Friday, February 21, 2003
NEED A JOB? GET SOME ARTS FUNDING
I really wanted to blog about this editorial in favor of state-government funding for the arts in the Des Moines Register the other day. The problem was I read the sub-headline “It may be as important to the economy as tax reform.” By the time I picked myself up off the floor in hysterics I had run out of time.
Anyway:
People want to live and work where there are interesting things to do. That means everything from sidewalk musicians to community theaters will help to attract new residents. A 1998 marketing survey of more than 1,200 high-tech workers ranked "community quality of life" second only to salary in the attractiveness of a place to locate for a new job.
First, note how the editorial pulls a fast one by equating “community quality of life” with arts. But it could very well mean things like movie theatres, shopping malls, or sporting events. In other words, it’s a big stretch to suggest that concern for community quality of life means that people want all the things that come along with government arts funding.
Next, how crucial is this so-called community quality of life when choosing a job? How many people have ever said, “Yeah, I took a job that paid $10,000 less, but there’s a great community playhouse a few blocks from where I live”?
Arts bring people, and people bring money. A 2002 economic-impact study found 15 arts organizations in central Iowa generated $57.84 million and brought more than 1 million visitors to the area. Those visitors accounted for about half the visitors to cultural organizations, and they spent $2.54 million purchasing goods and services within the community during their stays.
That’s great, but how many of them receive state government funding? Funny the Register doesn’t mention that. The Department of Cultural Affairs spent about $4.9 million in fiscal year 2003, and only about $1.4 million of that on culture and the arts. Thus, they can’t be receiving that much. Most of it is probably taken care of by the private sector.
But Iowa is failing when it comes to sponsoring arts.
This state has dropped from 41st to 45th in its per capita spending for art agencies. Being ninth from the bottom was embarrassing enough. Being fifth from the worst is downright philistine. The rating of 45th reflects a measly 43 cents per capita of public money being spent on arts agencies. Some states spend $3 or $4 per capita. All Iowa's neighbors spend more than this state.
Let’s spend $0 per capita and drop all the way to 50th! We won’t be any worse off. The reason is that government is supposed to fund things that are essential, things that society can’t function without, like roads and law enforcement. If some pimple-faced, sullen clown with multiple body piercings doesn’t get a grant so he can write his name in fecal matter, society will continue to function.
I suspect two things are driving the Register's concern with arts funding. First, take a look at this story in the New York Times about many states that are gutting art funding (Thank you Cut on the Bias). Likely the Register is worried that Iowa will follow this trend. The second thing may be ego-driven, as in my ego. Cutting arts funding was one of my proposals for fixing the Iowa budget that I made in PII literature that has been sent to state legislators. Does that also have the Register worried? Well, it’s fun to think so.
Finally, the thinking represented by the editorial has it backwards: cultural attractions follow the people, people do not follow the cultural attractions. People will go where the jobs are. Those people will want entertainment and will be willing to pay for it. The cultural attractions—movie theaters, playhouses, museums, sporting events—will spring up to meet those wants. Culture and arts are the byproducts of economic development. They are not essential to it.
. . .
WHOSE NUMBERS ARE THOSE?
Minor Groove notes something interesting about an editorial in yesterday's Des Moines Register.
. . .
Thursday, February 20, 2003
FROM IOWA TO NORTH CAROLINA
I received an email the other day from Yuri Termbath who runs a blog called The Minor Groove. Turns out Yuri was once a student at the University of Iowa and now is at Duke. His site contains, among other things, a rather spirited exchange with an editor for the Omaha World-Herald.
Also, I wonder if Yuri has any thoughts about the Duke writing program.
. . .
WHY I CAN SEE A LOT POSITIVE IN THE COMING WAR
Rob Borsellino explains why he doesn’t see much positive in invading Iraq:
What we ought to see are those Iraqi teens and 20-somethings on a Friday night, the guys and gals checking each other out in those sidewalk cafes along the streets of Baghdad. We should see the old folks at those same cafes hours earlier playing cards and having a few laughs over coffee.
And we should see those families hustling to get going in the morning, dad grabbing the bus to the office, mom getting the kids to school, then to soccer practice and then getting them to do their homework.
I hate to be a wimp about this, but those are some of the people we're getting ready to kill.
I confess that I sometimes think much the same thing and then feel rather anxious about the war. But then I think about the people displayed in pictures like these. I think about how many of them we’ll be saving from Saddam’s brutality. And then I see the positive.
. . .
NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE
Chas Rich emailed the other day to apologize for a Cleveland export, namely Dennis Kucinich, who came to Iowa recently to campaign for President. Don’t be sorry, Chas. We like the circus out here.
Rich has the breakdown on Kucinich here. He’s not too big on the man. But hey, this guy likes him.
. . .
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T GO TO WAR
Sorry about not blogging yesterday. Blogger was down in the morning (surprise, surprise) and I was way too busy the rest of the day to post. So let’s get to it.
You probably noticed this anti-war editorial yesterday if you read the Des Moines Register (and if you don’t, good for you!) It is an artful piece of sophistry. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but it’s artful.
The intro is reasonable:
There's nothing worse for the economy than uncertainty. Businesses and investors can adapt to good news or to bad, but they don't know what to do when facing the unknown.
That might well be why the U.S. economy is sluggish.
But then comes this comment:
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said as much last week. He said the economy appears to be basically sound and not in need of any stimulation. Translation: Tax cuts are a bad idea right now.
First of all, where did Greenspan say that the economy is “not in need of any stimulation”? I’ve run a search for the words “stimulation” and "stimulate” and they’re not in the remarks. The phrase “tax cuts” comes up only once, and it has nothing to do with Bush’s proposed tax plan. It’s possible I’ve missed where Greenspan made such remarks. If you can find anything that can be interpreted the way the ,i>Register does, please let me know and I’ll correct myself.
Even if Greenspan did make such remarks about no need for stimulation, how does it follow that “tax cuts are a bad idea right now”? If Greenspan made the remark the Register claims he did, what Greenspan is saying is that tax cuts are not necessary, not that they would hurt the economy. It’s a bit like saying “The infection seems to be clearing up on its own. No medication is needed right now. Therefore, a dose of antibiotics is a bad idea.”
From there the editorial gets even sillier:
Events of the last few days may have increased the uncertainty even further. While President Bush appears determined to go to war as soon as enough troops are in place, massive peace demonstrations in Europe and some U.S. cities over the weekend must give some pause.
The folks who think Bush is more dangerous than Saddam, hold placards showing members of the Administration dressed up as Nazis, and wear Che Guevara t-shirts—yep. My support for the war is wavering.
The demonstrations indicate that no European government can back war with Iraq without going against the wishes of its own people, and America can't go to war on its own without opening a serious breach in American-European friendship.
“No European” country? I’d like to see polling data from all the European countries that support the war. Perhaps the Register has seen such data; I’m betting they haven’t.
And should we be all that concerned about “opening a serious breach” in the friendship between America and Europe (read France and Germany)? In fact, the breach is already there, and it’s been made by France and Germany, not the U.S. The U.S. agreed to go to the United Nations and obtain a new Security Council Resolution last Fall. That resolution, 1441, threatened Iraq with severe consequences if it didn’t comply. Now that Iraq isn’t complying, France and Germany are saying, “Well, we weren’t really serious.” For further evidence that the breach has been opened by France and Germany, see Jacques Chirac’s recent treatment of the non-EU nations of Europe who support the war, and see the recent revelations that German officials may have concealed evidence of Iraq’s smallpox stockpiles.
The demonstrations closely followed a semi-favorable report about Iraqi cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, which appeared to harden opposition to war among key members of the Security Council.
Uh-huh. And if the report had been very critical, I’m sure France and Germany’s opposition would have weakened.
At home, Bush appears to have the support of a majority of Americans for war, but as a political reality any American president really ought to have overwhelming public support before going to war, not merely a statistical majority.
How do you define “overwhelming public support”? My guess is that the Register would set it so high that Bush could never go to war.
Finally, there is this confusing passage:
Adding to the pressure is the knowledge that troops can't be kept on combat alert indefinitely. They must be used soon or told to stand down. Then there's the knowledge that dragging the decision out will keep the economy in the doldrums.
The economy shouldn't be the biggest consideration in matters of war and peace, but it's one more factor that Bush must weigh.
An order of "let's roll" would get the economy out of limbo, but nobody knows whether for better or worse.
One the one hand, the Register says that “dragging the decision out,” i.e. giving the inspectors more time, would keep the economy sluggish. On the other hand, it says that going to war soon would have an uncertain effect of the economy. That combined with the subtitle of the editorial (“World opinion and the state of the economy both argue against going to war”) suggests that the Register thinks that the only way to get the economy rolling is for Bush to declare that we will not invade Iraq—ever!
Yet, that approach would introduce even more uncertainty into the economy. Consider what message that would send to our enemies: “We will send over lots of troops but won’t invade. It was just a bunch of blustering and bluffing. Clearly, we don’t have the stomach for a fight. Our threats our empty. So come on over. The Chrysler Building is still standing.” Giving terrorist less reason to fear us—and more reason to attack—isn’t going to be good for the economy.
Clearly, the Register editorialists didn’t think it through. I know, you’re stunned.
. . .
Monday, February 17, 2003
QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY
Former-Senator Carol Moseley-Braun came to Iowa Saturday afternoon to kick off her campaign for President. All of one supporter showed up. And he—Tom Hanson—is a friend from law school.
This gives me all sorts of ideas for Moseley-Braun campaign slogans:
-All for One, and One for All.
-Moseley-Braun: She’s the One!
-Meeting Americans, One at a Time.
-A One on One Campaign!
Okay, that’s enough. Feel free to add your own slogans in the comments box.
. . .
CART BEFORE THE HORSE
Since I’ve been reading it, the Des Moines Register editorial page has yet to show any understanding of what attracts “jobs” to a community. This editorial shows that they’ve got it backward:
Metro Des Moines, Dubuque and Sioux City are islands of growth. All told, Iowa lost jobs last year, down 2,700 or 0.2 percent of 1.47 million jobs on nonfarm payrolls. Slightly more than half the states saw declines. Turning those numbers around will depend on many factors, but one in particular could give Iowa an edge: stretching to offer a richer array of cultural and recreational attractions so the state is a more interesting place to live.
Is the “array of cultural and recreational attractions” really a major consideration of persons who are considering starting a business? Or are they more concerned with things like—oh, I don’t know, let me take a wild stab in the dark!—how much money they will make? Things like cultural attractions come after businesses show up, and new communities are established.
If businesses are concerned about making money, they have to be concerned about holding down costs. One way government can do that is lowering taxes and reducing regulation. Of course, that means government has to reduce its role in the economy. Providing cultural attractions is a way government can get more involved. That’s probably why the Register is so big on it.
. . .
TWO GOOD COLUMNS
The Register has two good ones. Rob Borsellino relates his recent exchange with Al Sharpton. He concludes:
I left that news conference pretty much the way I entered it - still finding it hard to take this guy seriously.
Borsellino has that luxury. The Democrats do not. Heh, heh.
Also, David Yepsen has a sharp take on the state budget. Of particular note is this paragraph:
What are the solutions? Legislators could raise taxes, something most promised they wouldn't do. Last week, the liberal Iowa Policy Project in Mount Vernon reported Iowa has an "average" tax burden. Iowans pay 10.4 percent of their income in state and local taxes, a figure the same as the national average. That proves we're not competitive. If we want to be competitive, we need to have taxes below national averages.
Spot on. Read it all.
. . .
Sunday, February 16, 2003
USEFUL IDIOTS
Some interesting posts about one of the anti-war marches, this one is Phoenix, Arizona. A report here at the aptly named "MoronWatch.” Report with photos here at Useful Fools.
. . .
|
. . .
|
