OK. Obama’s America is officially the Titanic now.
Newsmax reports:
Dozens of orchestras around the nation can keep playing for now, kept in tune by federal stimulus dollars aimed at saving jobs.
The League of American Orchestras said Thursday that the National Endowment for the Arts has awarded 64 orchestras one-time grants of $25,000 or $50,000 to preserve administrative and artistic jobs at risk of being eliminated amid the recession.
So while everyone is fighting to stay financially afloat, the government is taking our money to fund orchestras!?
Remember that when the Titanic went down the band played on. And now thanks to Obama, America’s sinking will have a soundtrack. Great.
July 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm
$3.2 million isn't going to bankrupt the nation. At least the NEA is spending it on orchestras and not religious imagery coated in urine.
July 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm
But somehow I doubt they'll be playing, "Nearer My God To Thee."
On the other hand, if anyone asked how I'd like my tax dollars to be used, this wouldn't bother me much.
July 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Are the two above commenters insane? We are living in a deep economic recession. Families are struggling.
We don't need millions going to orchestras right now.
You two are exactly why this country is in so much trouble.
July 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm
People in orchestras need to eat, too!
July 10, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Hmm, will any of the money buy President Obama a violin so that he can fiddle by the firelight?
July 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Arthur, I think you're insane. The DoD budget is half a trillion dollars, and you think we're "in so much trouble" because we give away $25,000 grants to a few orchestras? Do we need to do another one of those penny videos for you?
July 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The state (or government) has always helped support the arts, and rightfully so. Should this have come under the "stimulus" bill? Probably not. But it is a legitimate use of the tax dollars.
July 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Fine. Unless the music was bad in the first place.
July 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm
This did not need to be in the "emergency" stimulus package.
And I can't stand when people say many governments have supported the arts. Yeah and many of those were monarchies or socialist states. America is not supposed to be that.
July 10, 2009 at 7:02 pm
It comes down to this. If all spending is stimulus then all spending is ultimately jobs. If all spending is jobs then cutting spending cuts jobs, and spending cuts then determine who shall and who shall not have work.
But in an economic hard time, we need to as a nation, prioritize and no one, not even the arts should feel entitled to funding, entitled to jobs.
In a hard economic time, we need to make hard choices and I don't see ANYONE in the government doing that. Every suggestion that we spend less in any areana is met with howls of personal testimony to illustrate how this cut or this trim shall be lethal to whole communities. We need the government to go on a diet and it means, we're going to have to eat less even if we're hungry or eventually, there will be no money for orchestras or anyone else who might want to hear them.
July 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm
You're right, Arthur. Who needs to hear Bach's St. Matthew Passion when they can see "Transformers" at the movies. That's what America is supposed to be!
July 10, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I really can't stand the argument that "well, the government spends billions on x, so why can't it spend million on y?" Gee, what's another $3.2 million. Granted that yes, of all the things the gov can be spending on, this is harmless. But it all adds up. The defenders of the bridge to nowhere (admittedly a more egregious offense) employed essentially the same kind of rationale.
Where does it stop?
July 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Paul,
I was just getting on to say the same exact thing. You must be quite intelligent!
And if people want Bach they'll pay for Bach.
July 10, 2009 at 7:42 pm
The question is, where does it start? The vast majority of federal spending is on entitlements and defenses. Being serious about that spending is the first step. Everything else is just pennies being cut up.
Matthew,
Sink or swim for Bach, eh? What was that line about us being a Paris Hilton people?
July 10, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Forcing people to pay for an orchestra doesn't change the culture, it just makes everyone poorer.
If people want Bach they'll go see Bach. You can't forcefeed it.
July 10, 2009 at 8:12 pm
As a parent of a performance student at a "major metropolitan conservatory" I have mixed feelings about this. In general, I believe that the less gov't spends, the better. Yet the nature of arts funding means that if my daughter does end up in an orchestra, she will be paid, in part, by the gov't.
The list http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/09grants/arra09.php?DIS=Music , which includes none of the major American orchestras, is interesting, but it excludes the big picture…it's not just orchestras and music initiatives, but writers, museums, artists, and more who are getting a bigger piece of the pie. Overall, the orchestras are getting very little when the group is viewed as a whole. I am surprised that the article emphasized orchestras…though it did set up the Titanic joke, which was sort of amusing. Thanks for the info.
July 10, 2009 at 8:35 pm
As a holder of a BFA in Theater who currently volunteers at a civic theater I wish that the National Endowment for the Arts would keep doing this. Art is a vital part of a culture and if places are going to tank because of the economy that's not fair. The starving artist label is so 19th century.
Not to mention, I will gladly pay taxes to go to this sort of thing. At least the money isn't getting filtered to planned parenthood or some other nonsense. It's being rightly used to save jobs, provide educational opportunities for students whose schools have cut arts education and will hopefully help these places to draw people in and keep ticket prices lower.
July 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm
What the government funds, it controls. I do not want the government controlling art.
July 11, 2009 at 12:19 am
"Art is a vital part of a culture and if places are going to tank because of the economy that's not fair."
It's totally fair. If corporations, who are major sponsors of arts and education programs, are tanking AND private individuals can't make up the difference, then it's TOTALLY fair. Sciences and industries are making hard decisions, so it's understandable that art has to bite the bullet.
Besides, the museums and arts programs in this country were started and maintained LONG before the government stepped in. The Fords, the Carnegies, the Dodge brothers, and any number of "founding families" started them. And they didn't do it with their food and housing budget, either.
I type this as someone who just paid my art association dues, a museum membership, and signed up for a sculpting class. I can afford it because I don't have cable, NETFLIX, an X-Box, etc. But I won't be taking more art classes until next year. Even at $75, including materials, it's not in the budget since I don't know how much the gas bill will climb this winter.
"I will gladly pay taxes to go to this sort of thing."
Here's a better idea: Let everyone who loves a museum, a local theatre troope, etc. give money, volunteer at fundraisers, and volunteer to fill in the gaps as they cut positions. When I was short on salary, I volunteered every weekend in the nearby art association and as an usher at theatre performances. More recently, a series of fundraisers were held to cover a one-year salary for a local theatre director.
If something is useful to people, they will use their God-given talents and ingenuity to support it, even if it shrinks out of necessity.