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."
His job is to support policy that is best for the citizens of the U.S. "Representation" of all citizens does not mean that he should throw political bones to each group like some lapdog. He is a leader. Democrats are as well represented by the passing of laws consistent with limited government as Republicans are, they just don't know it.
That is a demented line of thinking.
I believe ousting Bush and sending a message is important. If doing so creates conditions that lead to another terror attack then I would still say ousting Bush was essential.
No, I do not want a terror attack. What I want is a president who is strong on national security but not prone to committing national and cultural suicide. This NEA thing is but another absurdity in along line of absurdities. My real issue is immigration.
BTW, I don't owe you an explanation. I am entitled to my opinion.But twisting my words to say I somehow am craving another terror attack is, at best, ridiculous-at worst sinister.
Look, you and I are are not only not on the same page. We are not even in the same library. I suggest you post to other people who share your Bush Bot anthology.
Got it.
That was cute enough for me to not care that you are a 'Bit of a 'Bot. :o)
This is the same John Kerry, who came back from Vietnam and protested the war...calling our soldiers, others who served in the war along side him, "genocidal murderers."
This is the same John Kerry, who threw his medals over the White House fence in protest but later admitted they were not his medals but someone else's. (His now hang on his office wall)
This is the same John Kerry, who voted for the war but now says he was deceived and would not have voted for it all.
Are you actually saying that you can divine this man's intent and separate his rhetoric from his reality when John Kerry can't even do that for himself?
Wow!
Actually, FR already has one. If you weren't too busy hurling worn-out, trite, and inaccurate insults, you might have time to use it.
Yes, this is a growing problem, although how large it is I am not sure, given that we have a higher proportion of very strict conservatives posting here than is reflected in the general population.
Congressman Mike Pence wrote a wonderful article that was posted here a couple of days ago. He discussed his dismay at some of the spending and called Congress to put the brakes on it, telling them that they were losing their way. He also was distressed about disagreeing with a president that he loves (his words, not mine).
I think there is merit in asking the president to explain his position on this spending, and in doing whatever lobbying we can do in Congress to cut it down.
I don't think the president feels especially beholden to the far right because so many of them (including posters here on this thread) actively worked against his election as supporters of Keyes and/or Buchanan. I know that aggravates people when I say it, but if I were the president and looked at the level of carping and threats from the right, I might eventually tune them out myself.
I have been here through every single brouhaha over policy, beginning with the gripes that he didn't actively go after the Clintons, the Chinese plane captivity, the Jeffords debacle, all the way til now. I have heard complaints about farm bills, education, not firing Norm Mineta, not firing Colin Powell, etc. etc.
People who are disgusted with the president have made it plain for a couple of years now. Most of the people posting anti-Bush stuff here have already told me they won't vote for him. I don't think they will be coming back if he drops this funding bill.
My guess is that he lost most of them and is well aware, and is going after centrists. I can't say as I blame him.
I have my suspicions and beliefs. I also don't think that my failure to vote for Bush will hurt him even slightly, so, we'll probably never find out.
You think a zing here... a witticism there... gets you off the hook and excuses your own behavior.
Your level of debate... your logic... your reasonableness do not rise to the heights you believe you occupy.
Not by any stretch of the imagination.
But...keep it up... your lame attempts at a come-back are entertaining...
Jughead needs to listen to what Rush said (and I paraphrase) "If you're a Conservative and you try to appease liberals, you will only succeed in undermining Conservatism and at the end of the day the liberals will still hate you."
On the other hand, you don't even make any pretense at logic or debate whatsoever.
Remember when the Republicans decried Clinton's reliance on polls as a leadership style. Well, Bush may or may not rely on polls, but he certainly does all he can to pander to every liberal group out there. So, I believe I can safely say that Bush is like Clinton in that he governs according to what certain parts of the electorate think. However, that is NOT what the founders had in mind with the principle of Representation. A good representative adheres to moral principle and governs according to the Constitution of the United States and according to moral principle, no matter what the people think and without regard to re-election. Then, if the people do not like his leadership, they can vote him out. The oath that Bush took did not say, "I pledge to please every interest group."
Good to see you again.
And if ousting Bush leads to another terror attack, well, that's ok with you?
Your priorities are duly noted.
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.