THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, July 4, 1995 TAG: 9506300020
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 53 lines
Depending upon which celebrity you've listened to recently, government funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is either the equivalent of the cost of three airplanes (Melanie Griffith to Congress) or one F-22 aircraft or one wing for a C-17 (Barbra Streisand to Larry King). I don't know how they arrived at those statements, but regardless of what the funding is equivalent to, it is still ``instead of'' something we, the taxpayers, will pay for.
I'd like to suggest some alternatives to having the funding remain on the backs of the taxpayers. Since those in the arts are so noble and righteous (and in many cases so very wealthy), perhaps they might want to lead the way in providing funding for, and increasing access to, the arts.
Maybe Ms. Streisand could perform a series of free concerts across the country so that many may be able to enjoy her singing.
Maybe Michael Jackson could do the same.
How about Steven Spielberg producing and distributing a free movie?
Maybe well-known painters and sculptors could provide schools with free reproductions of their works.
Others in, say, Hollywood, could forgo a Rolls-Royce or give up a luxury home or shorten their vacations in Cannes by a day or two.
Maybe a few starlets might sacrifice a $10,000 dress for a cheaper $2,000 one.
Big-ticket actors and actresses could take a cut in their multimillion-dollar acting fees. Gee! Think of the millions that could be raised by this belt-tightening by the rich and famous and the resulting increased access to the arts!
Ha! Figure the odds! It's easy for those in Hollywood and other art enclaves to whine, wring their hands and feign indignation at the prospect of losing government funding for the arts. But then, again, many of them live in their own worlds of splendor and ostentatiousness and use ``causes'' like this to salve their consciences while they continue to try to make the case that we all can afford a few more bucks to fund the arts.
Government funding for the arts is a wonderful and very noble effort. But when we are struggling with deficit reduction and the financial future of our children, we must establish priorities and make some tough choices. The arts are nowhere near the top of the list, regardless of how ``trivial'' the dollar amount may seem to those with personal millions to squander; they and their children have little to worry about in their futures. As for the rest of us, a few extra bucks makes a difference in our pitifully plebeian lives.
DON VTIPIL
Norfolk, June 13, 1995 by CNB