Trump Threatens to Cut Funding for the Arts

1

As an art lover myself and an advocate for the arts I am a bit torn on the potential decision to cut funding for the arts.  Things that will be impacted is PBS and NPR Radio.  I truly believe these outlets are essential to the advancement of the arts for our youth and adults alike.

I can’t remember a time I wasn’t sitting in front of the television after a long day of school watching Sesame Street, 321 Contact, Reading Rainbow, Mr. Rogers and other quality educational programming like those.  They shaped my childhood and made learning fun.  The thought of these shows being cut for my kids is nauseating.  I’ll probably get a lot of hate for this article, but I stand by my view on the matter.

However I am strictly against a bloated federal government.  I believe programs like the Arts, Education, the EPA, Department of Health and Wellness and other such organizations have no business being in control by the federal government; so in many ways I have no problem with the cuts.

These organizations and social programs are essential but I believe that each state should have control and fund these.  I learned this through public television and how the federal government/state governments worked.  The Federal Government actually has a limited purpose which I will explain.

The Federal Government’s main purpose is to protect our borders from invasion, regulate immigration, make sure the states comply to the rights set forth in the Constitution and to be a voice for the 50 states on foreign affairs and diplomacy.  NEVER was it meant to regulate social programs because the founding fathers left that to the states.

When the Constitution was set up and the division of powers was delegated to the states and the federal government, the states were in charge of all social matters (environment, health, education, welfare, religion, internal state infrastructure, and things like this.)  The reason is every state has it’s own unique ecosystems, people and problems that can’t be solved with a blanket policy.  When the state has the power, it doesn’t impact the other 49.  The people in Seattle have different needs than those in Miami so why should we enact legislation and regulations that are suited for people in Seattle when it negatively impacts those in Miami for example?

PBS and NPR are considered a product of the arts and the arts fall under education.  None of these have any impact on protecting our borders from invasion, regulating immigration, make sure the states comply to the rights set forth in the Constitution and to be a voice for the 50 states on foreign affairs and diplomacy.  That being said, it should be a product of the state and/or city.

It’s been talked about for years that ratings for PBS and NPR have dropped significantly and I feel that’s because we have pushed too much politics in while not keeping the content local.  For instance, growing up in Connecticut, I would often watch WGBH.  I would get to see the Boston Symphony Orchestra, The Boston Pops, and other great groups/orchestras from Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.  Now in the last few months when have you had the opportunity to see those?  I live in Tampa and I almost never see local orchestras or local groups/performances.  That’s what I watch PBS for – LOCAL!  You can’t get that on a federal blanketed program lineup.

The benefits of bringing it back to the states is: you will get programming that impacts the local community, stuff they want to see and that matters to them and local programmers can have their chance at broadcasting to their community.

If a community or state does not see the need for public broadcasting, it won’t exist because a majority of people approve of it being that way.  If a state or city can’t get funding that could impact it as well.

I never had a problem with public programs obtaining grants for projects or overall welfare of the project; after all that’s what grants are for, but I do have a problem having these programs at the federal level where they were never intended to be.  These programs being there suffer because of how badly the federal government is run and how it needs to be blanketed to try to please all 50 states, it can’t focus and promote better opportunities which it was designed to do at the inception.

Cancelling funding for these outlets will in NO WAY completely remove them from existence.  It will just force the states that want to keep it to fund it at a local level which will bring it back to what it was intended for in the first place.  If we truly want to save it, lets start putting together funding in our communities and state and start the transition.

Cable is becoming very expensive to begin with so I foresee these outlets jumping on Amazon Prime, Roku, VuDu, Hulu and other more affordable platforms which really cut their budgets in half if they utilize it and a cheaper outlet for end viewers that are on restricted budgets who can’t afford cable.

Share.

About Author

Jason Dowd

Jason is the founder of “The AME Experience”. He hosts the syndicated AME Radio show and TV show. Jason is an Internationally Exhibiting Photographer and Artist who adores art of all mediums. He is also the founder of “Imagine-Nation Art Studio”.

1 Comment

  1. [If] …”states that want to keep it to fund it at a local level which will bring it back to what it was intended for in the first place. If we truly want to save it, lets start putting together funding in our communities and state and start the transition.” My quip is always “You First” when the people with a voice offer suggestions to those whom are the silenced majority. I’ve tweeted your article because I believe your incredibly right about how these public programs were meant to be funded. Thanks for States Rights, sovereignty angle that each state has different needs. That being said, 😇 Can we count on your help to start a campaign to raise awareness concerning it’s the people of each state that have to save “Their PBS broadcasts and how that’s not @worrisome!

Leave A Reply