In a message dated 97-04-17 02:09:17 EDT: Erik Mansoor wrote:

> 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.
>
>


I've been following this "please write to Congress" thread with bemused
interest, wondering why it's even a point of discussion on a museum list and
waiting for Mr. Monsoor to walk into a wall. I think he has in the above
statement. TIME magazine this week has a piece showing how much time each
workday the average American works to support different government programs:
Debt interest, 22 min. 33 sec.; social security, 20 min. 18 sec.; defense, 17
min. 58 sec.; medicaid, 5 min. 31 sec.; AFDC, 21 sec.; National Endowment for
the Arts, 1/2 sec.

One-half second for the average American worker. (For the average museum
professional, it's probably one-quarter second.) To suggest that if the NEA
disappeared Americans would pour all those extra dollars into art
organizations is ludicrous. Others on this list have pointed out how valuable
NEA support is in generating new dollars within a community, and as a past
museum staff member, I would heartily support those thoughts.

Given the TIME magazine figures, if you put a dollar amount on the time that
Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, Mr. Mansoor, and others waste on this discussion,
we could easily DOUBLE the budget of the NEA and NEH without any additional
impact on the American taxpayer.

David Featherstone