|
AOTL TOPICS
ARTSLYNX
DEPARTMENTS
|
The "Send
the Money to the States" Blockgrant Trap
(or as some might say...
"CLAPTRAP!")
by Richard
Finkelstein 1997
[RETURN
TO THE ARTICLES INDEX]
Why the
proposal? Can you spell . . . Bait and Switch?
-
The latest proposal
from 7/97, concocted by Representative Ehlers (R-MI) was designed
specifically to be an NEA killer. It was submitted at the last
moment without benefit of traditional hearings or public comment.
It came when certain partisan leaders determined that support was
sufficient for a vote about to occur that would have funded the
NEA as before. The leaders decided not to ALLOW the vote! First
they concocted a "Rule" to prevent Representative Yates'
(D-IL) amendment to restore NEA funding from even reaching the
floor. The rule also enabled a single Representative (Rep Craine
R-IL) to strike ALL NEA funding on a point of order. When even
that "Rule" vote was about to fail, these
"leaders" then floated this block grant
"alternative" with the sole purpose being to
"provide cover" so that the more sleazy of
Representatives could claim to "SUPPORT the arts, just not
the NEA." Even with these tactics the "rule" was
STILL poised to loose it's vote, but after the clock had already
run down, party leadership persuaded one Representative, John
McHugh (R-NY) to change his vote. The rule to not allow NEA
funding was in the end passed by that single vote.
There was a fringe
benefit in this plan too. The folks who proposed the block grant
"alternative" knew that after providing the cover
necessary to remove all NEA funding, the block grant idea ITSELF
would then fall in it's own vote leaving once and for all NO arts
funding in the House version of the budget. It seems clear that
this was the intended outcome all along. Dividing the issue made
it possible to conquer.
If they were
serious . . .
-
They would NOT have placed the funding mechanism
for this plan in The Department of Education . . . an agency they
hope to defund and abandon NEXT on their slash and burn hit list!
-
They would have voted first FOR the NEA and THEN
the blockgrant after the NEA vote failed. Past voting records make
clear these guys have NEVER supported the arts or our cultural
institutions. The REAL haters at least were honest. They voted
against BOTH the NEA and the blockgrant scheme.
-
They would have made the proposal in a reasoned
traditional manner giving it a likelihood of passing. Instead they
proposed a measure designed to fail simply to provide cover for
those who need to pretend they are on BOTH sides of arts issues.
-
They would not have brought this measure in the
first place. The reasoning behind the anti NEA "rule"
vote that had just passed was that proposals to fund the NEA would
be "Legislating on a Spending Bill" since the NEA has
not been "reauthorized" to ACCEPT Federal money in the
first place. Of course the Block grant scheme would have done the
same thing. The only reason why debate and a vote on the proposal
was ruled IN order was that they need the cover of a vote to show
they "really like the ARTS, just not the NEA". Of course
they knew in advance that the block grant vote would later fail as
well. By the way, had it passed, they could then have eliminated
the funding the very NEXT year as it too was
"unauthorized" funding.
Now you see
it . . .
-
At least in
WASHINGTON they know.....the quickest way to END funding is to
"blockgrant" it! Play the states against each other,
divide the pot immediately by 50, remove any leadership mechanism,
and POOF, more tax breaks to your friends.....at the expense of .
. .
-
No protections were
built into the proposal to prevent states from taking the FEDERAL
blockgrant funds for the arts and then using them as an excuse to
cut their OWN financial commitment. Later someone can shout
"abuse" and then cut even the Federal money! Tried and
true tactics.
Lots to loose
. . .
-
The most important and largest of
our performing arts institutions tour BETWEEN states. These
organizations would have been TREMENDOUS losers. Worse off, would
have been the public in the underserved communities that would no
longer have been afforded the opportunity to see the greatest of
American Opera, Theatre, and Music because they don't happen to
live near those six cities the NEA detractors love to hate.
-
For those who believe that there is
an AMERICAN culture or QUILT of culture, the idea of block grants
is also a disaster. What of our FILM heritage, for instance?
Already more than HALF of our films from before 1950 have been
lost forever. Is this an issue for one state, or does it concern
ALL Americans? And, if a state like California were to assign
sufficient resources to the task, what then of California's
symphonies, dance companies, and theatres? Should only New York be
the beneficiary of the genius of Playwright Terrance McNalley, or
only Pennsylvania privy to the work of August Wilson? No. Most
Americans would consider these playwrights to be AMERICAN
geniuses.
-
What of those cultural communities
that CROSS state borders such as that of Native Americans? It is
no accident that The NEA is within the Interior spending bill, for
just as our great rivers flow through all the states, regardless
of POLITICAL wind, so too flow our CULTURAL resources. Is it
REALLY wise to dam our cultural efforts at each state boundary?
-
The NEA has had a tremendous
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP role. In fact that role has been more
important over the years than individual grants to individual
state-based organizations. From Rural Arts Initiatives to
INTER-disciplinary projects and MULTI-State partnerships; and
through the fostering of collaboration between multiple sectors of
the economy, the NEA has had a significant role in the growth of
the arts across America. This is MORE than an issue of individual
states. We could take NASA's money and send IT to the states too,
but then, when next would we make it back into space?
Look who's
doin the proposing. There's Blockgrants and then there are Blockgrants.
-
When a Republican
Senator like James Jeffords supports an increase in funding to the
states one should take careful note, for Senator Jeffords is a
true supporter of the arts in America. We know this because of his
long-standing RECORD of support. Others, however make their
proposals from a background of NO support to the arts. All
proposals in Congress are NOT created equal. Let the buyer beware,
and as in purchasing other living things, knowing the pedigree can
make the difference in knowing WHAT you are buying.
Challenge those who purport to like blockgrants to sign on
to Jefford's proposal which includes an increased role for the
states. Call their bluff. See if they REALLY support the arts. If
they do, they will be eager to FULLY support the plan of
Republican Senator James Jeffords.
How much
money are we talking about that's goin' to "the CHILDREN"
-
Hey do the math
yourself. Take the $80 million in total arts spending. Reduce this
to the 60% to be spent on the new arts education component. Now
divide this amount by the 50 states. We're already down to less
than a million dollars. Now divide this among your state's school
districts. At best you'd be able to hire one single teacher
between the fine arts, dance, music, or theatre for YOUR ENTIRE
DISTRICT! Now divide further, by the number of actual schools in
your state. How far will the estimated $500 per year go in YOUR
child's school? How many crayolas per child can this fund?
And how much
more to the states and to arts institutions in the states?
- No more! Simple as that. The NEA ALREADY funds a large component
of State Arts Council budgets. The block grant plan would NOT see
this increased . . .BUT in the end, states could see much less
total funding if the states then use this as an excuse to cut back
on THEIR level of support.
|
