Thursday, August 11, 2005

Tax Dollars Are Your Dollars

I put this up, then took it down a few weeks ago. I've decided to put it back up. The point is a good one.

How should tax dollars be spent? That is the question for most government issues, no.

A simple test should be this: the politician wanting to spend your tax dollars on his "pet project" should be required to explain to the taxpayer why the money would be better spent on his project than on your health care, feeding your family, paying your bills, giving to your church or saving for your retirement. Why? Because when he takes your money to spend on stupid projects, he is keeping people from spending their own money on their choices.

While I continue to get e-mails begging me to fight the attack on public broadcasting (and just why can't Big Bird and Elmo be supported privately? I pay just as much for those DVDs as I do Dora the Explorer) and the NEA, all I can think is that someone is going to have work longer and earn more to pay for retirement.

In Colorodo, the taxpayers just spent $5,000 on "art." The display is called sex toys on hooks. I only found this one small picture.

"Obviously, this is offensive and in extremely poor taste," said Governor Owens. Governor Owens questions the use of state money. "It serves as an important reminder that whenever tax dollars are involved, government must be cautious and prudent," he said in a prepared statement sent to 9News Wednesday morning.

That is a start. And this grant is apparently no longer available. But why, when state and Federal budgets are stretched, do we still give tax dollars to entertainers who, like the rest of us, should supporets themselves selling their products in the private sector? And why is it that a panel of artists always choose the worst "art" to approve for funding? While I understand that art can be subjective, most of normal people know unimaginative crap when they see it.

This isn't like the ugly art governments buy to put in front of their buidings. At least then the government is buying and using that ugly sculpture. This is a simple grant to the artist who then gets to keep (and maybe sell) his art.

It is a crime. I wonder how the politician would explain to a tax payer that $5,000 was better spent on hanging sex toys than the taxpayers' child's educational expenses.

7 Comments:

At 6:30 PM, Blogger Jehane said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger spd rdr said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:06 PM, Blogger KJ said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5:39 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

And I didn't even make any snarky remarks this time!

 
At 11:46 AM, Anonymous Dr. Harden Stuhl said...

I am beginning to believe that with all of the problems we are having right now with [insert here] - maybe - just maybe we could stop funding worthless pieces of crap art/etc,ad nausea. Apparently art isn't in the eye of the beholder it is in the hands of feebleminded and talentless idiots. Why all the strident medical hostility? In addtion to my medical duties...I play the piano, the guitar, sing,write music, have "Ghost" written [somethings you may even have known] and yes - have even painted. I am not saying all this to fit the persona of Dr. Harden Stuhl - if you really knew me you would find I was really a pretty down to earth likable bloke.I really don't like braggards. But I seriously have done this sh*t. Still, the only reason I am even bringing this up is that I feel qualified to at least comment.I have found every hair on my talented neck stand up when I see this kind of garbage. This isn't art it is crap. Painting islands pink in Florida and Crucifixes in urine aren't either. Period.

Sorry - to be so blunt but in the case [regarding talent] this fecal attempt at paint by numbers is like the Emperor wearing no clothes. Untill we in the medical profession and "art for arts" sake group start speaking out it will continue on. Who are we to judge? Only time will tell.. Let art/history speak for itself. Davinci, Mozart, The Beatles, Shakespeare, Whistler,No Government Cheese, Villanous Company, Terri Hatcher...mmmm Terri Hatcher..I think you get it...

With subtle bouts of modesty,

Harden

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger tee bee said...

I've long said that our government was meant to be limited in many ways. I also think we should define the areas government should respond to - not be responsible for.

I approve government involvement in:
- national security
- judicial oversight (limited!)
- transportation (roadways/airways/seaways)
- ensuring basic educational opportunities exist
- ensuring basic security exists (police force)

Otherwise it's not their business, it is the citizens'. To regulate through local government. On a limited basis.

That's my ideal. I can dream.

 
At 1:39 PM, Blogger T. F. Stern said...

Other People's Money, as in the name of the movie with Danny DeVito, highlighted the importance of acknowledging that there are responsibilities that go along with investing OPM. Those elected or appointed to serve have not learned some of the basics.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "artist" got the money and the public got the shaft. $5000 divided by 12; wow, that's some kind of markup, then again I forgot to add the cost of the hooks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home