Thanks to all of you who replied so thoughtfully to my
          "modest proposal" post. It seems clear that everyone pretty
          much thinks that the idea of state arts block grants is a
          a generally foul concept...
 
          The only general replies to the replies that I would make
          is: 1) I suggested as a preferable option that these "block
          grants" would be based upon state funding for the arts as
          opposed to population. This would not be "per capita"
          funding, but absolute, as there is no apparent reason to
          rationalize the number by dividing by population.
 
          2) All of the responses were, essentially, "the way things
          are now is preferable" to the model I describe. But my
          proposal is in response to the *very* real threat of a quick
          dismantling or a slow strangling of the arts and humanities
          endowments. I don't think that the status quo is necessarily
          an option.
 
          I heard it opined on NPR that the arts endowment (in
          particular) is becoming a test case for the new gang (and I
          appreciate everyone's pointing out that this does not
          necessary divide by party line.) To paraphrase the pundit
          who spoke "if they can't cut arts funding, then they can't
          deliver on any of the more serious and painful cuts that
          need to be made to deliver a balanced budget."
 
          I don't *want* to be a test case, but there we are...
 
          Eric Siegel
          [log in to unmask]