Posted on 03/18/2017 10:07:47 AM PDT by lowbridge
Several key Republican lawmakers are expressing support for the programs, which, since their near-death experiences during the culture wars of a generation ago, have taken pains to counter accusations of coastal elitism by making sure to distribute their grants widely across all 50 states.
-snip
Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is the chairwoman of a crucial Senate appropriations panel that oversees the endowments, said in a statement, “I believe we can find a way to commit to fiscal responsibility while continuing to support the important benefits that N.E.A. and N.E.H. provide.”
Her backing, like that of some other Republicans, comes after years of federal funds have flowed to artists in her state. Since 1995, the endowment has sent more than $18 million in grants to Alaska — a state which, partly because of its small population, ranks near the top when it comes to arts grants per capita.
Two other Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, signed their names last month to a letter urging continued support for the endowments, which together get $300 million a year. A spokeswoman for Senator Capito, who is on the appropriations committee, said Friday that she would “advocate for her priorities, including funding for the arts and humanities, which are important to our economy and communities.”
And there were warm words among some Republicans in the House as well. Representative Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican who is on the House appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the endowments budget, said in a statement, “I support the present level of funding for these programs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Fund them ONLY if they give mandated equal time to conservatives and Republicans AND put equal number of conservatives on any boards, etc. Bet they’d give up money instead of their propaganda role.
Introducing the concept of zero based budgeting is gonna change the game in Washington.
Excellent comment!
The arts and sciences are both liberal.
Remember, those urine-filled bottles were paid for with tax dollars.
We are going to need folks skilled in trade crafts, not ‘painting little happy trees’.
Maya Angelou was paid tax money.
All those infamous homoerotic photographs were paid with tax money.
Hollywood gets tax money.
I say, cut the funding.
This is why nothing ever changes.
The refusal by the Executive Branch to spend appropriated moneys is called impoundment, and it was a tool used very effectively by Richard Nixon, until the hounds of Congress rammed through a restriction on his authority to do so, claiming it was a breach of his Constitutional duties.
I do not know if this same restriction on impoundment still exists today. Nixon did not pursue the lifting of the restrictions because, frankly, in 1973 he had a LOT of other political problems.
Be ware of the source, the New York Times. They slant things, and probably those wanting to get to the REAL issues won’t find it here.
The fed govt is like a child with an unlimited credit card.
In real life, if you make 60k and owe 60k, you cut out EVERYTHING that isn’t essential for as long as it takes to whittle it down.
I’ve been there in my younger days.
It works.
They should try it. But they won’t because they are selfish disgusting animals.
Just take those amounts away from the Medicaid block grants for those states.
Taxpayer funding for "art" no one in the free market would pay for.
Screw the N.E.A. and N.E.H. Those rich jackasses that are the industry are paid too much in salaries and other perks, let them pay for this N.E.A. and N.E.H.
If the fed gov made 60k it would right now owe 300k and still be spending 80k per year.
There are still two questions to consider, a negative answer to either of which is disqualifying:
No. And No.
We are the brokest country in history, and the "party of small government" continues to spend money as if we actually had some.
in DC today the two party system is both houses of the Congress v the WH. Drain the DC swamp President Trump or they will drown you in it.
What a silly fight. $300 million TOTAL?
I go for that. I recall when the subject of liberal bias
at PBS would be argued. The libs would assert that
William F Buckley’s ‘Firing Line’ program was the
conservative balance to the many left leaning programs.
In reality, Buckley’s show commonly featured him debating
liberal intellectuals. So, even on what the left considered
to be right wing programming their viewpoint, at least,
was represented. All other programs with political content
including documentaries were and are left leaning. Just
like the commercial networks (NBC,CBS,ABC), PBS political
panel programming casts 3 or 4 liberals against one
moderately conservative guest and they consider that to be balanced.
What Trump is proposing in his budget slashing
is what I consider to be the last opportunity
for this nation to get control of spending.
All of these Democrats AND Republicans need
to untwist their panties and understand that
they are now in negotiation mode. And, further
they need to start making sure that expenditures
are going to be carefully monitored.
all the art foundations have enough private support to survive and thrive.
national public radio has enough endowments to run indefinitely. (remember the 400 million they inherited?)
NEH is for the humanities. (not even a real science)
if it is so insignificant in the budget why bother funding that when we can spend it on hard science that gives real world dividends like NASA.
Taken care of business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmwic9kFx2c
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.