If there's a microphone and a liberal cause, you can count on various Hollywood celebrities to show up, often spearheaded by actor-director Tim Robbins. An AP story has Gov. Gray Davis proposing a cut in taxpayer funding of public arts programs and Robbins pleading for him to reconsider, saying:
". . . children would suffer most and the money would scarcely make a dent in closing the state's $38.2 billion budget deficit."
I don't know if I buy this rhetoric. Specifically, I would not call it "suffering" if a child cannot take violin lessons because there are no tax dollars to pay for them. This is not to demean arts programs and their benefit to society, which I think is important. But as to whether they should be publicly funded is a different matter. I can't shake the fact that in the history of the US there have not always been publicly funded arts programs. During those times, there didn't seem to be a lack of artists.
I have one other take concerning this issue. Robbins stated that arts funding would scarcely make a dent in the overall state budget. This is probably true and I would suggest that the total cost of the arts programs is maybe a few million dollars. Mr. Robbins maintains this needs to be taxpayer funded to prevent the 'suffering' of children.
Out of curiosity, I periodically scan the Daily Box Office website and am astounded by the amount of money generated by the entertainment industry. Over a mere few weeks, it is not uncommon for certain features to take in hundreds of millions of dollars. Over a longer period, some have even approached or exceeded a half billion dollars. In total, industry revenue annually is in the billions.
My question is: Since the entertainment industry derives a primary benefit from the arts programs and, since the industry appears to have adequate resources available, why doesn't the industry pay for these programs and eschew taxpayer funding?
No comments:
Post a Comment