Trump team prepares dramatic cuts

[JA]

Trump team prepares dramatic cuts

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally, I can't see how this ends well. The Trump Administration is already setting its tone and agenda as one of steep cuts to the federal government and the gutting of important agencies and departments. I'm sure there's a lot here for conservatives to celebrate, but how many people will be hurt by the inevitable cuts - particularly the poor and disadvantaged?

[dead0man]

There are good arguments to be made either way here, but since it's harder to gut govt bureaucracy than it is to create it, I don't really have a problem with this.  If they cut something that's actually important it will be noticed and fixed.

but I'm an optimist, pessimists might see it a bit differently (especially pessimists that enjoy big govt and subsidized art)

[Xing]

Cutting the arts/humanities = Automatically oppose. Only cowards do this.

[Tender Branson]

It's worth noting that the Census Bureau is part of the Commerce Department, so I wonder what effect the cuts will have on the 2020 Census ...

[Mr. Reactionary]

My God yes pls.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities is barely even a rounding error in the federal budget, but it's worth so much to the people who benefit from it - people who don't spend their lives being wage slaves or STEM snobs.  Eliminating those is a huge slap in the face.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I'm a STEM major and advocate but the Arts/Humanities are an important aspect of our society that we simply can't eliminate. I oppose this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities is barely even a rounding error in the federal budget, but it's worth so much to the people who benefit from it - people who don't spend their lives being wage slaves or STEM snobs.  Eliminating those is a huge slap in the face.

Move to MN.  There's a sales tax dedicated to funding the arts enshrined in the state constitution.

[Higgs]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

[Virginiá]

It's worth noting that the Census Bureau is part of the Commerce Department, so I wonder what effect the cuts will have on the 2020 Census ...

Surely would lead to less accurate results. I'm sure Republican lawmakers would love an underfunded census to undercount minorities and the poor. Lots of partisan and fiscal benefits there!

[Enduro]

Wait, I agree with Trump? What!?

I feel weird.

[DrScholl]

It's worth noting that the Census Bureau is part of the Commerce Department, so I wonder what effect the cuts will have on the 2020 Census ...

Surely would lead to less accurate results. I'm sure Republican lawmakers would love an underfunded census to undercount minorities and the poor. Lots of partisan and fiscal benefits there!

That could actually hurt Republicans in reapportionment. An inaccurate count in Texas would effect how many seats the state gains overall, which would mean one less Republican seat to gerrymander.

[Xing]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

[SteveRogers]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

I would also add that politicians who advocate cutting funding for the arts "because deficits" should be branded as dishonest since all they're doing is attacking an easy punching bag so they can tell their innumerate supporters that they've done something to "cut wasteful spending" without in fact tackling the actual causes of ballooning deficits or making even a minuscule dent in the deficit.

[JJC]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

Or maybe they think that spending millions or even billions on art is not the role the government should be taking, and that that money could be better spent on programs that actually grow the economy. (Not politically and racially motivated handouts for votes. That doesn't grow the economy. It weakens it).

They probably also think - through strong evidence - that these kinds of programs benefit only a select few of politically like-minded people and creates unnecessary bureaucracies that leads to entrenched power and serve no purpose to the 99.9% of the American people (other than spending their money). The money for these programs also almost always gets misused for political purposes.

Finally, they realize - quite obviously - that art in society is not going to suffer one bit by removing government handouts.

The biggest flaw among liberals is that they project what other people think. You basically just accused a wide swath of your countrymen of being barbarians who hate art and fascists who want to shut down dissent. The thought that they have very good, logical, and moral reasons for their beliefs - whether you agree them or not - didn't even occur to you.

They don't believe what you believe so they must be evil.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Dramatic cuts"!? My mother always said that the first to go were music, art, and gym. I guess she was right!

[Xing]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

Or maybe they think that spending millions or even billions on art is not the role the government should be taking, and that that money could be better spent on programs that actually grow the economy. (Not politically and racially motivated handouts for votes. That doesn't grow the economy. It weakens it).

They probably also think - through strong evidence - that these kinds of programs benefit only a select few of politically like-minded people and creates unnecessary bureaucracies that leads to entrenched power and serve no purpose to the 99.9% of the American people (other than spending their money). The money for these programs also almost always gets misused for political purposes.

Finally, they realize - quite obviously - that art in society is not going to suffer one bit by removing government handouts.

The biggest flaw among liberals is that they project what other people think. You basically just accused a wide swath of your countrymen of being barbarians who hate art and fascists who want to shut down dissent. The thought that they have very good, logical, and moral reasons for their beliefs - whether you agree them or not - didn't even occur to you.

They don't believe what you believe so they must be evil.

lol, nice strawman. I never once used the word evil. Talk about projecting. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll respond, knowing that I could just be wasting my time.

As others have mentioned, 150 million is small potatoes in a national budget, but speaking as an artist, the NEA does make a difference in the lives of many artists. It's a small amount of money that provides support to programs across the country, many of which are struggling from an enormous lack of funding, and offers just a bit of support for people who get very little appreciation in society. We support and fund many other fields to a much greater extent, and yet I don't talk about that sort of funding as being a handout. Many artists and artistic communities depend on that small amount of support, and targeting or eliminating them does not actually help anyone or save a significant amount of money. Many arts programs in schools have to fight tooth and nail to get any funding at all, and we face lots of smug comments like "music isn't going to cure cancer" or "theater won't protect us from terrorists." I'm not saying people don't appreciate the arts because I'm an elitist with first world problems. I'm saying people don't appreciate the arts because a lot of people really don't appreciate the arts, and many artists and teachers of the arts feel as though their way of life is hanging on by a thread.

Sorry, but people who say that the arts aren't important are generally speaking from ignorance. That doesn't make them "evil", since we all do it from time to time, but nearly every argument I've heard about why the arts aren't important involves incredibly simplistic thinking. I could point you to a great deal of research on how art benefits the human mind from a scientific standpoint, or the fact that art plays a critical role in any form of entertainment or recreation, or how it provides a creative and productive outlet that helps many people reduce stress and remain healthy. This is not something that only affects 0.1% of the population. Slashing arts would not only harm artists (who are more than 0.1% of the population, by the way), but also anyone who benefits from art in society, which is everyone.

Maybe, just maybe the fact that I've devoted a great deal of my life to one of the fine arts (music), and not only studied it, but studied the impact it has on the human mind and society makes me a slightly better source on the subject than someone who has merely passively noticed art without giving it much thought. Does that make me an elitist? So be it. I guess doctors who think they know more than me about medicine are also elitist! And those computer scientists who think they understand code better than I do. Elitists, I say! Some people are better authorities on subjects. Either that or reality is elitist.

[Frodo]

It's worth noting that the Census Bureau is part of the Commerce Department, so I wonder what effect the cuts will have on the 2020 Census ...

Surely would lead to less accurate results. I'm sure Republican lawmakers would love an underfunded census to undercount minorities and the poor. Lots of partisan and fiscal benefits there!

That could actually hurt Republicans in reapportionment. An inaccurate count in Texas would effect how many seats the state gains overall, which would mean one less Republican seat to gerrymander.

Bearing that in mind, I'm sure that's one mistake Congress will correct. 

As for the other programs being cut....... 

[Meclazine for Israel]

There are good arguments to be made either way here, but since it's harder to gut govt bureaucracy than it is to create it, I don't really have a problem with this.  If they cut something that's actually important it will be noticed and fixed.

but I'm an optimist, pessimists might see it a bit differently (especially pessimists that enjoy big govt and subsidized art)

A common strategy in business. We got rid of an IT help desk employee once, and no one noticed for 8 weeks.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting certainly does not "benefit only a select few".

[JA]

I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.

Or maybe they think that spending millions or even billions on art is not the role the government should be taking, and that that money could be better spent on programs that actually grow the economy. (Not politically and racially motivated handouts for votes. That doesn't grow the economy. It weakens it).

They probably also think - through strong evidence - that these kinds of programs benefit only a select few of politically like-minded people and creates unnecessary bureaucracies that leads to entrenched power and serve no purpose to the 99.9% of the American people (other than spending their money). The money for these programs also almost always gets misused for political purposes.

Finally, they realize - quite obviously - that art in society is not going to suffer one bit by removing government handouts.

The biggest flaw among liberals is that they project what other people think. You basically just accused a wide swath of your countrymen of being barbarians who hate art and fascists who want to shut down dissent. The thought that they have very good, logical, and moral reasons for their beliefs - whether you agree them or not - didn't even occur to you.

They don't believe what you believe so they must be evil.

lol, nice strawman. I never once used the word evil. Talk about projecting. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll respond, knowing that I could just be wasting my time.

As others have mentioned, 150 million is small potatoes in a national budget, but speaking as an artist, the NEA does make a difference in the lives of many artists. It's a small amount of money that provides support to programs across the country, many of which are struggling from an enormous lack of funding, and offers just a bit of support for people who get very little appreciation in society. We support and fund many other fields to a much greater extent, and yet I don't talk about that sort of funding as being a handout. Many artists and artistic communities depend on that small amount of support, and targeting or eliminating them does not actually help anyone or save a significant amount of money. Many arts programs in schools have to fight tooth and nail to get any funding at all, and we face lots of smug comments like "music isn't going to cure cancer" or "theater won't protect us from terrorists." I'm not saying people don't appreciate the arts because I'm an elitist with first world problems. I'm saying people don't appreciate the arts because a lot of people really don't appreciate the arts, and many artists and teachers of the arts feel as though their way of life is hanging on by a thread.

Sorry, but people who say that the arts aren't important are generally speaking from ignorance. That doesn't make them "evil", since we all do it from time to time, but nearly every argument I've heard about why the arts aren't important involves incredibly simplistic thinking. I could point you to a great deal of research on how art benefits the human mind from a scientific standpoint, or the fact that art plays a critical role in any form of entertainment or recreation, or how it provides a creative and productive outlet that helps many people reduce stress and remain healthy. This is not something that only affects 0.1% of the population. Slashing arts would not only harm artists (who are more than 0.1% of the population, by the way), but also anyone who benefits from art in society, which is everyone.

Maybe, just maybe the fact that I've devoted a great deal of my life to one of the fine arts (music), and not only studied it, but studied the impact it has on the human mind and society makes me a slightly better source on the subject than someone who has merely passively noticed art without giving it much thought. Does that make me an elitist? So be it. I guess doctors who think they know more than me about medicine are also elitist! And those computer scientists who think they understand code better than I do. Elitists, I say! Some people are better authorities on subjects. Either that or reality is elitist.

10,000% this ^^ Excellent post!

[Ban my account ffs!]

"Dramatic cuts"!? My mother always said that the first to go were music, art, and gym. I guess she was right!

You're catching on, Cathcon.  Always be aware of the words you use and the words other people use. 

[DC Al Fine]

Cutting the arts/humanities = Automatically oppose. Only cowards do this.

*Sigh*

[DrScholl]

The thing about cutting the arts is that it will have no real impact on the deficit, but it's an easy way to claim that you cut something without actually making a real effort.

[dead0man]

I would be shocked if there are not more professional artists now than at any point in history.  This "oh, won't someone think of the artists!" hand wringing seems a bit much to me.  If a specific art is important, it will stick around.  If it's not, it wont.  Just like always.  You have to sell yourself to rich people or the masses to make a go at it, just like always.


I enjoy PBS and NPR, and while I've normally been for privatizing them, I'm still mildly concerned.  And I don't really care if the Feds give a little money to some poor young artists (I do care when it's subsidizing the hobbies of the rich, but we don't have to get into that again), but I don't really care if they don't either.