In times of financial difficulties, should Government (Federal & State) dollars be used to promote "Arts & Culture"? Personally, I see no problems with budgeting tax revenue to keep existing facilities financed, but I feel increases in "Arts & Culture" budget is a luxury and should be avoided.
The federal government's only role in the promotion of the arts and science is to temporarily acquire the right to the work of inventors and authors. They don't have the right to subsidize the arts and culture.
No argument here....however, I think the Smithsonian is a wonderful facility and it would be a great shame if it did not exist.
I agree. However, keeping it under federal control is illegitmate. Transfer the ownership of federal museums to the private sector.
Amazing, I was thinking of this as a topic just yesterday, thank you for raising it. I once heard an artist, sculptor, say "if it needs to be subsidized by the government, it probably isn't art." I don't mind governments subsidizing museums and historical sites and such, but I have a huge problem when they get into the business of subsidizing individual artists, art groups and especially media, magazines, radio and television. I have always believed that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it shows in both NPR and PBS.
