The National Endowment for the Arts Is Bad for Art and Should Be Defunded
For over a decade as a theatre artist, my salary was made possible by taxpayers funding the arts. To be sure, some of that money was made possible by private grants and, I guess, through monies raised at the box office. But, let's be honest, without the taxpayers footing a hefty portion of the bill, I wouldn't have been able to make as little money as I did make. In hindsight, and after much reflection and a better understanding of economics, I am truly sorry, and ask the taxpayer to forgive my thievery. However, spilled milk can't be put back into the bottle. That doesn't mean that we have to keep spilling the milk, though. It's way past time to defund and shutter the National Endowment for the Arts.
From the organization's website, "The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation."
That mission statement prompts a few questions. (Well, the first one isn't so much a question as an eye-rolling musing.): 1. Yeah, it's easy to fund things with other people's money, NEA. 2. How does creating a false market for art promote and strengthen creative capacity? 3. All Americans? Really, NEA? Are you sure that "all Americans" have the requisite skills to participate in the arts?
The first question/eye-rolling musing is countered by artists and those who hold the arts community's purse strings that arts organizations provide an economic engine to communities (by the way, I could write a whole other article about the absurd, silly, politics that I saw first hand while I worked directly for a specific arts funding organization—and by "funding," of course, I mean that they took taxpayers dollars and with a kindergartener level of pettiness disbursed that
stolen taxed money amongst their friends). The NEA and their supporters will trot out research about how many dollars are added to local economies due to things like theatres, symphonies, and museums. Of course, as almost every person with at least half a semester of Economics under their belt is screaming, the NEA's argument embraces the broken window fallacy.
The economic stimulus felt and supposedly generated by the arts community comes at the expense of other markets. Chances are, the tax dollars given to arts organizations would have been more effectively used elsewhere to benefit local economies. All that money pumped into the local economy by arts organizations would have been pumped into the economy anyway. The taxpayers would have decided which markets to support. And those markets would've naturally grown, strengthened, and added jobs and wealth to the economy. The National Endowment for the Arts model artificially props up mostly unwanted markets by using tax dollars that get funneled through inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies.