a year. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Please add your name to this list and forward it to friends who you believe are in favor of what this stands for.

The full list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House, whose office has in the past been the instigator of the action to cut funding to these worthwhile programs. This petition is being passed around the Internet.

THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO MAKE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY WORK AS A VOICE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. IT'S EASIER THAN EVER TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Please keep the petition rolling. Do not reply to me. Sign your name and locale to the list and forward it to others to sign. If you prefer not to, please send the list to the email address given below. It won't matter if many people receive the same list, as the names are being managed. This is for anyone who thinks NPR and PBS deserve $1.12/year of their taxes. If you sign, please forward the list to others. If not, please don't kill it. If you happen to be the 150th, 200th, 250th, etc., signer of this petition, please forward a copy to: wein2688@blue.univnorthco.edu This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Thank you.

NOTE: It is preferable that you SELECT the entirety of this letter and then COPY it into a NEW outgoing message, rather than simply forwarding it. In your new outgoing message, add your name to the bottom of the list, then send it on. Or, if the option is available, do a SEND AGAIN.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was asked to post this by a family member who received the article as an email. Some recent art exhibits have received national media attention because of some foul & disgusting displays.
Because the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) is funded by public money, it becomes a First Amendment issue concerning free speech in art. I am not well versed on this subject and welcome informed opinions. The question is should public Moines (sic)continue to fund Art?"

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.

[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited March 26, 2000).]
 
No. Government sponsored culture via theft is propaganda. Whether I approve of said artwork is irrelevant. Let the market decide what has value.
 
Although the NEA did support some of those exhibits it's not as though all they support is questionable art. My guess is that such exhibits are a very small minority of the total. Other uses of the funds are restoration and preservation of historic buildings, funding of music programs, funding for the design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and I would guess the World War II Memorial, but I can't say for sure. I would have to say that it does more good then harm.

Here's some more info on stuff they have supported: http://arts.endow.gov/learn/Facts/Contents.html
 
As long as I have to keep paying taxes, I want as much of it as possible to go toward art. I've always found it ironic when people bring up the funding for the Mapplethorpe exhibit, for instance. Frequently the argument is "if the art is any good, why do they need public funding?" Here's a few interesting facts:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>The money didn't go to Mapplethorpe, it went to printing the catalogs for the exhibit.
<LI>Mapplethorpe was quite wealthy from his photography.
<LI>Mapplethorpe was already dead when the grant money came.
<LI>The amount of the grant was less than Gorthaur pays in federal income tax in one year.</UL>

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited March 26, 2000).]
 
I think it would be a shame if the NEA were to be eliminated. Just think of all the wonderfull art and music we wouldn't have if the government didn't fund it; Mozart, Beethoven, Rembrandt, Winslow Homer, Frederic Remington, Shakespeare and many others. What a dull and colorless world we would live in.

Oh, wait a minute, none of these artists were funded by the government. Never mind!
 
Mozart and Beethoven were definitely funded by their governments. Classical music as we know it would not have happened without the patronage of the monarchies. Add to that Michelangelo, da Vinci, and just about every artist in that era.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

[This message has been edited by Gorthaur (edited March 26, 2000).]
 
As far as PBS goes, everything they do with the exception of their daytime children’s TV shows is already being done by the private sector (from what I’ve heard there are cable daytime children’s TV shows, but not free, broadcast type shows). I think it would make sense to eliminate taxpayer funding of all except the daytime children’s shows. If there is an audience for what they produce they will be able to continue with advertising. I would think that commercials would be less annoying than their constant fundraising spots.

As far a funding for the arts, I don't think that there is anything wrong with the amount of money given. They could however, limit funding to non-controversial exhibits. It wouldn't lessen the money going to the arts. If someone wants to do something controversial, private money should pay for that.

That’s my opinion for what its worth.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>They could however, limit funding to non-controversial exhibits.[/quote]Why? I, for one, think there are already plenty of pictures of sad-eyed clowns, big-eyed kids, and dogs playing poker. I'd rather have my money going to leading-edge art. If it makes you feel better, just pretend that your taxes are going to fund something else. There is more than enough tax money coming from people who support controversial art to fund the NEA.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
Why should anyone be forced to pay for any of this effort? Who cares if it is useful or not? The government has no business in the promotion of art. If you don't like clown paintings fine, don't buy them. Don't try to force me to fund endeavors I find equally aesthetically repulsive by robbing me at gunpoint.
 
Pay for the money to print fliers by paying admission at galleries that show "leading edge art." Your definition of leading edge and mine differ; therefore I should not be forced to fund your idea of leading edge art. I think that's pretty straightforward.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Don't try to force me to fund endeavors I find equally aesthetically repulsive by robbing me at gunpoint.[/quote]Is there a check-box for that on the 1040? I could save a fortune if I didn't have to pay taxes to make up for the special treatment that "religious" groups get! Can you imagine how much property tax is lost because of the land holdings of the various churches?

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I should not be forced to fund your idea of leading edge art.[/quote]I don't want you to fund it! I want for you to not block me from funding it with my part of the taxes. I'd rather keep my money and decide directly what to do with it, but as long as I have to keep paying taxes I want some representation for it! Everyone pays taxes, whether they have majority viewpoints or minority viewpoints. If only the things supported by the majority get funded, then we have taxation without representation.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
Gorthaur....
Lets play :)
I'll give this up front..I am willing for NEA to be funded with my tax dollars, I really do mean this in real time....but, that is just me. I am positive that there are things/projects/whatever that you or other TFLers would wish to fund (or keep funding) that I do not wish to support.
There are tons of things supported by individual legislation or tacked onto other legislation enacted, and we frigging pay for.......but, we (the individual taxpayer) are unable to register our opinion.
I'm not evil, excessively selfish, uncompassionate, nor sub-IQ. I am personally willing to spend some monies on non-essential things..........I must have a direct vote! on every damned dime they will forcebly take from me.

"Oh but, voting forms will be too complicated" "Citizens are too lazy to read and comprehend & won't vote".....too damned bad. You learn to vote and vote intelligently or face the federal guns stealing more of your earnings. Everyone has the opportunity to vote....whether its 20% or 60% or even 100%...its their choice.

Point of debate is....the gov't can forcibly take my earnings and life's blood...so I should have a direct say in how it is spent.
No more of these BS sound bites of...."NEA only costs the individual $2.49 per year"...add it all up...audit the damned books...I want to know where every single frigging penny goes and I demand a say.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
If it is art that can stand on its own then we do not need to use tax dollars for it,Most so called art cannot stand on its own ans i sure as hell as a taxpayer do not want my taxdollars going there,let the market decide if it has merit


killer45auto
 
Mozart and Beethoven were funded by their "governments" only such that their monarchs were their benefactors. Yes it is true that the monarchs received their money from the governed, just as Bill Clinton receives his money from the governed (and the Chinese). If Clinton chooses to use his income to support the arts, more power to him. I would say the same of you or anyone else.

By government supporting the arts, it is making the determination of what is "approved" or "good" art. The government should have no say in what is good or bad art. This should be determined by the marketplace. I could care less if it is an exhibit by Rembrandt or by Andre Sorrano, this is not the role of government.

Churches are exempt from taxes because of the First Amendment. The power to tax gives the power to regulate. You can't seriously wish for the government to become involved in the regulation of religion! Many people also say that if their taxes have to go to the military, then people shouldn't complain about taxes funding arts, welfare, what have you. The difference is that the military is essential for the security of the nation and this is a Constitutionally mandated function of government. Making sure that Bill Gates can get cheaper, government subsidized tickets to the ballet is not.

I could care less if it is only $2.49 per year or $249.00 per year. Until we as Americans are willing to give up some of the non-essential government programs, we will never lessen the size and intrusiveness of government in our lives. We still subsidize mohair growers because at one time mohair was needed for keeping our soldiers warm. We still fund rural electrification even though virtually every home in rural America has electricity. We still fund the Tennessee Valley Authority even though it fullfilled its mandate many years ago.

Every one of these items has a group of people who wish for it to continue because it means jobs or political power. At what point do we say enough?

As stated in the Constitution, the purpose of the United States Government is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty". As I'm sure we are all aware, it does not say to PROVIDE the general welfare, only to PROMOTE it. As someone once said, "A government that is able to give you everything is also powerful enough to take everything from you".

I wish the Federal Government to do no more for me than required of it by the Constitution. If I wish to see a beautiful work of art, I will pay my own way to a museum. If I wish hear uplifting music, I will buy a CD or pay to attend a concert. I do not expect my government to culturally enrichen me, that is my responsibility.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Churches are exempt from taxes because of the First Amendment.[/quote]Nonsense. As long as all religions are treated equally, there's no Constitutional basis for exempting religious organizations from paying taxes.

Great art has always been publicly funded. Art has always been challenging. Parts of the Sistine Chapel ceiling were painted over, because Michelangelo's work was so controversial. Some of you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between art and decoration.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
Gorthaur,

You make an excellent argument for continuing to fund the NEA. The exact same argument can be made for continued funding of MANY institutions, such as welfare, Social Security, and a whole slew of programs for which there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to involve itself.

If you wish to patronize the arts, then that is your business. I would love to see your taxes cut to such a level that you could make meaningful contributions to the artist(s) or organization(s) of your choice based on your desire to further their work. But it is not the proper function of government to decide for me, through confiscatory taxation, what, if any, "art" I should be supporting.
 
I agree with you, Bob, and I agree with DC and Cactus. What I don't agree with is singling out the NEA for special derision. They've mostly done an OK job of fulfilling their mandate. Let's focus on achieving a smaller government, not a more "conservative" government.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
Gorthaur,

There is and always will be "taxation without representation". We are not a homogenous population ... never have been.

It is not a question of you giving a portion of your living to support national programs you think worthy. It is a problem of your income being levied, by force of law, to support programs that I think are worthy and you do not.

It makes no difference how much good is done by the NEA. In fact I agree with most programs supported by the NEA, but it's the principle. Don't you see?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Everyone pays taxes, whether they have majority viewpoints or minority viewpoints. If only the things supported by the majority get funded, then we have taxation without representation.[/quote]
You are not, of course, speaking of the U.S., since we are a full-fledged social state.

BTW, I don't think that using my tax dollars for programs with which I don't agree is taxation without representation. I'm sure you don't either. But, I've heard you use the "taxation without representation" argument before. Funny how your remedy for that costs me money.
 
Back
Top