US funding for the arts

Pop quiz: has the federal government's direct financial support for the arts -- that is, the budget of the NEA -- gone up, down, or sideways under the current administation?

And the answer is -- from the NEA's own factsheet -- up. In fact, the only significant cuts in the NEA's funding in recent years were under Bill Clinton, with steady cutbacks from 1993 to 2000, with a major cut between 1995 and 1996.

Thanks to Random Observations for bringing our attention to this, with a post that also notes how this has sometimes been spun. Once again, image vs substance . . .

ADDENDUM: David Bernstein further discusses this topic over at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Remind me again of why liberals are so hostile to George Bush? Give him a phony Haavaad accent instead of phony Texas twang, a wonky college life, a less religious persona, and an attorney general other than John Ashcroft, and George Bush, in theory, would be a dream president for many liberals, judging by their ex ante policy preferences. But the dirty little secret of American politics, as explained so well by Michael Barone, is that cultural cues are more important than policy and ideology.

Posted by David on January 29, 2004 10:48 AM