Should taxpayer dollars fund the arts?

Should taxpayer dollars fund the arts?

#DontCutArtsFunding
#PayForYourOwnArt
Join the conversation and vote below

President Trump's new budget proposal cuts all funds for the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The NEA has been a lightning rod for controversy since the '80s; critics call it "welfare for artists" and say spending taxpayer money on the arts is a luxury we can't afford. Others argue arts funding is a tiny fraction of the federal budget, and that culture matters as much as defense does. What do you think? 🎭 🎨 📖

The Votes Are In!
#DontCutArtsFunding
#PayForYourOwnArt

The amount of money we allocate for the NEA and the NEH is already laughably small:

When it comes to federal spending, it's clear that the Trump administration values spending approximately $100 million on one F-35A fighter jet, compared to $148 million on all the arts programs in the United States for a whole year.
Image

But for others, it's the principle, not the amount of money. They feel the government simply has no business funding the arts and humanities.

Image

The U.S. spends far, far less on arts funding than our European counterparts do. Per capita, our National Endowment for the Arts spends 1/40th of what Germany spends on the arts. And many argue the arts are not a nice extra—they are central to what makes us human.

Image

Opponents of arts funding say the NEA is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

But supporters point to other expenditures of the Trump Administration (having his wife live in New York City rather than Washington DC, trips to Mar-A-Lago) as evidence that these cuts aren't about saving taxpayer dollars.

Cancel e81adef6e6553af1fd4ae2bf0fb5144e9639f08b71b0987074b13e549d2cbb48

GET OUR LATEST
COMMUNITY NEWS

Please provide a valid email