“We are disappointed because we see our funding actively making a difference with individuals of all ages in thousands of communities, large, small, urban and rural, and in every Congressional District in the nation.” The NEA posted the statement you see here after it was announced that President Trump will be moving forward to eliminate the agency.
Quartz delves into who actually loses if this agency is eliminated. In terms of the actual numbers, the NEA is a tiny fraction of the federal budget, according to The Atlas:
So, why does it matter if the US government gets out of the business of funding arts? Well, as the aforementioned Quartz article puts it, “cutting federal support for the arts will have the greatest impact in rural areas and on the vast swath of America that sits between its coasts. Big city museums and performing arts centers often benefit from the largesse of corporations and luxury brands eager to associate themselves with the high culture they represent. But NEA grant money helps to smooth out access to the arts across the nation, said Ryan Stubbs, the research director at the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. It funnels essential grants to organizations in underserved counties that are less likely to receive support from private patrons.” So basically, art kids like me who grew up in not-so-metropolitan midwestern cities, that’s who loses here. Learn more about the potential cuts and what they mean here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/with-elimination-of-nea-and-neh-trumps-budget-is-worst-case-scenario-for-arts-groups/2017/03/15/5291645a-09bb-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html or here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/arts/nea-neh-endowments-trump.html?_r=0
Why some support it here: