As in National Endorsment for the art, public broadcasting and public school music and art programs.
2007-01-31 07:48:14 · 5 answers · asked by Hot Sauce 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Government money should be spent to preserve the arts in the way of Museums and preserving national treasures, but financing it should be left to private investment.
2007-01-31 07:56:26 · answer #1 · answered by luperith 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love art, and have had my own stuff in galleries. I am against the government taking our money and handing it out to others for any reason, even though I could probably go on the dole and be a full time artist. That money would not rightfully belong to me.
As far as radio and tv, There is already for-profit radio and television programming, so why do tax payers have to foot a bill for public broadcasting?
We have an issue of a growing lack of respect for property in this country, and I believe that letting the government take 30% of our pay to hand out to anything that comes along with a hand out is one of the biggest reasons for it.
2007-01-31 16:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any of that should be government-sponsored. It's ridiculous. Let the money come from private donors and let's keep government in the areas it SHOULD be in and out of all the others!
2007-01-31 16:17:23 · answer #3 · answered by sillycanuckpei 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,artists should sponsor themselves.Public schools are state issues and should be handled on that level.
2007-01-31 15:54:17 · answer #4 · answered by Dr. NG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. It is nowhere authorized in the Constitution to do so.
2007-02-02 18:10:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋