The military has more than 130 bands with more than 6000 musicians, costing about a half-billion dollars a year. Meanwhile the National Endowment for the Arts gets $155M, a paltry amount compared to other advanced democracies. Arts & artists should be robustly funded & supported!

Oct 25, 2019 · 12:55 AM UTC

104
272
45
1,412
Replying to @marwilliamson
A half billion? Rand Paul has not found that waste yet.
Replying to @marwilliamson
I can listen to the discussion on military bands. But, the NEA? Artists are small business people and should be self supporting. And, the idea that taxpayers should help the wealthy attend events (the Arts) at the Kennedy Center is ridiculous.
2
9
Replying to @marwilliamson
Do you know ho much $155M is? Get out!
Replying to @marwilliamson
Not by the government. Let them find their own patrons.
Replying to @marwilliamson
As a professional musician, and a libertarian, I've gotten into lots of debates about the overall impact of the NEA. First of all it must be pointed out that the golden age of American Orchestras (and dance) occurred before the NEA even existed.
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
So the NEA is simply not a factor in the health (or the recent decline) of arts in America, but do you know what does make a big difference? Corporations. For example the dread Koch Brothers have been keeping ABT afloat for years.
Replying to @marwilliamson
So rather than moan about an underfunded and ineffectual NEA, why don't we make it easier for private citizens and corporations to get tax credits for charitable giving?
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
Are all the arts and artists supported by tax dollars?
Replying to @marwilliamson
Can't agree with this one. America is already a global hub for culture/art. It doesn't need funding.
Replying to @marwilliamson
If you’re an artist in the military, you are robustly funded. Maybe some of these NEA people should enlist!
Load more