Earlier this week on Rachael Maddow's show that nobody watches, Nancy Pelosi yearned for a Utopian society in which artisans are supported entirely by the taxpayers....
"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."
The enjoyment of the arts is a luxury that occurs only in a good economy where people have plenty of discretionary income. In difficult economic times, these are just hobbies for the people who do them. Why should other taxpayers be forced to pay for the health upkeep of artists? By the same logic, shouldn't we be forced to pay for their food, clothing, rent, pencils and crayons?
Support of the arts is, or should be, purely a function of the art market. If a community wants a ballet, symphony, or a collection of unemployed artists living in downtown lofts drawing pictures, they'll shell out money to pay for them. If there's not enough demand, let them move to Scottsdale.
7 comments:
How can a raving lunatic like this hold a position of power in our great country?
How can anyone observe her without bursting into laughter?
Just goes to show what nuts there are in NoCal who keep re-electing her.
Yeah, but it was the Democratic caucus in the House, including the so-called "moderates" and "blue-dogs" that elected her Speaker.
Isn't it generally the minority leader who becomes the Speaker when there's a power switch? I thought these positions were sort of a foregone conclusion. Maybe not.
I've always been of the opinion that if the performing arts can't support themselves with ticket sales then either 1. Not many people are going OR 2. No body cares enough to pay money to see them. Either way the taxpayer should not support them. As for the other artists--if their stuff isn't good enough to sell to support themselves, they need to be doing something else. The taxpayer shouldn't be supporting people who do shoddy work. And there are artists who support themselves with their art. Otherwise it is a hobby that I shouldn't have to pay for.
The only exception to that rule might be national museums or orchestra. Certainly no tax dollars should be taken to pay for local artists' upkeep.
My point is that she may well have been the minority leader when the Dems re-took the House in 2006 - but she was elected to THAT position by the Dem caucus. Speaker of the House and leader are not some seniority determined positions - the parties choose the persons who they think best represents them. If this SF loon is their choice, that tells me all I need to know - and serves as a strong rejoinder to anyone who claims there is "no difference between the parties."
Post a Comment