National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities Elimination Bill

[Q]

I would just like to say that anyone who votes "yea" on this bill has taken a step towards seriously diminishing the rich cultural, philosophic, historical, political and intellectual fruit that comes from this nation.

These groups should solicit private donations from individuals and foundations.

It should not be the burden of the average Atlasian to foot the bill for these programs of such limited scope and audience.

[MasterJedi]

I slimly vote Nay.

[Colin]

Aye

This is a waste of much needed government money. Whilst it may only account for a small sliver of the full national budget it will help in getting rid of some of the nation debt. This, along with my feeling that any cultural experience, ie theather, art exhibits, dance recitals etc., should be funded only through private endowments and the viewing public.

[Speed of Sound]

Although my senators have already voted, I urge all other senators to vote Nay to this bill. It is important to fund certain things to help society move forward. The Endowment of the Arts/Humanities Bills are very important. Please vote Nay.

[Ebowed]

Yea

[True Democrat]

Abstain

I still think there's a better way of cutting spending, though I do not entirely oppose it.

[Gabu]

Nay.

After finding out that the combined budgets for the NEA and the NEH is less than $300 million, which accounts for roughly a tenth of a percent of the deficit we need to take care of, I don't see this as being a worthwhile cut, as I have not at all been convinced that the impact of abolishing these organizations will not be substantially negative.

[DanielX]

Yea. Every penny counts.

[PBrunsel]

Aye

[Sam Spade]

Just as a reminder to those involved, even if this doesn't pass, it is still scheduled to be cut as part of the 2005 budget, of which the final changes will happen in October.

[Emsworth]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay for the record

O/c radical overhauls in how they operate and who they give the money to is needed and yes a cut in the amount of money they get may be a good idea, but I really can't see what good scrapping them does; the amount of money saved is peanuts.

[Defarge]

Such a pity

[Emsworth]

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

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

[Siege40]

Siege40

[True Democrat]

Siege40

I'm kind of surprised there was no veto.

[Gabu]

Siege40

I'm kind of surprised there was no veto.

I was going to say that.

Siege, what's going on?  You're supposed to be a liberal.

[Ebowed]

Why would you expect him to veto it?  The President never struck me as someone who would support funding for artwork (that many people might find offensive or pointless) during a deficit.

[Defarge]

It should be vetoed.  The predecessor to the NEA, the WPA, funded such greats as Zora Neale Hurston, Arthur Miller, and Orson Welles.  All of this for $150 million, a drop in the bucket. 

After the next election cycle, I will attempt to reastablish the NEA, albeit with a lower budget.

[Gabu]

Why would you expect him to veto it?  The President never struck me as someone who would support funding for artwork (that many people might find offensive or pointless) during a deficit.

The impact that this will have on what the NEA and the NEH currently fund is likely to be a whole lot larger than any impact that this will have on the budget.  If abolishing those agencies was supposed to be a bold move to drastically cut government spending, it is not going to serve that purpose.

[Ebowed]

Every little bit of money saved counts.

[Gabu]

Every little bit of money saved counts.

But cutting tiny little agencies that account for a little over 0.006% of total government spending is never going to balance the budget.  We need to cut over $200 billion in order to become in accordance with the requirement of a (almost) balanced budget.  I don't really see how it could be argued that this nearly negligible step is going to help our budget.

The Social Security Department accounts for over $500 billion of government spending; if the statement "we need to save money" is a good reason to completely abolish an agency, why don't we abolish the Social Security Department?  Its abolishment alone would completely balance the budget.

[Ebowed]

Yeah, that's why I've been advocating a gradual phase-out of Social Security.  I don't really know what point you're trying to make as I strongly support abolishing Social Security.  And I reiterate that every little bit of money saved, no matter how small, counts.  Abolishing the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities is a positive step forward.

5000th post.

[Gabu]

Yeah, that's why I've been advocating a gradual phase-out of Social Security.  I don't really know what point you're trying to make as I strongly support abolishing Social Security.  And I reiterate that every little bit of money saved, no matter how small, counts.  Abolishing the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities is a positive step forward.

5000th post.

My point is that the budgets of the NEA and the NEH were small enough the the impact on the budget is likely to be a whole lot less than the impact on what the agencies were designed to do.  I'm saying that we should focus on cutting spending in places where it can actually make a dent in the budget deficit, since the adverse effects that may crop up as a result of cutting that spending will be far more outweighed by the reduction in spending than in the case of agencies whose budgets are barely over $100 million.  I'm not at all convinced that this will not have serious negative ramifications towards what the NEA and the NEH support, and it certainly is not likely to do a whole lot else, even so.

[12th Doctor]

Siege40

Well, so much for me saying "Mr. President, I urge a veto."


Sigh, looks like the only alternative to watching NASCAR every Saturady will be just not waking up.