Dubya Increases Funding to the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts

[JoseCuervo]

Well, it looks like ol' Dubya isn't a "conservative" after all, or at least as it relates to MY money. He is spending in like a drunken sailor.

Pretty funny how he will spend any money on anything, in hopes of getting re-elected. We will be paying off this reckless spending spree for generations...

Editorial: Arts funding symbolizes spending spree
Missoulian Opinion

Summary: Republicans once tried to kill the NEA; now the budget calls for a whopping increase.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush’s proposed budget for next year contains an awful lot of numbers. By our calculation, the four-inch-thick document proposes an average of $2.4 billion in spending per page. It also digs us a half-billion dollars deeper in debt per page.


Of all the numbers in the budget, however, one leaps out at us: $139.4 million to fund the National Endowment for the Arts.


This one, relatively small expenditure effectively symbolizes what’s gone so terribly wrong since Republicans consolidated their control over the federal government. To understand, it’s necessary to flash back a decade.


From the late 1980s into the mid-1990s, congressional Republicans waged a fierce battle to do away with the NEA. Social conservatives railed against controversial art supported or promoted by the NEA, while fiscal conservatives challenged federal arts funding as an example of a deficit-spending government doing more than it should. As the GOP offered its “Contract with America,” Republicans pointed to the NEA as an example of liberalism gone too far. They never actually succeeded in doing away with the NEA, but in 1996, Congress slashed its funding by nearly 40 percent, down to $99.5 million.


But look now: President Bush’s 2005 budget would increase NEA funding to $139.4 million. At $18 million, that would be the largest increase in NEA funding in 20 years.


We point this out not to rekindle the NEA wars, which were fought as bitterly in Missoula and environs as anywhere in the country. Rather, we think this one line item tellingly symbolizes the change of thinking that accounts for the country’s alarming retreat from fiscal responsibility. If the party of self-described conservatism has come around to advocate spending a lot more on the NEA, a program it so recently wanted to kill, what won’t it spend more on?


The answer appears to be “not much.” Fortune magazine recently reported government spending under the Bush administration has grown at its fastest rate in 40 years. Part of the increase, the White House constantly points out, is attributable to the cost of war in Iraq, war against terrorism and the domestic security measures enacted after Sept. 11, 2001. But the better part of the increase actually comes from unbridled discretionary spending – an open-ended measure to buy prescriptions for seniors, federalization of public schools, massive subsidies for agribusiness, a new space program, to name but a few examples.


Deep in the fine print of the president’s budget proposal is a passing acknowledgment that the federal government is growing at a pace that is “unsustainable.” No kidding.

 

[dgibson]

Let's see...if he does something the liberals don't like, it's because he's insensitive to the needs of the poor, or stuck in the hip pocket of big business, or pandering to his "oil buddies." If he does something that liberals might approve of, he's just trying to buy votes and it's obviously just a political move. So, just what, exactly, would you like for Bush to do? Sounds to me like he's damned any way he goes, so why should he care what anyone thinks? He should do whatever turns him on, because it's going to be wrong anyway!

 

[BuzzH]

Darren, I think the main point of contention is Bush claiming he wants fiscal responsibility and lower taxes, no defecit....yet spends money left and right. And keep in mind, all the while the Republicans are howling, like a dog with his ass dipped in turpentine, that Democrats increase taxes, run up the deficit, and arent fiscally responsible. I think we're finally at the time of one national party...repocrates or democans or whatever you want to call them.

 

[cjcj]

Man this is really wierd, but i have to agree with all 3 of the obove posts! [buzz it don`t hurt] hey if your right, well your right. GW has pulled some shit that republicans have "screamed" at Democrats for years. Funding the NEA is a total waste of tax dollars, as is 15 billion for aids in africa. And its true GW Bush is spending like a "drunken sailor" thats why the hardcore base is so pissed at him. And it does seem that both parties are so close they are one in the same, so we are screwed either way!

 

[Whiskers]

Still better than the other guy, the front runner of the Democratic party. Who now say that military experience is crucial for a president, when Clinton ran it didn't matter that he was a traitor, and a coward.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Whiskers,

What is more important to you in deciding who to vote for? The rhetoric around Military Service / Draft Dodging / AWOL in Alabama or Economic Policy, Fiscal Policy, and Tax Policy?

 

[chas031]

Darren,
What COULD he do?? Oh, how about NOT stripping vets of more benefits? How about attempting to repeal NAFTA? How about looking at a new tax rate for businesses based on # of U.S. employees V foreign employees? How about spending his last year in office fixing an economic landslide with something other than SOUNDBITES from "Wag the Dog."??

Chas

 

[Whiskers]

Elk Gunner, I beleive all of the above are very important. But I think the kicker is honesty, (I know your gonna bend that around to your viewpoint) and FREEDOMS. In my opinion we all have FREEDOMS as long as it is not Slanderous, Libelous or causes bodily harm to another.It seems to me the Democratic party is always trying to protect me from something. From my retirement income to gun control, to having my feelings hurt. Personal responsibilty is one of the risks that goes along with freedoms. If I don't save enough to retire on, and have to work the rest of my life, thats on me. IF I get drunk, and kill someone while driving etc. I should be charged with murder. Not a reduced drunk driving charge. I realize this gave you a lot of fodder. I will read and digest whatever you have to say, but I am not smart enough to debate these issues in a public forum.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Whiskers,

Thanks for the reply. I was just curious. As I think lots of people will talk about the Military/AWOL/War Hero line of discussion, but when they go into the voting booth, I think the "middle" 80% vote with their wallets.

Me? I think I vote with my Wallet (as that is where my Hunting/Fishing license is kept).

 

[BHR]

I read a cartoon the other day that had a real appropriate message. It said, "the only thing worse than tax and spend is tax cut and spend."

Mr. President, please pull your freaking head out!

Paul