On NPR this morning is a short piece pondering the fates of the NEA and NEH under the second Trump administration. It is optimistic, though given the Wall Street Journal article by Musk and Ramaswamy this morning (they obviously didn’t write it – but it carries their names), which, in looking at things to cut, refers to the federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting among other agencies, I cannot bring myself to share in the optimism.
The reporter gives two reasons that the Endowments might be spared being cut.
The first is that NEA funding is spread widely (which means, necessarily, thinly) across the country. As I noted in a recent Substack post, this might help keep some congressional support. But it is a weak argument. The NPR reporter cites things like after-school music programs, or arts therapy through the Veterans Administration, and these are certainly nice things, but you don’t need a federal arts agency to do them – the states, and other government departments can surely run such programs. In addition, the thrust of Musk and Ramaswamy’s argument, such as it is (I’m not saying they are correct, at all) is that the executive branch has the power to kill programs and agencies without the blessing of Congress. So the fact that some NEA money goes to the 8th congressional district of pick-your-state is not going to matter all that much. If Trump is serious about the amount he and his appointees want to cut spending, there’s trouble ahead.
The second “argument” given, using the term very loosely, comes from the Americans for the Arts, whose spokesperson explains “economic impact” in terms of when people go to a show, they might also go for a drink, and hire a babysitter. I’ve made enough posts on this blog to link to them all – here is a relatively calm one – but, folks, this is, respectfully, daft. It is not an argument to have a federal arts funding agency that people, when they go off to see Cats, hire a sitter. Hiring a sitter is a cost. A cost of enjoying the arts. It would be like if Americans for the Cars said the federal government ought to subsidize the auto industry because people often have fender-benders which means they need to take their car to the body shop. This lobby group has persisted with this nonsense for decades, and they ought to be shunned – do not listen to them.
And so … honestly I am not optimistic. Trump seems as serious as he can be (I know, I know) about cutting government, his minions are already, in print, talking about cutting the CPB, and the arguments being brought up to defend the NEA are tired. Little grants everywhere, and economically illiterate talk about going for a drink after the show whilst you have a sitter at home, I just don’t see as cutting it. Your babysitter won’t save you.
What might just be crazy enough to work would be to talk about what seems to be missing entirely from the NPR story: art. That it matters, and a federal agency to preserve the best of our cultural heritage, and to foster the creation of the new, matters in some significant way to what is left of our civilization. I even wrote a book about it.
I guess we will soon see.
Agreed, except for your last thought. Arts and culture don’t matter to the next administration at all. In fact, they see it as a product of the enemy. What we’ll see is the Hulk Hogan-ization of the arts— like the worst of all propaganda art of the Soviet Union
I can’t imagine anyone named so far in the upcoming administration gives a hoot about our artistic heritage or federal support for the arts. Or sciences, either.
The amount that the NEA gets is a rounding error when compared to the total budget. Late stage capitalism has no room for any arts that can’t be supported by the audience.
It can’t be easy to explain to a progressive-leaning audience that the NEA has no responsibilities that couldn’t be transferred to the states and that multiplier effects are humbug, so thank you for having the integrity to do so.
Regarding your last point: Art may matter, and cultural heritage may be worth preserving, but what of those premises obliges the conclusion that the federal government must pay for them? Furthermore, what would justify the tradeoff of the federal government paying for them against the claim by Musk and Ramaswamy (who, contra your remark, would have been handily capable of writing that WSJ piece) that the outsize bureaucracy of which the NEA et al. are a subset is an “existential threat to our republic”?
Thank you for your comment. A few answers: (1) I do agree that Musk and Ramaswamy have the capability of writing the WSJ piece. But given their flippant statements regarding DOGE on social media, they do not present as people who would take a day or two off their other activities to look carefully into the recent Chevron decision, among others. My intuition (which could be wrong!) is that they gave approval to a staff-written piece, as many political figures do. It’s not a federal offence, as they say. (2) Federal government or states? The federal government’s big subsidy to the nonprofit arts is the income tax deduction for charitable donations. This involves a lot of money, and, like other tax expenditures (the mortgage interest deduction comes to mind) would make a lot of not-Washington not-bureaucrats very unhappy if it were removed. I’m not sure what will happen on that. On *direct* subsidies, as a good federalist I think we reserve things to the federal government that are clearly best done at that level, leaving the rest to the states. Small grants to local organizations really are best handled at the state level. What then for the NEA? I would say things of national importance – our greatest cultural institutions and artists. That would mean, as former chair Rocco Landesman briefly proposed, getting away from the idea that NEA funds must go to every nook in the country. (3) I do not think the DC bureaucracy is an existential threat to the republic. It is a big country, and a lot of worthwhile, passes the cost-benefit test, programs require a lot of smart people to run them. Is there some bloat? Sure, there is in every bureaucracy, public *and* private sector. But once you get into the real question of what specifically to cut … it’s not that easy.
I sympathize with your arguments and perspectives and wonder if I can add fuel to our fire.
I firmly believe in a “both-and” approach to the arts. They are both ends unto themselves—the “arts for arts’ sake” argument is real and vital- and means to better economic, educational, and medical outcomes.
I agree there is no reason to believe this administration will care about the “arts for arts’ sake.” The arts bring people together to explore their challenges, commonalities, pasts, presents, and futures, creating communities and celebrating collaboration among different people. That is anathema to this administration.
But arts as a means is another thing altogether.
For the $200+M that goes to the NEA, the not-for-profit arts sector returns approximately $9B in federal tax revenue. That’s a 45-1 return on our money (and does not include the additional $23B that goes to the coffers of cities and states).
The nation’s Arts and Culture sector—nonprofit, commercial, education—is a $1.1 trillion industry that supports 5.2 million jobs (2022). That is 4.3% of the nation’s economy—a larger share of GDP than powerhouse sectors such as Transportation, Construction, Education, and Agriculture. Similar results are found at the state level. The nonprofit arts and culture industry alone generated $151.7 billion in economic activity in 2022—spending by arts organizations and their audiences—which supported 2.6 million jobs and generated $29.1 billion in government revenue.
Between 2020 and 2021, the sector grew by 13.7%, a disproportionately large increase when compared to the 5.9% of the broader economy at the same time.
Per the Conference Board’s Ready to Innovate report, creativity is among the top five applied skills sought by business leaders, with 72% saying creativity is of “high importance” when hiring. Research on creativity shows that Nobel laureates in the sciences are 17 times more likely to be actively engaged as art makers than other scientists.
The arts have profound impacts on education. Students engaged in arts learning have higher GPAs, standardized test scores, college-going rates, and lower drop-out rates. Students across all socio-economic strata reap these academic benefits. Yet, the Department of Education reports that access to arts education for students of color is significantly lower than for their white peers.
Further, a four-year study of 25,000 secondary school students demonstrated significant advantages for arts-engaged low socio-economic status students in college and across all kinds of employment. Arts education and exposure result in better jobs with higher pay that offer more responsibility, promotion opportunities, employee satisfaction, and higher levels of volunteerism and voting. This suggests that their arts engagement strengthened their ties to the community and feelings about civic responsibility.
The arts also have extraordinary applications in health care. Healthcare institutions invest in the arts for a variety of reasons. The arts can help people process difficult emotions, cope with illness, and recover. Arts-in-health programs can also help address specific mental and physical health conditions. Integrating the arts and humanities into medical education can help physicians and trainees develop empathy, communication, and teamwork skills. Arts-based strategies can help build social cohesion and health equity in communities.
Reduced healthcare costs: Arts programs can help reduce healthcare costs and benefit elder care. Research indicates that hospital patients who see nature scenes have better health outcomes.
Arts in healthcare professionals can include visual artists, musicians, and storytellers who engage patients, families, and staff in arts experiences. Some examples of arts-in-health programs include dance programs for people with Parkinson’s disease, music therapy for pain management, drama therapy to support social-emotional development and an array of arts-based therapies for veterans recovering from physical and mental injuries.
Again, I believe in the BOTH-AND of arts as ends and arts as means. But we must keep the arts-as-means argument. We need to make it powerfully, effectively, and regularly, especially to our elected representatives who understand the importance of NEA, CPB, and other cultural institutions to their constituencies (not for nothing did the 2017 and 2018 Republican-dominated Congresses reject Trump’s call to end cultural funding of all kinds).
Thanks for your efforts,
Scott Silberstein
Co-Founder/Exec Producer, HMS Media
Board Member, Arts Alliance Illinois
Thank you for your comment. I would be cautious about what political views correspond with what approaches to the value of art. When I wrote in my book about the importance of “art for art’s sake” – by which I meant the value of art *to people* as art, and not as a means to other goods – I was sharply criticized by a (admittedly not awfully careful) reader as being terribly conservative, and there are politically liberal “arts advocates” who stress the secondary benefits of art as the primary good.
A challenge the NEA has in defending itself against a new administration that promises program cuts across a wide domain is that it, and its allies, have not used the previous years to make its case for the importance of great art to American life. A Democrat has been in the White House for twelve of the past sixteen years: what in the end did that accomplish for the arts?
As American affiliation with mainstream Christian denominations decreases and identification as “spiritual but not religious” increases the lively fine arts take on a greater significance. We need government support for the arts now as we fend off diseases of the spirit like depression, alienation, and loneliness. It is a matter of national health that the NEA and NEH continue to be financed.
For 14 years I was the coCEO of WaterFire Providence, a 30 year old arts organization that draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year to experience art at night in parks and city streets which would otherwise be dark, empty and potentially dangerous. These visitors fill hotels to capacity and make securing a restaurant reservation near impossible on event weekends. According to a 2012 federal agency’s economic evaluation report, each year WaterFire activity creates over $150,000,000 of economic output (adjusted for inflation) which in turn generates over $10,000,000 in direct tax revenue and supports over 1,300 jobs for community residents in local businesses. WaterFire is a classic example of how creative placemaking can add economic vibrancy to a community.
WaterFire relies on a relatively small but significant annual grant from the RI State Council for the Arts which in turn relies on a grant from the NEA for a significant portion of it’s annual budget. Should that go away, it would be disastrous for RI’s tourism economy where the arts are a huge driver. WaterFire has been a major part of this.
Finally, I don’t believe it’s the micro lens focused on hiring a babysitter but rather the macro perspective and multiplier effect of the arts filling hotels and restaurants who employ thousands of people. Of course, it’s also not just about the economics but unfortunately, more often than not, it’s the language that most policy makers understand best. The arts play so many important roles that inform who and what we are as a society.
With concern and sadness, I share your lack of optimism for the next four years.
I have often written on this site about how “economic impact” arguments for subsidy do not hold water. That people purchase other, what economists call “complementary”, goods and services along with art is not an argument for subsidy. When people purchase a car, they will also purchase insurance, gasoline, maintenance, repair, replacement parts, and on and on. But that is not an argument for the government subsidy of cars, since none of these represent any sort of market failure. We don’t subsidize macaroni because people will buy more cheese.
As regards whether “it’s the language that most policy makers understand best” … is it? “Arts advocates” have used this sort of rhetoric for decades, it is the signature argument from Americans for the Arts – where is the evidence that it has persuaded anybody?
How many Americans would have the slightest idea of who Igor Stravinsky was, or for that matter Mozart or Beethoven? Nevertheless, you can bet your bottom dollar that millions upon millions of our countrymen, Liberals and MAGA,
have recently been hearing about the multi-million dollar banana duct-taped to a wall being
today’s version of “ART”! The NEA. doesn’t have
a chance of gaining much concern for this
type of nonsense as a criteria for support.
What is desperately needed from an NEA,
is support for well-funded touring of quality
non-woke musical, dance and theatrical
ensembles to introduce inspiring introductions
of these culturally valid and mind and soul
enhancing experiences to the youth of our nation.