> The failure to transfer the funding via block grants to the
> states is inexcusable.

But you must understand this was a ploy to begin with. One need look no
farther than the fact that the new beauracracy to adminster this new
program was to be centered in The Department of Education. Those who
proposed the block grant scheme also happen to have high on their agenda
an end to.... The Department of Education!  Also, for a real shock take
the $80 million amount in the alternative bill, take the 60% of that
designated for Arts education. Divide among the 50 states and then among
all the districts in your state. Our quick calculations in Colorado show
that the resulting amount would pay for only one arts teacher (divided
among the fine arts, theatre, dance, and music) per DISTRICT, or around
$500-600 per school! ... enough for "crayons and construction paper".

Also the block grant legislation had not even been written let alone
debated or the subject of a public hearing. The scheme was quite literally
pulled out of a hat at the last moment when it looked as though the rule
denying debate on The NEA would fail.

It reminds me of last year when Rep. Chrysler (R-MI) removed his name from
sponsorship of a bill to ban The NEA. What the Representative did NOT
publicize, at least not to those that care about the arts in his district,
is that he left his name on as sponsor of ANOTHER bill to end the NEA.

This is the kind of game they are playing with these types of bills,
providing for plausable deniability.

It reminds me of another plot last year to end most royalty payments to
composers and songwriters. That bill had scores of sponsors. Interesting
the sponsors tended to be the same folk who said they objected to the NEA
because the arts should "succeed on the open marketplace" (that they would
try through the bill to destroy....at least for songwriters and
composers).

The block grant scheme in the end was a shrewd calculated move presenting
a no win situation for the arts community. Either vote
for a scheme without even having the text to examine that may in turn give
ammunition to those in the Senate to sign onto the scheme to eliminate The
NEA....or vote it down only to hear later "hey we GAVE you a chance for
arts funding and you didn't want it". Meanwhile those who concocted the
scheme can indeed have it both ways telling one side that they kept their
promise to end the NEA while telling the public who SUPPORTS our cultural
institutions that they were eager to find "new ways to finance the arts".

In Colorado this legislative season there was a similar ploy in a bill to
"Privatize arts instruction in the schools". The bill sponsor claimed his
measure was to deal with shrinking budgets for arts instruction in the
schools but in the small print of the bill were provisions such as that
allowing schools to charge rent to students participating in school plays
and concerts for use of the school auditorium. With a little digging we
discovered that the bill sponsor's wife was a PRIVATE instructor of music,
the type of instructor that school districts would have to contract with
as they fired full time music teachers. In the end we beat back the bill
but the sponsors couldn't understand why we were against a bill designed
to "save arts instruction in Colorado."

In the end, Today's Federal vote  seemed to have an interesting
dynamic with those at both extremes voting together. Those against the
arts really don't WANT block grants and those most vocal in SUPPORT of the
arts resented being manipulated through the introduction of phony bills.

It will be interesting now to see how the vote goes on The amendment
offered by Steve Chabot (R-OH) to end funding towards the NEH.  The debate
was today but the vote is scheduled for tuesday morning.
RF