I enjoy classical music and going to museums to view the art whether it's modern, old-school, or whatever but, should the federal government be taking taxpayer money to underwrite artists or the presentation of arts if any kind at the local level? I say no!
The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.
The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide, and most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes that have been hit hard by the recession.
Why should money that's taken from me be used to fund any artist, much less "art" by soulless deviants like Robert Mapplethorpe or vintage porn revival like Thundercrack?
"But Ed", you whine, "what about the symphony orchestras? Surely you can't object to federal tax money funding that?"
Why yes, as a matter of fact I can. If federal money is used by the NEA to fund local orchestras and ballet troupes, then to be fair, they can take money from me to fund "porn art" in San Francisco. I'd rather no art be funded at the federal level than have any body's tax money go to whatever nonsense a smarmy bureaucrat with no oversight at the NEA feels like funding. Federal funding of the National Ballet, National Museums, etc are fine but, we don't need a bloated bureaucracy to manage them. If I could cut one bureaucracy out of the government, it would be the NEA.