> I truly believe that if
>taxpayers had more disposable income, more money would be freely given to
>legitimate arts organizations and any changes observed wold be positive ones.
>


Don't bet on it.  According to studies, (admittedly not done by arts
organizations) most Americans, given extra money, would spend it on consumer
goods rather than in philanthropic pursuits.  This is the basis of the
"trickle-down" theory of economics:  cut taxes to increase spending on
consumer goods to stimulate the economy.  Lilkewise, if corporations were to
suddenly pay less in taxes I imagine they would distribute as much of  the
excess as possible out to their shareholders, not necessarily plow it into
charitable contributions.

And how are you defining "legitimate" arts organizations?  To my knowledge,
no "illegitimate" organization is allowed to take charitable donations or
any federal dollars whatsoever!  I'd like to know an example of what you
would consider an "illegitimate" organization.

Also, you must know by now that the NEA has cut funding for individual
artists due to the heavy Congressional backlash.  Since a good deal of the
funding controversy has stemmed from that particular program, that should
make you feel better.


Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center