Thanks for the link, but I don't think I will use it, because I would like my money to directly support arts that I think need support. As long as the NEA is gi

Thanks for the link, but I don't think I will use it, because I would like my money to directly support arts that I think need support. As long as the NEA is giving money to video game designers and radio shows, I don't feel compelled to assist them. (This isn't contradictory with my previously stated belief). I normally agree that things are better funded privately. I think that organizations like NPR should be funded by the people who use NPR (if there's not enough of them to make it sustainable, why should it stay around). The problem is that this logic falls apart with the arts (some of them) and science. It's hard to get private investors to front money for scientific research that has no guaranteed result and it's hard to get people to fund artists to produce works that they don't automatically benefit from (e.g. fine artists, playwrights, composers). While the symphony that plays a work shouldn't be subsidized by public money, it can be difficult for new composers to demonstrate their talent without support. MM for artists and playwrights. That is why I believe very firmly that one of the most fundamental services the federal government should administer is funding the sciences and arts (along with self-defense and welfare).