National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities Elimination Bill

[Emsworth]

National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities Elimination Bill

1. The National Endowment for the Arts is hereby abolished.
2. The National Endowment for the Humanities is hereby abolished.

Sponsor: Sen. Ebowed

[Emsworth]

I think that this bill deserves to be passed. Thank you, Senator Ebowed, for this excellent idea.

[Emsworth]

I've never actually even entirely known what these organizations do.  What do they do?

They subsidize art, literature, and other aspects of "cultural heritage."

[Emsworth]

Art is not meant to be profitable initially.  How many great artists were rich?  How many artists who were painting, sculpting, writing, before their times, ended up dying without a penny to their names?  Off the top of my head, van Gogh, Lautrec, Gaugin, Melville, Poe.

Even then, I do not believe that it should be the function of the federal government to subsidize art. There are plenty of private institutions to do that. Tax money should not, I think, be used.

[Emsworth]

The question is on final passage of the bill. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

With five Ayes and an abstention, the bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

[Emsworth]

There have voted:
Aye: 5
No: 4
Abstain: 1

The bill is passed, and presented to the President for his signature.

[Emsworth]

I'd be willing to cosponsor an amendment to the constitution should you wish to craft one up.

I would be completely opposed to such an amendment. I see no reason for which the Senate should not consider taxation and spending.

[Emsworth]

I disagree that there is a great obstacle. During previous Senates, the Budget has turned into a mere number game, with people just cutting programs left and right (I will admit that I am equally guilty here). However, I think that a coherent Budget, which includes tax policy and spending changes, is a very good idea.

[Emsworth]

Were this a more in depth simulation, I would absolutely agree with you.  But the fact remains, Atlasian politics is much more focused on simply winning elections that actual governing.

That is not necessarily the case. Senators do put a lot of work into getting legislation passed, or stopping legislation, as do many private citizens. Take this bill, for example: look at all the private opposition that it has stirred up. If the Budget eliminated the NEA, the same interest would exist as well. I would dispute that nobody is interested in the Budget.

[Emsworth]

The budget is separate from simply abolishing or creating programs.  Prior Senate Sessions did this as well.  But is it neccessary to create a massive, incredibly complicated budget that must be completed prior to the Senate continuing to other business? 

Abolishing and creating organizations has always created controversy, and will continue to be debated with or without a budget.  The question is, whether we should continue to write up a budget, not whether we should continue to debate continuing or creating programs.

By requiring the Senate to pass a Budget, the Constitution compels the Senate to consider the abolition or creation of new programs, as well as tax changes. Otherwise, there would be little reason for them to do so.

Furthermore, the Senate needs to pass only one Budget every twelve months. Once it balances the Budget, the Senate need not worry about passing further Budgets for the rest of the whole year. I don't think that this is an unreasonable requirement.