Government doesn't create money. They take it, and find ways to spend
it.The arts can survive on their own.
Federal funds shouldn't be paying for dance. Seems obvious to most people.
Interesting though that programs that encourage culture, innovation, and free
thinking among the little ones seems to be feared among the political big
establishment crowd and tax break incentives are favored when a wealthy
businessman is building a big stadium for his professional sports team.
I love the arts - they bring culture to an otherwise uncultured world. But let
them pay for themselves like the rest of us. If it cannot survive
without the Government spending money then maybe it should learn to adapt,
change and overcome. Perhaps it will spend less time being just a touch snooty
and a little more engaged in the process of people. Dare I say accessible to
larger groups?Art is essential to the development of society - but
it too must earn its keep along the way.
"Low-hanging fruit" that SHOULD have been cut as soon as our budget
passed 1 trillion.(19 trillion ago!)
Increase the funding for arts by ten-fold! Imagine if instead of building a
ridiculous wall we committed those funds to the arts. Now that would be a
Any money will have strings attached. Accepting that money means you give up a
degree of control to those who give you the money.People who buy a
ticket to a show are making any future investment contingent on how satisfied
they are with the show for which they just bought the ticket. If I like the show
I will come again.Each community is going to value different forms
of "art". Personally I will never go to the ballet, opera or symphony.
And even though there are a lot of good reasons for supporting these vestiges of
culture, I choose not to spend my money on them. I would rather buy
a ticket to the races or a rodeo. Does that make me a hater of the arts? Some
may say so, but since we have been shown time and again with so-called
"modern art" that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I say there is
art in an 8 second bull ride or a 3.7 second top fuel run.I'll
never begrudge anyone wanting to go to the opera, but don't compel me to
support your version of art through my taxes.
Ocomeonow It doesn't matter what the percentage is. Zero
percent works much better for our 20 trillion dollar debt. That's your
@oco "No music, no dance, no art, no theater. What a life!"The arts will be fine. It will be funded by supporters, like you, who
care."Everyone who has commented today, I challenge to equal my
donation or buy tickets worth 5% of your yearly income to any or several local
cultural groups this and every year."No thank you. It should be
my right to choose when and if I support the arts, just as I choose not to
support the Utah Jazz.
No music, no dance, no art, no theater. What a life! Everyone who has
commented today, I challenge to equal my donation or buy tickets worth 5% of
your yearly income to any or several local cultural groups this and every
year.Disney on ice does not count.
The National Endowment for the Arts’ FY2016 appropriation of $147.9
million constitutes approximately .004 percent of the federal budget. More than
80 percent of the appropriation is distributed as grants and awards to
organizations and individuals across the country.• NEA grants provide a
significant return on investment of federal dollars with $1 of NEA direct
funding leveraging up to $9 in private and other public funds, resulting in $500
million in matching support in 2016.....See their website for reality check.
Americans and Utahns can grow up and live happy lives without publicly funded
arts and dance programs.However, the future looks really bad because
government spending on thousands of "nice to have" programs, including
arts and dance have run up a $20 Trillion debt, the interest on which will add
even more so that taxes will have to go up and massive cuts will have to be made
in every program, including vital programs like defense.Get the debt
paid off and we can talk about funding in the future, but for now it must be
cut. Anyone who objects can get their checkbook out and fill the gap, but
don't stoop to stealing from future generations.
All funding for these and similar programs should be raised privately. This
reporter only addresses one side of the story. All the good things associated
with the arts can be done sufficiently and probably even better with private
money. Forcing it away from tax payers is the problem here, not the cuts. The
only thing hurting these programs is the lack of private funding....not cuts in
government funding. The headline and this story is misleading and biased.
The arts should be supported and funded by art lovers. I've never quite
understood the need to fund something artistic by government/tax dollars. If
people want it and appreciate it, they will fund it through attendance,
purchases, and donations. If it can't be supported by those who appreciate
it, why should it be supported by those who don't.
@ Bored to the point of THIS!:Two possibilities: 1)
this is a satire, in which case, well done, sir!2) This isn't a
satire. Did you just call yourself a Neanderthal?
The arts will be just fine without government funding.
I think this is a good cut.The Neanderthals didn't need the
arts to progress, why would we?
I love most of the "arts", but I think they should be self sustaining,
meaning that I should only support them by my attendance, and not my tax
everbody wants to reduce our debt and build our military and roads and bridges
...but nobody wants to cut anything. Sounds like a teenager who still wants his
uber expensive iPhone but doesn't want to give up his other
goodie-freebees. Something has got to be cut here folks -- its time for the
adults to rule now.