BROADSIDES

August 26, 2002

ENDOWING THE ENDOWED: Popular perception has it that the federal government's National Endowment for the Arts funds the awe-inspiring creations of starving, undiscovered artisans who languish between ear-severing madness and artistic genius. Perhaps that was the case when Congress and Lyndon Johnson violated the Constitution by creating the NEA in 1965, but no longer. In fact, the NEA admits that financial need isn't a factor when it comes to handing out money to moochers-disguised-as-artists.

So what are the factors the NEA considers when wasting taxpayers' money, oops, I mean, endowing the arts? Maybe the NEA's website provides a hint or two. The work of the NEA is apparently so vital to the survival of the Republic that it has both a "vision" and a "mission" listed on its website. "VISION: A Nation in which artistic excellence is celebrated, supported, and available to all." Ahh...isn't that nice? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and stuff. But what the hell does it mean? Wait...maybe I'm jumping the gun...maybe the mission statement will clarify things. "MISSION: The National Endowment for the Arts enriches our Nation and its diverse cultural heritage by supporting works of artistic excellence, advancing learning in the arts, and strengthening the arts in communities throughout the country." Great piles of verbal manure, Batman! Nimrod's subjects at the Tower of Babel were more intelligible.

The NEA is unable to explain precisely what it does and for whom it does it, and, in light of this New York Post report, it's little wonder why. According to the Post, the NEA gave bestselling author Jonathan Franzen $20,000 of taxpayers' money to further his writing endeavors. "Although it's widely believed that NEA doles out dough on a need basis to starving artists," the Post's Richard Johnson reports, "the bonanza often goes to scribes who are already raking in cash hand over fist. That was the case again this summer when shocked writers everywhere learned that Franzen, this year's National Book Award winner, was taking his turn at the public trough."

It's bad enough that monies confiscated from working Americans who make oodles less than Franzen are used to fund his career, but here's the clincher: the Post reports Franzen used his NEA handout to buy two "pricey" paintings for himself.

This comes as no surprise. All government income redistribution and price regulation schemes primarily benefit those who don't need it. Show me a federal farm subsidy and I'll show you a large corporation or multimillionaire receiving the lion's share of it. Show me a HUD housing subsidy and I'll show you politically-connected real estate developers and builders making millions from construction and management of poor quality housing projects. Show me a Medicare or Medcaid program and I'll show you mind-boggling fraud by approved contractors. And show me a grant by the NEA, and I'll show you a millionaire author who uses it for interior decorating.

The case of Jonathan Franzen, a literary welfare cheat, is just one example of how governmental attempts at philanthropy always miss the mark. It's also a muscular argument for halting taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and other welfare-for-the-unneedy programs such as Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words. And the NEA's actions leave little doubt as to its true mission: The National Endowment for the Arts enriches the rich at the expense of those who aren't.

B. Sides @ 10:31 AM