Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:31:10 EST |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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]
|
|
|