Arts? Pah! We don't need arts!

Certain members of the Tea Party movement, an ultra-conservative section of the American Republican Party that has be gaining momentum up to and since the Midterm Elections across the pond, have proposed to cut funding for the arts and humanities by 100%. The negative impact of this motion would be colossal, while the amount of alleviation for the US deficit would be a lot less consequential than it might seem.  

Arts are important. As I discovered via Formspring, when Winston Churchill was asked to cut arts funding to help with the war effort, his response was "then what are we fighting for?" Arts doesn't just mean painting, it means music, theatre, literature. The arts are the best way for people of all ages to express and thereby love themselves, and God knows there isn't enough of that happening these days. Frankly, for most of us, the arts pretty much make life worth living.

Now, obviously I'm not suggesting that cutting government funding will mean the arts disappear. But it will make them a hell of a lot less varied and/or accessible. According to the article linked above,  "The American Ballet Theatre, the Joffrey Ballet, a touring Shakespeare troupe, music and poetry initiatives, and arts education programs across the country" are all in jeopardy. Can you imagine all these institutions folding? The diversity and sheer imagination of the American arts scene would be dealt a crucifying blow. 

The article also cites "5.7 million jobs" that could be lost. That's close to one in ten of the population of the UK. This is absurd.

Like I hinted above, it's not even going to help the deficit that much. The proponents of the cuts say that it will save $167.5 million from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities Endowment, and $445 million from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. They then finish by saying that over the course of a decade, they will save $2.5 trillion.

Where on earth does that last statistic come from? (167.5 million + $445 million) X 10 = 6 billion, 125 million. That's nowhere near the suggested amount. Six billion dollars might sound like a lot, but it government spending terms, it really isn't. According to my working knowledge of Google calculator, it's just over two thousandths of the current US deficit*. It's also less than one hundredth of the amount America spends on it's Department of Defence.

So basically, cutting government funding for the arts is a phenomenally stupid idea. If it is passed (which, assuringly, is pretty unlikely at this stage), then the consequences will vastly outweigh the benefits. 

Sayronara!

*at the time I visited the debt clock- it's going up all the time.