News » March 10, 2003

Artless Budgeting

Cultural funding evaporates at state level

By Ben Winters

The arts community in New Jersey was under no illusions that the 2004 fiscal year would be a pleasant one. Currently laboring under a staggering $5 billion budget deficit, New Jersey, like nearly every state in the union, faces drastic belt-tightening in the upcoming funding cycle.

But no one was expecting what they got when Gov. James McGreevey, a Democrat, unveiled his proposed budget last month: no funds at all for the state’s Arts Council.

“It was very shocking,” says Ann Marie Miller, executive director of the group ArtPRIDE. “The governor has been very vocal in his support of the arts throughout the state.” McGreevey, during his 2001 campaign, “had told us that he wanted to give us a blueprint for increasing funding,” Miller explains.

To the contrary, if McGreevey gets his way when the budget goes into effect on July 1, the council’s entire $18 million budget will be eliminated, along with those of both the state’s Cultural Trust and its Historical Commission.

This puts New Jersey in the company of Missouri, where Democratic Gov. Bob Holden has likewise proposed that the state make do without funding for the Missouri Arts Council (MAC). In Arizona, the legislature is currently toying with a similar complete defunding of the arts.

In fact, arts budgets are on the ropes all over the country. Washington Gov. Gary Locke, a Democrat facing a $2 billion deficit, has proposed cutting $2.2 million from the Washington State Arts Commission, or 39 percent of its budget. Gov. Gray Davis’s proposal in California would more than halve the arts budget there.

To be sure, it is an extraordinarily difficult time for state budgets. In the mid- to late ’90s, the states enjoyed healthy revenue streams and almost universally cut taxes and increased spending, including on programs mandated by the federal government (like Medicaid and standardized testing). Now, as the economy enters a second year of doldrums, the states—49 of which are constitutionally required to keep a balanced budget, unlike the federal government—are paying the price for their earlier optimism.

Even Kimber Craine, communications manager at the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, has some sympathy for governors and legislatures forced to make hard choices about arts funding. “It’s a particularly awful time,” Craine says. “These budget deficits are huge, and states just have no idea where they’re going to find the money.”

Crane points to California, which has a deficit currently hovering around $35 billion. “Even if they shut down the entire state government, just laid everybody off, they couldn’t close that budget gap. … The states are in their worst financial condition since World War II.”

Nor does the horizon look particularly rosy, thanks to the federal budget policy being pursued by the Bush administration. With the president calling not only for elimination of the dividend tax, but an acceleration of the 2001 tax cuts, states are not likely to see more revenue any time soon. Throw in the fact that the federal government has long made a habit of mandating state programs (think last year’s No Child Left Behind Act) without adequately funding them, and the states are in big trouble.

On February 24, the president told a delegation from the National Governors Association that help is definitely not on the way. “We’ve got an issue with our own budget, and you’ve got issues with your budgets,” the president said.

In the meantime, all that the state arts councils are asking is that governors and legislators not make them suffer disproportionately, especially considering their budgets typically represent such a tiny portion of state expenditures in the first place. Most of all, arts advocates are hopeful that states keep in mind the tremendous economic impact the arts have on their communities. Says Arts Council Executive Director Norree Boyd: “A symphony is not just a symphony playing a symphony in a symphony hall.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Federal money should be spent on more important things than art… Sorry, it hurts to hear it, especially considering that I make a considerable amount of my income as AN ARTIST!  Yeah, that’s gotta hurt, betrayed by your own…  Maybe if we have a booming economy, but right now private funding for the arts is a better option. 

  Posted by ROCKTIME on Mar 11, 2003 at 5:15 PM

  Research shows that ‘standardized testing’ had little criterior-related validity.  “No Child Left Behind” enables children to go forward without being able to read.  Testing itself can place children into a box whereas ART can help them become escape artists.  Forget the testing and emphasize the ART!

  Posted by JJ on Mar 12, 2003 at 3:19 PM

  First, thank you for covering this important story. The arts have a significant economic and social impact on their communities. It doesn’t make sense to stop fueling an economic engine when that engine is needed the most. Second, private funding sources are drying up as the economy continues to struggle. Federal, state, and local government funding are some of the few sources that arts organizations can count on during tough economic times. Third, the percentage of state budgets that goes to arts funding is miniscule. The money should continue going to arts organizations where it can generate additional spending and tax revenues.

  Posted by A Bell on Mar 12, 2003 at 7:29 PM

  I said a lot more that the author chose not to quote.  Cultural funding in New Jersey brings in over $27 million in state taxes, employs 11,000 people and generates over $1.5 billion each year through insitutional and patron spending.  A lot more will suffer if this Governor’s budget passes—cultural tourism and state image.  Singling out the arts for elimination sends a terrible message regarding the quality of life in our state, and we’re certain the Governor would like to attract corporate business (and their employees and their taxes) to a state with a dynamic cultural life. 

  Posted by Ann Marie Miller on Mar 13, 2003 at 3:04 AM

  read article

  Posted by Nancy on Mar 19, 2003 at 10:48 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 10 posts.

Also featured Give Kucinich a Chance
Malpractice Myths
Fear of a Black Candidate

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!