Shortly after giving the nation’s elites the vapors by slapping his name on the Kennedy Center in DC, Trump announced that it would be shut down for two years’ worth of renovations.
"We" don't need to privatize the Kennedy Center - just eliminate its funding. What happens after that isn't my concern in the least. Private citizens build and operate hospitals, interstate roads (see Austin TX), power infrastructure, sewage treatment plants - critically needed things. I'm sure if someone felt there was a need for an entertainment venue in Washington, DC they'd build and operate it.
I'm with you. Sell it and pay down the debt! We already have enough award shows even though in many cases the Kennedy Center winners were higher caliber and had contributed a lifetime of work. They could do that much cheaper with a White House dinner.
Privatize and de-politicize. I'm all for it regarding the Kennedy Center. But I take issue with this: "Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to spend taxpayer money on the arts?" The answer is, of course, nowhere, but there are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't mention. Education is one example. Some years ago, when my college got state funding to build a classroom/performance complex for the visual and perforning arts, I got an earful from a Life Sciences professor who thought it was a waste of money. I tried my best to explain to her that the arts are not meant to be extracurricular.
The reason there are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't mention is because the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in those things. That's the point. The Constitution gives explicit direction as to that for which the federal government has authority and responsibility. The Tenth Amendment makes this clear:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the power isn't listed, the federal government doesn't have it. Period.
My outrage with using tax dollars for the "arts" dates back to when the NEA first awarded a $25,000 grant for "art" made of excrement. 30 or 40 years ago (maybe more...)? If art is good, it will sell. If it's not, the NEA will fund it. The NEA is a Bad Idea instigated by a Bad Man, and it's waaaaay past time for it to die.
"We" don't need to privatize the Kennedy Center - just eliminate its funding. What happens after that isn't my concern in the least. Private citizens build and operate hospitals, interstate roads (see Austin TX), power infrastructure, sewage treatment plants - critically needed things. I'm sure if someone felt there was a need for an entertainment venue in Washington, DC they'd build and operate it.
There is probably legislation that handcuffs the normal market forces that would take over. Eliminate that, and I agree with the rest.
You nailed this one!
I'm with you. Sell it and pay down the debt! We already have enough award shows even though in many cases the Kennedy Center winners were higher caliber and had contributed a lifetime of work. They could do that much cheaper with a White House dinner.
Would you deny wealthy Georgetown residents their federally-subsidized artistic playground?
Privatize and de-politicize. I'm all for it regarding the Kennedy Center. But I take issue with this: "Where in the Constitution is Congress authorized to spend taxpayer money on the arts?" The answer is, of course, nowhere, but there are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't mention. Education is one example. Some years ago, when my college got state funding to build a classroom/performance complex for the visual and perforning arts, I got an earful from a Life Sciences professor who thought it was a waste of money. I tried my best to explain to her that the arts are not meant to be extracurricular.
The widespread ignoring of Constitutional boundaries isn't a reason to take issue with this particular instance of it.
There are many worthwhile things out there that, despite being worthwhile, should not be done by the government.
The reason there are a lot of things the Constitution doesn't mention is because the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in those things. That's the point. The Constitution gives explicit direction as to that for which the federal government has authority and responsibility. The Tenth Amendment makes this clear:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the power isn't listed, the federal government doesn't have it. Period.
All I can say is, "Amen!"
Short answer.
Agreed.
My outrage with using tax dollars for the "arts" dates back to when the NEA first awarded a $25,000 grant for "art" made of excrement. 30 or 40 years ago (maybe more...)? If art is good, it will sell. If it's not, the NEA will fund it. The NEA is a Bad Idea instigated by a Bad Man, and it's waaaaay past time for it to die.