Read this post from a blog called "Sticks and Drones." Thoughts?
- Mike
Kill The NEA
November 03, 2010 | Bill Eddins |
I try to keep politics out of this blog but I think it is time to declare a revolutionary idea: kill the NEA.
The National Endowment for the Arts is a wonderful institution dedicated to promoting art in America, by Americans, and for Americans. It is also a whipping post for a rabid minority in this country who fear freedom of expression and believe to their core that government should not be supporting artistic expression, let alone any subgroup of the population who tend to lean towards the political left. Never you mind that every 1st world country continues to support and nurture their homegrown arts and artists on the federal level. Never mind that the USA would become the artistic laughing stock of the world by becoming the only industrialized nation to turn our collective backs to our own artistic legacy. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we have much bigger problems than the NEA and I, for one, am damn tired of these “politicians” using it as a whipping post to hide the fact that they haven’t the first clue what to do once they grab the reins of power. So kill the NEA.
Here’s why:
- Those of you who are musicians with jobs in well-paying orchestras – look around you. In any given city you probably represent less than 5% of the people making, or trying to make, a living at music. How much do you pay for health care? It’s probably covered in your contract, but I guarantee you that the rest of your colleagues out there are struggling to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars just to have the privilege to have access to a health care provider. If they don’t have a full-time faculty job then it’s out of pocket. I bet many, if not most, of them can’t afford it. That’s more important than the NEA.
- Those of you in theater with well-established companies – when you come out of rehearsal do you look at your environment? How many record years of temperatures, how many colossal oil spills, how many freak storms and upside-down weather patterns will it take to make you realize that we have a much bigger problem than the staging in Act 2, Scene 3 of The Scottish Play? And if we don’t, what about our children? That’s more important than the NEA.
- Visual artists everywhere – how are your retirement accounts doing? I hope you’re not planning on living off of Social Security because we know, and we have known for three decades, that the SSA cannot fund its mandate. The solution, according to those just elected, is to give your Social Security to the people who caused the biggest financial disaster this side of the Great Depression. Does that sound like a good idea? That’s more important than the NEA.
I could go on and on but there’s no need. The raw numbers are even more damning:
- NEA budget for 2010 is $161 million dollars.
- The total budget for the USA for fiscal year 2010 is $3.5 TRILLION dollars!!!
- The NEA’s budget is .046% of the overall Federal budget.
- The endowment for the Boston Symphony is over twice the amount of the NEA’s current fiscal budget.
- Current USA budget deficit – $1.4 trillion dollars.
- Mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest on the national debt this year – $1.5 trillion dollars.
- Defense budget this year – $660 billion dollars.
Everything else is in the multiple billions, whether it’s the Department of Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, Energy, whatever. But the whipping post is the NEA! Ever since the early ’80s the NEA has served as a rallying cry for those people for whom freedom of thought is a scary idea. The cycle of scandals – remember Robert Mapplethorpe? – have served as wonderful distractions from infinitely larger issues that this country faces. And now, after these historic 2010 elections, I turned on the TV and one of the first things I heard from one of these “Tea Party” candidates was – “and we’re going to KILL THE NEA!!!” Needless to say there was a colossal roar from his rabid supporters.
So enough already. Kill it. Stop blaming the NEA for all the problems in this country. Save your .046% of the budget. So what if we become the artistic laughing stock of the 1st world? We’re already the laughing stock in so many ways. So what if huge orchestras lose a $400K grant? The NEA has been to gun shy to fund anything remotely interesting for almost three decades now, and funding another Mostly Mozart Festival at some orchestra isn’t going to make any difference. Maybe those humongous institutions will make a little room at the trough for the artists who don’t have that high paying union contract job.
And once the NEA is gone then those rabid politicians and their slavering wannabe supporters will be faced with the real questions: do we as a people deserve affordable health care, and if so how are we going to pay for it? Do we as a people deserve to retire like our parents did, or will we have to work until we go to our grave just to make ends meet? Do we as a people deserve to pass on a living viable planet to our children, or will we remain mired in a fossil fuel economy and planet warming denial? And, Mr. and Mrs. Deficit Hawk – how are you going to balance your budget?
These questions are infinitely more important than the NEA. These issues effect every artist everywhere. They impact every human being! These are our lives we’re talking about.
Kill the NEA. Kill it now. Take away the whipping post. Goodbye, and Rest In Peace
This blog post is idiotic and confusingly written. I believe his argument is that right-wingers and other vocal fiscal conservatives use the NEA, which uses a minuscule portion of the nat'l budget, as a primary example of unwise government spending (from their perspective, of course) thus, drawing attention away from "more important" issues like health care, social security, etc. The author is a music director for an orchestra so it's not like he's against arts funding. The problem with the entire premise of his argument is that the NEA isn't THAT big a "whipping post" for fiscal conservatives. As a bit of a news and political junkie, rarely do I hear activists or politicians reference the NEA for the reasons he describes. Yes, it occurs, but not on the scale that he makes it out to be, and certainly not on a scale that justifies killing the NEA.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated reading this satiric blog post - though it points a few fingers at different people, it is important to zoom in on the paragraph with the "real questions". Killing the NEA may not be on every politician’s agenda, but it is not the first time that arts budgets get cut first. It is important to read this and remember that even though people may not be actively trying to kill the NEA, many had cut budgets and underestimate the importance of the arts. Yet, many of them see the weakness of the arts – the lack of powerful allies – as an advantage to them, as they can’t possibly suggest similar cuts to health care and education etc because people concerned are often more vocal and influential. NEA should not be killed but it is good for supporters to realise how little defensive power we have against the people who are not as convinced. It is important for us to educate ourselves and our advocates and allies to remember that there are many important concerns and decisions that need to be made that costs a lot more money, that cutting budgets for the arts will not make the reds on the budget black. For example, money spent for/ in the arts had never been even close to what the US spends in the military. The military expenditure in 2009 of the US and UK combined is more than that of all the other countries in the world combined. Also, the military expenditure of the US is 13 times higher than that of UK. With that said, the US really needs to focus on the managing their budgets in an efficient manner, also in a manner that is reasonable in a first world country, instead of pointing fingers at each other. I wonder if any of the people who try to cut arts funding realise how ridiculous the unbalanced their spending is between, for example, arts and military, compared to other countries?
ReplyDeleteThe "blame game" is getting kind of old. Its not just the arts that are receiving the blame for our countries outrageous spending, although we do seem to have the bright red target on our backs. Obviously cutting the NEA isn't going to make any difference to the US budget. Vanessa really hit it on the head, the arts are a weak area in the budget and it is easy for the government to cut our funding rather than other vital budgets needed to support our country. That is why it is vital to educate ourselves, our politicians and our country about the benefits of the arts and how they help society. We must at the same time though be sensitive to the other costs that are in place for our protection and security while making sure that everyone understands that arts funding is not what is causing this country to be in the red. The US must simply better manage their spending and get to the root of the problem. The ridiculous "blame game" is not getting them anywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe NEA isn't going away. Regardless of what any politician says. As stated already, the portion of the funding is too small to make an impact of any significance. But we have already discussed and and have seen here in DC that the arts are a vital tool with regentrification. The NEA may not fund the individual theatre group or gallery, but indirectly, the funding makes its way to developing and re-developing communities. The NEA isn't going away. The budget cuts we need to make certain don't happen are the budgets affecting schools arts education programs. And I'm referring to band, choruses, art and the like. Here is where it is real and happening wherein the arts are cut while other extra-curricular activities (sports) are not. As for being a "laughing stock ..." when compared to other countries where thea arts are funded, what, if any, art is not funded or even prohibited because it is funded? And I ask this with the hopes of informed feedback. The exbitit here showed the level of tolerance (or intolerance as it where)the community had for the art. Not the "art" community, but the community that the venue showing the art was serving. I wonder if such and exhibit would have made it outside the U-S of A.
ReplyDeleteI think it might be time to kill the NEA. Let's take it away and watch the backlash - it would be a disaster on a national level that any political party would regret in a years time. And maybe, with the loss our public would find that there is a place for the arts. The NEA might just need a re-birth, a new life and arts and society might find a NEA for a new generation that's lifecycle would last 60 years before needing to be abandoned and created anew.
ReplyDelete(From Lesley Lundgren)
I was a bit confused by the tone of the writer, but one thing I clearly got was that he was extremely jaded about the NEA. Perhaps from his perspective, what funding his orchestra receives is for the vanilla repertoire like Mozart and nothing else "remotely interesting". So he's thinking that if artists don't get to do what they want anyway, just get rid of the NEA so that we can't be blamed for the budget crisis. However, I think getting rid of the NEA out of spite is an extremely hurtful and passive aggressive way to go about proving a point.
ReplyDeleteEven if we did get rid of the NEA and had a rebirth of a newer and better NEA as Lesley suggests, there would be countless organizations that would simply crumble. I think that Lesley's idea would be ideal and beneficial in the long run, but how long would it take for the NEA to restructure itself? How long would it take for politicians and the public to realize how important the arts were to society? In other words, how long will most organizations have to be on hiatus, non-functioning, and eventually losing hope?
Well, that was quite a rant, Mr. Eddins! I understood his tone as being ironic, but he brings up a valid point. Many Americans, not only politicians, simply do not find value in the NEA. And even more unsettling, many folks are dismissive of the role the arts play in our society and in our development as human beings. The arts have an image problem. In my opinion, that's the bigger problem here.
ReplyDeleteOne of the leaders of the new Republican House of Representatives cited the elimination of the NEA as the first thing he would propose in January. I don't think the issue is funding; it's symbolism. A killed NEA would be the blood in the water that lures the shark to eat the larger animals, such as the departments of education, energy and labor. So there's the "hold the fort" argument to prevent the shark attack. There's also Lesley's idea. Let's have a fistfight!
ReplyDeleteSymbolism is what I saw here as well. This reminds me of a current initiative by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina (R) who is working to shut down federal funding for PBS/NPR. He claims it's all over the firing of Juan Williams. No matter what side you're on with that whole issue, DeMint is also not shy in stating that these organizations have a "liberal" agenda that needs to be stopped, despite the fact that PBS has provided educational and cultural programming for all ages for generations. So it obviously goes much deeper than disagreeing with Williams' dismissal from NPR.
ReplyDeleteI haven't done an extensive amount of research on the issue, but I don't think DeMint is the first person to try and do this, and he probably won't be the last. PBS, NPR, and the NEA: none of these organizations are the roots of our country’s financial crisis. However, politicians can create a scapegoat out of anyone to appeal to their voters. It's all about having a political axe to grind. Those wanting to shut down cultural institutions will always be around through every administration and as artists, maybe we need to find creative ways to deal with such opposition.
I have to agree with earlier postings that NEA isn't the real issue. I think its just getting support for the arts. Its possible that more arts advocacy could alter the way NEA sponsors the arts.
ReplyDelete