While I’m no fan of the NEA, 11 million in the grand scheme of things is like scolding your spouse for buying a Snickers bar because it affects your IRA contribution.
You are right on point. One of my favorite economic advisors, Tealeye, says her budget consists of, “If I want it and I have money, I buy it. If I don’t have money, I don’t want it anymore.”
The fact is, if you do not fully fund your IRA, you don’t have any business wasting money on a Snickers Bar (my personal favorite candybar), neither does your spouse.
Priorities. Fund needs, then wants. Stop funding when you run out of money.
Contrary to popular opinion, Congress does not spend like a drunken sailor. I know I was one. A drunken sailor stops spending when he does not find any money in his pocket.
I agree with you that 11 million is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, but if they can’t even cut 11 million, from a program like that (a want, not a need), then what WILL they cut????
I get tired of politicians saying “if we cut this program, it would only save .05% of the budget” or some drivel like that, when in reality, if they would cut the little things, eventually it would add up to real savings.
I did some checking this week and found that the federal portions of the budgets of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other "arts" programs adds up to almost $1 billion. To paraphrase Darth Sidious, "Cut them. Cut them all."