If Idaho lawmakers greatly reduce or eliminate funding for the arts or government-funded television, I’ll be convinced that they’re serious about not only getting state spending under control but also rebalancing the proper role of government.
Let me illustrate the dynamic that’s at work here: Let’s say you’re trying to balance the family budget. You really need the car, but you’d also like to keep the cable TV. You go through the reasoning process: The car gets you to work and back, which is sort of important because work is what brings in a paycheck, which in turn allows you to have food and water. Food and water are useful because they help keep you alive. The cable TV is important because you can watch shows like “House” and “Mystery Diagnosis.” That, you reasonably conclude, could save your life one day if you’re ever find yourself suffering from myasthenia gravis or some other unusual ailment you otherwise wouldn’t know about without premium channels viewed in high definition.
You find yourself having to admit that the odds are a bit low that you’ll be stricken by myasthenia gravis, and even if you were, you’d probably go see a doctor, thus cable TV will not be credited with saving your life. Besides, if cable TV were the answer to health issues, Congress would mandate everyone buy cable TV, not insurance. (Uh, oh, I just gave another idea to the politicians in Washington, D.C.)
However, you observe, the cable TV could prove highly useful, if, like Survivorman, you find yourself stranded for seven days in the jungles of Papua New Guinea and you have to set traps for wild pigs in order to eat. Yes, the more you think about it, the cable TV really is Must See TV that could be the difference between life and death. You continue to keep the cable in the budget.
As I’ve illustrated here, you really have to stretch your mind around the notion that, in your own personal budget, the car that gets you to work is on par with cable TV. In Idaho, similar mental gymnastics have to conclude that the state should spend $787,600 a year on arts and $1.6 million a year on government television in light of so many other competing needs. During the last legislative session, lawmakers put the cystic fibrosis program on the chopping block because, some lawmakers concluded, they couldn’t keep spending $205,000 for the adult patients in the program. The dichotomy here is obvious, and the conclusion should be also. In good times or bad, arts and other superfluous programming have to be so far down on the list of priorities as to require a microscope to find it.
This year we’re promised that the reality necessitated by having a budget hole of $150 million or more and the total improbability that the state can sustain the current girth of government without raising taxes will cause some tough choices to be made. We’re expected to see lawmakers discuss in great detail the allocation of finite amounts of money and making choices regarding which functions of government deserve continued support. The only way to prove that they’re making the right choices is if they’re willing to put the state Commission on the Arts and Big Bird on the same table as police and prisons and make the correct decision about which is more important to keep and which should be cut.
Comments
Of course the "arts" should've be axed when times were good!Submitted by Walt Holton (not verified) on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 14:18.
» - reply
The arts are a great place to start! The government should never be involved in such trivial affairs. The free market is a great place for the arts! Government funded arts allows government employees to decide what art is based upon an opinion of a few. The free market funding of the arts is democracy at perfection.
The government has become so involve in so many wrong places it is almost intimidating to behold; where's one to start? The arts is as good as any and better than most.
Heck, historically socialist regimes have been know to execute artists once the leadership gains total irrevocable control and they have served their purpose. Perhaps we don’t need to worry too much longer.
government taxes and use of fundsSubmitted by Michelle (not verified) on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 13:28.
» - reply
I would love to fund all the projects everyone wants and needs, they are all worthy in their own way - that is not the issue. Everyone should have a shelter to live in and enough food - again not the issue. The issue is simply all the governments are taking money to distribute as they feel it should be spent. I earn the money and I should have the right to keep my money and spend it the way I want to. I can donate to the causes or create the cause I want. Government should collect only enough money to keep the common areas funded and no more. Police, Fire, Roads, Security. NO MORE! No arts, TV, medical research etc. Any of this is unfair use of public funds. Not because it isn't worthy, but because it chooses one worthy cause over another! It has caused untold corruption and competition.
Public funding and its usesSubmitted by Dwight Bobson (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 00:35.
» - reply
I am a taxpayer in the highest bracket. I want to see my taxes used for many items in a government budget. Those items include infrastructure like roads and bridges; they include the arts, public TV and radio, museums and libraries; they include healthcare and special education. They are all deserving because I understand that man does not live on bread alone and if the mind is not nurtured, there will be no future, no new inventions, no new jobs created, and that ignorance begets human destruction in many forms. Those government investments that cultivate knowledge should be seen as investments for the future of humanity. I regret that some cannot understand the innate logic of this.
Defunding the artsSubmitted by Big Bird (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 14:31.
» - reply
I, as a well known TV star, cannot imagine why the liberal left thinks hard working tax payers should fund my nest. That's what donations and volunteers are for. Churches don't get public funding and I'm certain the left would be apoplectic if it were so. Funding medical research is worthy because, hey, who want's bird flu - right? But let the Kennedy's fund the Kennedy Center. They can afford it.
at least get the facts rightSubmitted by sharon fisher (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 20:12.
» - reply
This column has so many misconceptions that it's hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.
1. The adult cystic fibrosis program was not cut last year. It was considered, but the state did not cut it, because it didn't want to deprive the people depending on it.
2. At the same time, it is true that the state is looking at the program. However, it's more than simple budgetary demands, but also a matter of equity. Most other adult chronic diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, do not get such funding, and most other states do not provide such funding -- to the extent that there is some concern by legislators that adults living with cystic fibrosis will move to Idaho for the improved benefits. The interim committee on health is working on a way to keep providing benefits to adults who need them while at the same time being fair to other adults with chronic illnesses -- as well as working to cut the budget.
3. "Big Bird" is not funded by the state. The state pays nothing for programming for public television; that is all paid for by various grants, foundations, and "viewers like us" at pledge time. What the state pays for in public television is the infrastructure that provides, among other things, the ability for us to watch the Legislature live, as well as commentary on what our state government is doing.
4. Our founding fathers understood the value of the arts in producing a well-rounded citizenry. To quote John Adams, “I am a revolutionary, so my son can be a farmer, so his son can be a poet.”
John Adams you say?Submitted by Walt Holton (not verified) on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 14:25.
» - reply
“I am a revolutionary, so my son can be a farmer, so his son can be a poet.”
From what I know of John Adams he would have NEVER endorsed the seisure of money from the public by the governent in order to support his poet grandson. The arts are fine and dandy but should not be supported via governmental theft.
Cutting PubTV & ArtsSubmitted by Jim Thomas (not verified) on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 01:24.
» - reply
Wayne, great idea!
copy of email I just sent to Rep. S. Thayn:
Hi, Steven,
The finishing touch on cutting public TV & arts is for Wayne or another influential person to immediately start a private non-profit corporation named perhaps, Citizens for Public TV & Arts, and to immediately start collecting DONATIONS.
As the libs line up to butcher Wayne or you or whomever, accusing you of hating art and pubTV along with being racists, sexist pigs, simply hold out your hand to that lib and ask for a free-will DONATION. We'll see how important PubTV is to them! As the saying goes, socialism is great until the socialists run out of other people's money. God forbid they donate their own!
And we'll video tape these public figures declining to donate and make a TV show. They do not have to sign a release for us to use the footage since they are public figures.
Have a fine day!
Jim Thomas
208.841.6393
Cut Public TVSubmitted by Rep. Steven Thayn (not verified) on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 00:37.
» - reply
Wayne Hoffman hits the mark again. Why is the state subsidizing a television station when there are so many TV stations already. This and the arts are two areas that I will be willing to look at to cut out of the budget. Thanks Wayne for giving solid ideas on how to deal with our budget problems.
Post new comment