Move what goalposts? I complained about special treatment for one particular entity not the rest. You appeared to take my criticism as an attack on the arts in general or heaven forbid I watch fox news (per your quote). To bring this more relevant to this thread, how would you like it if the government gave assistance to the theme park/zoo/aquarium/science center industry and (insert ramdom theme park here) gets 25 percent of all the funds without regards to any other funding formula. BGW and the 50 or so regional parks would probably get about 250 k with other smaller zoos/aquariums/museums getting much smaller amounts. The way it is written smacks of favoritism. Why not 25 million for the Lincoln center in NY or any other major center? Yes, the Kennedy center is well known and deserving but why it over any other?
The Kennedy Center is owned by the Federal government, therefore by us. Its 3,000 employees aren't privately employed, and the Presidential monument in which it sits isn't privately owned. Congress is immediately responsible for its financial well being unless we want to see it disappear as a performing arts venue. If there is a higher profile and more influential performing arts complex owned by the people of the United States, located in a more generally influential US city than Washington DC, optionally doubling as a living commemoration of a murdered President, then I agree it too should be kept in salvageable financial shape by direct Federal action. Let's hear the names of those places, so you and I can both ask why those institutions were snubbed.
But Lincoln Center, your example of "why not that one," ain't it. It does not fit the above descriptions. Nor would most other performing arts centers with nationally recognizable names. So why should the Federal government give money
directly to a privately owned performing arts complex in the first place -- when the NEA already offers grant opportunities, privately owned institutions already have their partnerships, and they can benefit from more localized donor support that allows them the liberty to more directly reflect their local cultures instead of answering to Federal influence? The entire nation IS, by design, the "local community" for the Kennedy Center. As such, direct Federal supplemental funding is appropriate for it in cases where it would not be for others.
So then there's the issue of how much money the Kennedy Center should get.
National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities (which I'd argue is also a strong supporter agency for the arts via emphasis on preservation, access, publication, etc.) are receiving a combined total of $150 million in new funds. None of that pile goes to the Kennedy Center, which therefore gets a mere one-seventh of the combined total new funds in this bucket.
I'd agree that the Kennedy Center is not one-seventh of the total arts output of our civilization. Not nearly. But as an entire complex, what is its share of the high-level performing arts output of national and international renown at Federally owned facilities? That sounds like the more applicable question to me. And the Kennedy Center does
a ton in a year, at a high level. IMO it is our go-to national showcase for the arts. It requires a huge staff to run because it serves multiple purposes, all in one complex. And still it doesn't get most of the money. I'm fine with that.
When it sounded like Kennedy Center was going to get $25 million in isolation, that was deemed bad. When it turned out NEA was getting a fat multiple of that amount, leaving Kennedy Center with only a minority of the new funds, apparently that also was deemed bad. When it turns out now that Kennedy Center is only getting 14% of the total arts-and-humanities bucket that includes NEH, I suppose that will still be deemed bad. Ever shifting. Would 5% still be too much for a Federally funded arts-center-slash-Presidential memorial that in its immensity is demonstrably more important than, larger than, and/or higher-profile than any other venue in the nation? Would 2% still be too much? Personally, $25 million to preserve the center in good condition doesn't twitch my left eyebrow upward one micron.
Applying similar questions to other areas of public life lays bare answers that are perhaps more self evident. Why are we Federally funding the Smithsonian with millions of dollars when other privately owned and operated museums in DC and around the nation are struggling? Newseum itself shut down in DC. So why is Museum and Library Services only getting $50 million in new funds in this deal? Even if the Smithsonian doesn't get extra money in this particular stimulus bill (btw there will be others!), overall they still get a billion dollars per year from Congress. Literally! So shouldn't the other museums get more than just $50m? Why do they get such preferential treatment?
Well, because they, like the Kennedy Center, were created by an act of Congress to serve as our go-to showcase on the national and international stage. They are therefore the financial responsibility of Congress in their entirety. And international-showcase status is wildly expensive to achieve and maintain. The burn rate is incredible.
And that is how Coronavirus impacts the amusement industry.
