Perhaps John, that might have been true before Alpina and Pepsi Mueller, that probably dampered the negativity some, if not for that I would have asked the same question
What I find interesting is to compare the poll we did last week -- strong support for cutting "non-essential" spending, but then when you attached an actual line item to the spending, well, not so much. Every one of these items has in the past either been proposed for cuts, suggested for cuts or referred to as non-essential, and none of these items are getting very much support for cutting in this poll, not even GCEDC.
It seems Howard that people have specific programs that they see as unnecessary. You listed nine programs and an all of the above and none of the above.
Legislators, councilpersons, congressmen and Senators I am sure are asking the same questions in their budgets.
Just look at the Presidential Debate, Romney wants to cut PBS funding, now Obama and Dems are making Big Bird and Elmo jokes, the fact that Sesame street and in particularly Big Bird is a $350 million dollar business, makes no difference to those that are against cutting PBS funding, one man's garbage is another's gold so to speak.
Everyone believes what they like is more important than what someone else does...
Spending cuts are never going to be popular. Look at Europe - we're talking about actual rioting over austerity measures. I suspect that politicians will sometimes talk cuts if it'll get them elected, but where the rubber meets the road they'll borrow-and-spend one just like another rather than making a tough decision to really cut services. They'll make up some convenient story about how it's actually "stimulus" and that spending another trillion is going to pull us out of this mess real soon now.
In terms of county government, a lot of the spending is unfunded mandates, which is a problem. In terms of anything that may actually be discretionary, you can list this that and the other petty program in along with some more significant items (e.g. the Nursing Home) on some poll, and of course actually looking at the specific programs, all of the sudden barely anybody wants to cut hardly anything.
The unfortunate truth, though, is that we just can't afford it anymore. We're on the same road that Europe has already gone down. Do we really want to end up where we already know that road leads?
The only possible answer I can see is, I think what we need to do is to figure some certain percentage to cut across the board, i.e. every single area of government has to figure out how to make due with 10% less, period - nothing being sacred.
Households manage to do it. I don't get it that the government should be different.
What many of you may not know is how dollars used to fund the arts stay in a community and actually multiply. I will give you a very local and current example.
The LeRoy Historical Society's barn quilt project.
While the initial vision was maybe a dozen or two quilts, the project took on a life of its own and now there are over 100 quilts spilling out of the LeRoy town boundary into other towns. On display outside the LeRoy House is a quilt sandwich board advertising a quilt guide so you can take a jaunt around the countryside and see all the wonderful quilts. This project is bringing in hundreds of people. Many of them tourists from out of the area. When people spend time in an area they spend money on food and they go to local gift shops and antique shops.
The more direct economic impact is the plywood from the local lumberyard, the paint form the local hardware store and if the person purchasing the quilt needs to hire someone to install the quilt -- the local handyman gets a cut as well. Lots of expansion of art dollars right back into the local economy.
Art is a multiplier. Art is good for local business. Art money stays in a community. Art leaves an historic foot print for the next generation.
If you have to cut, then next to the GCEDC, cutting the arts will have the least negative impact on the average citizen of the choices given. I would rather cut quilts than meals on wheels or the parks.
If cuts must be made, I think that the pain should be shared. None of the agencies on the list should have all their funding eliminated.
I don't even know if the quilt project received any GOArt grant funding. If it did, it was probably very early seed money used to advertise and get the project off the ground. After the project was off the ground, LeRoyans (and now folks from other towns) ordered a quilt from choices offered by the historical society or found their own design and then they paid a fee to cover the costs.
Everybody *knows* what is important, and what is "government waste". Most recent example - Michele Bachmann has become a darling of the tea party by decrying government waste, yet is proclaiming the wondrous $70 million bridge being built in her district.
Now, that bridge may or may not be of vital economic importance - I'm in favor of the government investing in vital infrastructure, btw - but she and her supporters have repeatedly decried the evil that is government ("unless you are spending gov't money on ME").
Not to pick on Con. Bachmann and the tea party specifically - in 3 minutes I could probably come up with 20 more examples that crossed party lines where the same "logic" is used, such as "we need to cut defense spending (but keep making that bomber part in my district)" or "we need to be more aware of our spending (but give my district $50,000 for a teacup museum)". {sigh}
I found it odd that more
I found it odd that more people want to cut Go Art than the GCEDC
Why John? For all it's
Why John? For all it's trouble GCEDC at least brings jobs to the area.
Mark, Because of the negative
Mark,
Because of the negative comments here before, mostly related to the bonuses given out, I had guessed GCEDC would have the most votes.
Perhaps John, that might have
Perhaps John, that might have been true before Alpina and Pepsi Mueller, that probably dampered the negativity some, if not for that I would have asked the same question
What I find interesting is to
What I find interesting is to compare the poll we did last week -- strong support for cutting "non-essential" spending, but then when you attached an actual line item to the spending, well, not so much. Every one of these items has in the past either been proposed for cuts, suggested for cuts or referred to as non-essential, and none of these items are getting very much support for cutting in this poll, not even GCEDC.
It seems Howard that people
It seems Howard that people have specific programs that they see as unnecessary. You listed nine programs and an all of the above and none of the above.
Legislators, councilpersons, congressmen and Senators I am sure are asking the same questions in their budgets.
Just look at the Presidential Debate, Romney wants to cut PBS funding, now Obama and Dems are making Big Bird and Elmo jokes, the fact that Sesame street and in particularly Big Bird is a $350 million dollar business, makes no difference to those that are against cutting PBS funding, one man's garbage is another's gold so to speak.
Everyone believes what they like is more important than what someone else does...
What I find interesting is
What I find interesting is
"None of the above 8.29% (180 votes)"
When budgets are tight, the
When budgets are tight, the arts are almost always the first thing to get cut.
The real question Joshua, is
The real question Joshua, is why the arts should be funded by Government at all?
Spending cuts are never going
Spending cuts are never going to be popular. Look at Europe - we're talking about actual rioting over austerity measures. I suspect that politicians will sometimes talk cuts if it'll get them elected, but where the rubber meets the road they'll borrow-and-spend one just like another rather than making a tough decision to really cut services. They'll make up some convenient story about how it's actually "stimulus" and that spending another trillion is going to pull us out of this mess real soon now.
In terms of county government, a lot of the spending is unfunded mandates, which is a problem. In terms of anything that may actually be discretionary, you can list this that and the other petty program in along with some more significant items (e.g. the Nursing Home) on some poll, and of course actually looking at the specific programs, all of the sudden barely anybody wants to cut hardly anything.
The unfortunate truth, though, is that we just can't afford it anymore. We're on the same road that Europe has already gone down. Do we really want to end up where we already know that road leads?
The only possible answer I can see is, I think what we need to do is to figure some certain percentage to cut across the board, i.e. every single area of government has to figure out how to make due with 10% less, period - nothing being sacred.
Households manage to do it. I don't get it that the government should be different.
What many of you may not know
What many of you may not know is how dollars used to fund the arts stay in a community and actually multiply. I will give you a very local and current example.
The LeRoy Historical Society's barn quilt project.
While the initial vision was maybe a dozen or two quilts, the project took on a life of its own and now there are over 100 quilts spilling out of the LeRoy town boundary into other towns. On display outside the LeRoy House is a quilt sandwich board advertising a quilt guide so you can take a jaunt around the countryside and see all the wonderful quilts. This project is bringing in hundreds of people. Many of them tourists from out of the area. When people spend time in an area they spend money on food and they go to local gift shops and antique shops.
The more direct economic impact is the plywood from the local lumberyard, the paint form the local hardware store and if the person purchasing the quilt needs to hire someone to install the quilt -- the local handyman gets a cut as well. Lots of expansion of art dollars right back into the local economy.
Art is a multiplier. Art is good for local business. Art money stays in a community. Art leaves an historic foot print for the next generation.
If you have to cut, then next
If you have to cut, then next to the GCEDC, cutting the arts will have the least negative impact on the average citizen of the choices given. I would rather cut quilts than meals on wheels or the parks.
If cuts must be made, I think
If cuts must be made, I think that the pain should be shared. None of the agencies on the list should have all their funding eliminated.
I don't even know if the quilt project received any GOArt grant funding. If it did, it was probably very early seed money used to advertise and get the project off the ground. After the project was off the ground, LeRoyans (and now folks from other towns) ordered a quilt from choices offered by the historical society or found their own design and then they paid a fee to cover the costs.
Everybody *knows* what is
Everybody *knows* what is important, and what is "government waste". Most recent example - Michele Bachmann has become a darling of the tea party by decrying government waste, yet is proclaiming the wondrous $70 million bridge being built in her district.
Now, that bridge may or may not be of vital economic importance - I'm in favor of the government investing in vital infrastructure, btw - but she and her supporters have repeatedly decried the evil that is government ("unless you are spending gov't money on ME").
Not to pick on Con. Bachmann and the tea party specifically - in 3 minutes I could probably come up with 20 more examples that crossed party lines where the same "logic" is used, such as "we need to cut defense spending (but keep making that bomber part in my district)" or "we need to be more aware of our spending (but give my district $50,000 for a teacup museum)". {sigh}
I would like to add the
I would like to add the Airport and the History Dept. to my All of the Above vote.