Sorry, man, it just doesn't pass the smell test. I think if we start seeing letters to the editor calling for funding cuts on any politically charged issue (arts, foreign aid) due to Katrina, it'll look awful for us.
"I think if we start seeing letters to the editor calling for funding cuts on any politically charged issue (arts, foreign aid) due to Katrina, it'll look awful for us."
I don't think the beltway has a clue how unpopular the NEA is, after people hear how it's been misused. The smell test is on the other foot, especially when we need money for NOLA.
I'll even make a bet to any GOP cowards out there. If one brave congress member is given a quiet green light to launch a trial baloon on this, they can always leave that member high and dry and wash their hands of it. But in the end, whoever leads the charge on this will SHINE.
Walking on eggs doesn't pass the smell test and is a sure way of getting nowhere. For once, we've got a enormously legitimate platform from which to demand axing wasteful programs like the Endowment for the Arts, and with true moral justification -- it doesn't get any better than this. The NOLA disaster is an immediate, striking illustration of how tax dollars SHOULD be better spent. You worry that it "will look awful for us," but on the contrary, this disaster DOES look awful for those who think money spent for the arts is worthwhile.
Most important: Any individual or group that decides what action to take solely on the basis of what others will think, is controlled by others.
Getting monies to those in need would look bad?
I think not.