Talking about arts funding is not a lot of fun. As a classical guitarist my point of view is pretty obvious and there are many people who disagree with me. And, as one person angrily pointed out to me, "The problem with you Humphrey is that sometimes you think you're right!" I was honestly speechless, which is not my normal state.
The National Endowment for the Arts exists because fine arts need to be supported. They always have. Bach would not have been able to create all of that glorious music if not for the support of the church. Mozart relied upon the patronage of the Emperor. Van Gogh was supported by his brother. And there are so many other examples. As a nation we have come to recognize that fine art rarely supports itself but our citizenry benefits from it in very many ways. Popular art/music is disposable. We love it today and then abandon it for the next shiny thing. But fine art is timeless and continues to inspire for decades and even centuries.
There are people in all walks of life that have learned how to "game" the system. We all know at least one. The NEA is not immune from their actions. I've spent my life in the arts and have met a few folks who have taken advantage of the taxpayers. Like you, I get pretty outraged. But that is not the fault of the mission.
I had the honor of sitting on a grant proposal review committee for our local arts council for several years. The others on the committee were not only artists but business leaders and high ranking government employees. After the proposals were vetted by the arts council personnel to make sure they qualified under the existing rules, each committee member was given all of the remaining proposals to study. We generally only had a couple of weeks but we did our best to get to know each proposal. We met three times per year to discuss and award. We worked hard to do the right thing every time.
We always awarded money to non-profits, never individuals. I was surprised by how little money we had to work with. And it's worse now. I was also surprised by how many small organizations were using art to help under-served and disadvantaged people. Art is often used to educate as well as entertain.
Most think that art funding pays for opera, ballet, and symphonies. Although it does contribute to those organizations, it's only a part of their budget. But art funding also helps pay for local Arts and Crafts fairs, music festivals, and Music in the Park series. Activities that bring us closer as a community.
In recent years many cities have reclaimed their "Old Town" or "Historic" districts. The initial focal points have generally been the artists. Small galleries, boutiques, etc. The quality of life begins to improve and eventually (hopefully) young professionals move into the area.
So that's my argument. But let's get to the bottom line. The place where the rubber meets the road. Why should my tax dollars be used? Well, according to a recent federal study, in one year the federal government contributed approximately $105 billion. Because these events create additional traffic for local businesses it was estimated that the return to the U.S. economy was approximately $698 billion and represented nearly 4% of our GDP. That's an impressive return.
It's not that I believe that arts are needed simply from a philosophical point of view. The need is also economic. If you want to improve your local economy you can start with the arts. And yes - I do believe that I'm right.