2007-03-08 01:31:39 · 7 answers · asked by cherry 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I would say that infrastructure is a responsibility of government while support of arts and culture is purely optional.
2007-03-08 03:20:23 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Governments feel that artist and cultural events are what draw in people to spend money, and then they are able to bring in the improvements in infrastructure.
2007-03-11 07:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by allen w 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution does not contain any provision for the federal government to spend money on arts and culture. State and local governments would be able to as long as their charters and constitutions allow for it. As a principle, the free market should dictate what arts and culture are available.
2007-03-08 09:40:21 · answer #3 · answered by Biz Iz 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. I things like NPR cannot stand on its own why should I have to pay for it? If it cannot be financially viable then there is no demand for the product and no reason that a tax payer should have to support it. If you disagree then get everyone in the US to send me 1 dollar.
2007-03-08 09:59:38 · answer #4 · answered by ken 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Congress passed a law for the promotion of the arts. It is just as important as infrastructure.
2007-03-08 09:35:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually if you look up Imperial Tobacco it is my sense that cigarette companies have sponsored much of this venue in the most recent past.
2007-03-08 09:37:20 · answer #6 · answered by lightwayvez 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They might as well throw it away there. That's what they do best anyway.
2007-03-08 11:48:33 · answer #7 · answered by GABY 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋