Remembering Ronald Reagan and the NEA

Sunday is the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth. Among much else, one thing for which the late president is remembered is devastating the already small budget of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Public debt roughly tripled during Reagan's eight years in office. Federal spending rose 25%, and the federal workforce did not get smaller. But, despite this overall expansion, he also presided over the first steep decline in NEA funding.

The chop came as part of a larger Republican plan to privatize former public services -- a trickle-down move that continued through the next three presidencies, Republican and Democratic alike. The NEA budget has never recovered.

Reagan's first NEA appropriation totaled just under $143 million. Merely to keep pace with inflation, his final allotment eight years later would have had to reach a minimum of $194 million.

It didn't. The actual sum was $171 million -- a 12% slide in spending power during Reagan's two terms in office. Since then, the NEA budget has continued to slump.

At a Reagan-birthday banquet Friday in Santa Barbara, conservatives gathered to party like it was 1980. In her keynote speech, Alaska half-term Gov. Sarah Palin blasted what she said was out-of-control growth in government spending today.

It's often hard to know what Palin is talking about, but she couldn't have been talking about the arts. The NEA's current budget stands at a puny $168 million, less than when her idol left office. Inflation adjusted, that's a 48% decline in NEA spending since Reagan went to Washington 30 years ago.

Who said government never gets smaller?

RELATED:

Congress' dismal NEA budget record

House Republicans unveil plan to end federal arts funding

GOP ascendancy bodes ill for government arts funding

-- Christopher Knight

Photo: The program at a Reagan centennial banquet in Santa Barbara; Credit: Robyn Beck / AFP/Getty Images

 

Comments

[kevin]

BOOOHOOOO

[kevin]

If the author has editor status is that not hmm commu Whoa stop dont't say that bad word.

[Rudy Gonzales]

Reagan is dead. There are no Reagan like contending politicians. They all would love to be like Reagan. But Reagan got his start on radio and movies and moved into politics over time. On the other hand Palin and Bachmann can neither be serious any time there is a microphone or camera in front of them. They are both air heads with no substance. With all due respect, they have tried to capitalize on their sudden shot to fame and embraced by the extreme radical TEA party. They both scare me to death. They both stoke every effort to get more money to live the life of luxury. They both are in it for themselves and not for the country as they espouse. They constantly jab at President Obama and continued internet forays showing they're both in it for themselves. And for the record, President Reagan was not as great as the contenders praise, but he was the best available for the time. Palin and Bachmann are very manipulative persons, and both have proven to many as loving the limelight. Reagan's values are well known by we Americans who live at the time, and we know his values while they do not. To be real to history: Reaganomic­s trickle down didn't work and didn't trickle down. It's truly sad that Reagan's handlers didn't take better care of him. Maybe there is some truth in juniors book.

[david somers]

Why no democrats invited to big event. Was he just the republicans predident?

[mike peters]

Ronald Reagan was actually a lousy President. He set the cause of Civil Rights back 30 years and put this country $7 trillion dollars into debt. He didn't preside over a robust economy (the economy was stagnant), he just borrowed money. He's the President that started this $14 trillion debt we're in. And he didn't "defeat" the USSR--this is a big, fat lie. I had a seminar with Alexander Kerensky in the late 1960's and Kerensky said the Soviet Union was due to collapse in about 20 years from internal problems. Kerensky was right on target. Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan was a 'B' actor, that's all he ever was. People should get educated and realize that Reagan damaged this country.

[Jon]

Wow, what an unbiased piece. What ever happened to real journalists? The incessant whining of the left is getting quite annoying. I'm really impressed that you were able to sneak in a couple jabs at Sarah Palin though. Oh wait, I think that is a mandatory routine for "journalists" these days. Here is my idea. Donate your own money to NEA or encourage your friends to donate. Stop having uncle sam forcefully take it from me and then just hand it to NEA after waisting most of it somewhere along the way.

[Peter Robyn]

Good. The Gipper had enough sense and decency to know that if a program is worth its salt, it will stand on its own merit and funding will come from those who wish to give their support.
Indeed, why should a person's hard-earned money be confiscated through taxes and redistributed to programs that they personally don't want or even find offensive and immoral?
Just as liberals would not want their money taken out of their paychecks and given to conservative programs, conservatives do not want their money taken and given to support the agendas of a few radical leftists that occupy the government.
What's fair is fair. This is not a condemnation of the NEA, necessarily, it is however, a principle which is meant to be just for all. Either We The People are going to have the right to make our own choices with the money that we earn, or we will have a dictatorial government that makes those choices for us, i.e. communism.
I demand my freedom!
Regards,
Peter A. Robyn

[ItsMeAgain]

Reagan was an idiot, why are you celebrating this Idiot. Get a life you clowns.

[Puciret]

The " B " actor who finally gave an academy award performance by masquerading as President of these United States. His legacy ranks among one of the worst this country has ever witnessed. Only outdone by the infamous GW.

[Leonard Joseph]

Reagan was a nice guy. His legacy is mythology. His resume is one of utter dissapointment that we are living with today in its fruition. Essentially we undermind just about everything we learned from the depression, science, history, physics and economics. I wish his family well. I think the reason why he connected with so many people is that they too were simply uninformed...reading some kind of script that qualifies you as an American.

[Robert NO longer in LA]

OH, GOODY! Does this mean we can get more money to buy overpriced urine, in a mason jar, with the crucifix, AGAIN? Yes, NOTHING like the GROSSLY OVER-INFLATED 'art', designed to be beyond the understanding or comprehension, of ALL us 'Little People' who FOOT the bill, so some pretentious jerk, can 'explain' the deep meaning of this USELESS TRASH.

[Jeffrey Sweet]

Some of the comments posted here about the NEA are short on understanding the economic power the arts have in a community. The NEA isn't just about giving artists money (though, being an artist, I think this is a fine idea), it's about recognizing the place the arts have in turning around neighborhoods and even whole towns. You want to see what can happen if you have a progressive arts policy? Look at North Adams and see what the opening of MASSMoca did to turn a desperate and depressed burg into a must-visit location. Where once there were empty storefronts are now shops and cafes. And look at how the growth of the off-Loop theatre movement changed Chicago's reputation from being a place where cows were slaughtered to one of the great arts centers of the world. The result? Local economies get a boost and the small amount of public money spent is repaid by the taxable income generated by businesses related to attending the arts -- parking garages, restaurants, baby sitters, etc. If you want to be business-friendly, support the arts.

As for Reagan, he demonstrated his passion for the arts when he was president of S.A.G. and fed names of his membership to the witch-hunters of the McCarthy era for blacklisting. Once I heard about his betrayal of his own members, I had little use for him, and he pretty much lived up to my low expectations. Though he was way better than George W. (but then Warren Harding may have been better than George W.).

[anonymous]

"Indeed, why should a person's hard-earned money be confiscated through taxes and redistributed to programs that they personally don't want or even find offensive and immoral?"

The 2009 budget included $737 BILLION spent on the military; I can't think of any program that is more offensive, or more immoral, than the program that incites wars and propagates increasingly horrific weaponry. And yet people decry spending less than 0.03% of that amount on the arts. When people are given a real choice about what their money gets spent on, maybe this debate can happen. Although, even then your outrage is pretty pathetic. At $168 million, you realize that little more than 50 cents of your yearly taxes are "stolen" from you to go to the NEA, right?

[steve]

Reagan was tough, really tough. He took on the air controllers union, the NEA and the most threatening power against the US in our history, Granada! What was the population of Granada, a few hundred, perhaps a thousand?

[Bob]

Reagan was an actor - maybe a B one but he did have a television show for several years. And he was presdient of SAG and active in the other organizations. And yet as President he cut funding (or did not let it rise as much as some wanted) to the NEA. Perhaps, just perhaps, he realized that the GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS IN FUNDING, THEREBY CONTROLLING, THE ARTS!

[rogmed]

Since when is $168,000,000 puny? Christopher Knight must have a much higher salary than I had first thought.

[Grapost]

Reagan committed TREASON by selling arms to the Iranians, an avowed enemy of ours, in direct violation of a Congressional and United Nations ban on such sales. He BROKE THE LAW! And this was just 7 years after the Iranians held 100 Americans hostage for 18 months. This would be like George Bush selling weapons to Al Quaida 7 years after 9/11. NUTS! George Bush Sr. had to PARDON the Reagan officals involved in this to prevent them from being convicted and sent to jail. What could be worse than a President selling weapons to our enemies? According to the NEOCONS, a BJ is alot worse!

AND HE SAID IT 52 TIMES!. Reagan committed perjury during his UNDER OATH court deposition during the investigation in the Iran/Contra crime. 52 times he replied to questions with "I don't know" or "I don't recall", in an arrogant and defiant refusal to answer properly to avoid prosecution. He had no problem remembering what to say on TV, but once in court he suddenly couldn't recall anything. He had a lot to LIE about.

This Conservative fantasy that Reagan was a great President is a joke! It's already agreed he was "out of it" during his second term with Altzheimers. His tax cut policies of Supply Side "trickle down" economics have been disavowed for 20 years now by David Stockman, the Budget Director Reagan assigned to write them, stating they never worked and ruined the economy. George Bush Sr even called it "voodoo economics." And the Savings And Loans Bank BILLION DOLLAR TAXPAYER BAILOUT was a direct result of his Administrations "hands off" approach to oversight and regulation of that industry. And history repeated itself with the Wall Street collapse in 2008 when George Bush did the exact same thing. And the deficit TRIPLED during his 8 years while all the time blasting wasteful spending.

The only thing Reagan excelled at, since he was an actor, was giving high hopes, inspiring, patriotic speeches just like in the movies. He was no intellectual giant either, admitting to an interviewer in the 1950's that he got mostly "C's" in school. And this myth that he brought down the Soviet Union because of increased Defense Spending is rediculous. Hey we out spent the Viet Cong too and they didn't collapse. We're outspending Al Quaida and The Taliban and after 10 years they haven't collapsed either. Reagan was NO WHERE NEAR a great President.

[Tom Degan]

Suffice to say, I never succumbed to "Ronniemania". I have not an ounce of nostalgia for the man or his policies. In fact I hold him in utter contempt:

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

[Mr Mark]

"Arts are actually a great form of economic investment, particularly public art, and they should be amply funded in the stimulus package. Every year nonprofit arts organizations generate $166.2 billion in economic activity, support 5.7 million jobs, and send almost $30 billion back to government, according to Americans for the Arts."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/02/why-stimulus-spending-should-go-to-public-art/248/

That's an incredible return on investment for the paltry support the arts get from the feds. Name another industry/program supported by Fed $ that shows that level of ROI.

Do the math: the NEA's $168 million is 1/200 of the $30 billion allotted for roads and bridges by the Feds every year. It amounts to less than 50¢ per capita going to the arts each year.

Surely, that's more than affordable in our 12-trillion economy.

[Seamus]

To Peter Robyn below: I'd be happy to make arts funding voluntary as soon as military funding is voluntary. In fact, I'd love to see what the pie chart would look like if people could choose what their taxes went to. Not in favor of that? Whose freedom were you referring to then, only yours?