Posted on 01/28/2004 8:29:35 PM PST by yonif
WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the largest single source of support for the arts in the United States, administration officials said on Wednesday.
The proposal is part of a turnaround for the agency, which was once fighting for its life, attacked by some Republicans as a threat to the nation's moral standards.
Laura Bush plans to announce the request on Thursday, in remarks intended to show the administration's commitment to the arts, aides said.
Administration officials, including White House budget experts, said that Mr. Bush would propose an increase of $15 million to $20 million for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That would be the largest rise in two decades and far more than the most recent increases, about $500,000 for 2003 and $5 million for this year.
The agency has a budget of $121 million this year, 31 percent lower than its peak of $176 million in 1992. After Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, they cut the agency's budget to slightly less than $100 million, and the budget was essentially flat for five years.
In an e-mail message inviting arts advocates to a news briefing with Mrs. Bush, Dana Gioia, the poet who is chairman of the endowment, says, "You will be present for an important day in N.E.A. history."
Mr. Gioia (pronounced JOY-uh) has tried to move beyond the culture wars that swirled around the agency for years. He has nurtured support among influential members of Congress, including conservative Republicans like Representatives Charles H. Taylor and Sue Myrick of North Carolina. He has held workshops around the country to explain how local arts organizations can apply for assistance.
Public support for the arts was hotly debated in the 1990's. Conservatives complained that the agency was financing obscene or sacrilegious works by artists like Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano. Former Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, repeatedly tried to eliminate the agency.
Some new money sought by Mr. Bush would expand initiatives with broad bipartisan support, like performances of Shakespeare's plays and "Jazz Masters" concert tours.
Mrs. Bush also plans to introduce a new initiative, "American Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius." This would combine art presentations — from painting and literature to music and dance — with education programs. The program would give large numbers of students around the country a chance to see exhibitions and performances.
New York receives a large share of the endowment's grants. But under federal law, the agency also gives priority to projects that cater to "underserved populations," including members of minority groups in urban neighborhoods with high poverty rates.
The president's proposal faces an uncertain future at a time of large budget deficits.
Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, an advocacy group, said, "We'll be fighting tooth and nail for the increase."
Some conservatives, like Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, vowed to oppose the increase. Even without support from the government, he said, "art would thrive in America."
Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat who is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus, said she was delighted to learn of Mr. Bush's proposal.
"There's nothing in the world that helps economic development more than arts programs," Ms. Slaughter said. "It was foolish for Congress to choke them and starve them. We should cherish the people who can tell us who we are, where we came from and where we hope to go."
Mr. Tancredo expressed dismay. "We are looking at record deficit and potential cuts in all kinds of programs," he said. "How can I tell constituents that I'll take money away from them to pay for somebody else's idea of good art? I have no more right to do that than to finance somebody else's ideas about religion."
The agency has long had support from some Republicans, like Representatives Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Jim Leach of Iowa.
"Government involvement is designed to take the arts from the grand citadel of the privileged and bring them to the public at large," Mr. Leach said. "This democratization of the arts ennobles the American experience."
I know it is difficult to handle the truth of the President we all looked up to for so long turning out to be a fraud. Just accept it and move on.
Yeah. He could never get reelected without supporting an immigration proposal opposed by 60% of voters, a Medicare plan that nobody wanted, or an increase in spending on the NEA. [rolls eyes]
Kerry will subrogate all of the war decisions to the UN. He has already said so. He thinks we can't prosecute a war unless we have Security Council approval...in other words, we will let France run our foreign policy.
Kerry also is not about to attack the Saudis, because he couldn't afford to lose the oil supply, and Europe wouldn't like it (remember...France will control our foreign policy.)
Kerry is not about to anger the democrat base on anything like the war on terror, and the leftist base of the Rat party won't countenance anything military.
Even when tempers were hot after 9/11, there were plenty of Rats who didn't support going into Afghanistan. And Kerry NOW says he wouldn't have gone into Iraq.
You can construct all sorts of wishful thinking about Kerry if you wish, but I know that he would be a disaster. For crying out loud, Teresa is angry because her Euro-friends are appalled at Bush! Do you think Mr. Ketchup is going to turn into Bush lite? Not a chance!
You have lied about me, and you will get away with it, because you are mocking someone who respects the President, and that gives you brownie points on this thread.
Scroll down the posts. No moneys has been given yet.......this is still speculative, and yet look at the emotional assumptions being made.
It's just fine to be irrational when it comes to hating Bush on this forum, and it is nearly impossible to actually discuss ISSUES, and points where we DISAGREE with the President because of threads like this and people like you.
IF this happens, I will be in DISAGREEMENT with the President on this, as I have been on other issues.
But don't let the truth about me interfere with your (pre- adolescent) fun.
For the record, I came back to address your question, and would prefer not to come back to this thread again, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't ping me back.
Most of the comments on this thread are the result of emotions and not reason........
You gonna answer me? ;)
Hahaha...only if right and wrong do not exist.
Either you can't even see the illogic in your reasoning, or you have no clue what a moral conviction is.
However, I am going to do everything I can to make sure there is never a President Kerry. You can thank the Bush supporters in a few years when you have a clearer idea about national security, which is my number one priority.
This is the core of your thesis.
First of all, Bush Sr. did pretty much that, and he was successful.
Secondly -- like Bush -- Kerry might be saying what he needs to, to firm up his base. I suspect as a former military man, the reality will differ from his rhetoric.
Got it.
;^)
Ah, logic. REAson. Exceptional analysis, premises building to conclusions. That's what we were missing on this thread.
Not Yes... should be Yet...the President is trying to be all things to all people.
Either you can't even see the illogic in your reasoning, or you have no clue what a moral conviction is.
See, this is what make posts like yours so much fun. Not only do I get an answer... I get insulted... It's a two-fer-one... Beats the special down at the Krispy Kreme.
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.