It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: lostbook
As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump illustrated, removing these programs would make a remarkably small dent in federal spending (each received $148 million —0.003 percent of the federal budget — in 2016):
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: lostbook
Yes, and I hear this argument as soon as someone points out the one I have made.
Art is important to society and culture, but it will survive without government funding. It always has before.
In fact, it may be that artists will have to create art that satisfies the audience now instead of spending all their time intentionally trying to provoke it which is where things are trending.
And, of course, when your budget is struggling, you cut everything you don't need. You don't simply say, "Hey, I can cut this other things that hurts way more people, but we can keep this frivolous thing over here ..."
For one thing, when you are gouging the taxpayers and cutting things that really do hurt them more immediately and then turning around and propping up artists who make up such a tiny and specialized segment and whose work so very few of the general population have much to do with, it looks really, really bad.