Congressman Blasts Arts Jobs

Thanks for those numbers, Ben, because I think that however much one values the arts, that's the way we have to look at things. With limited funds, what will do the most to help the economy rebound to the point that we have the luxury to support the arts for more wholistic reasons?

I was unable to find a list but, CNN reports for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.73 makes it back into the economy. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, $1.66. I don't have a number, but I've read that dollars spent on education offer a significant percent return. If Ben's number holds true nationally, then the arts also should receive stimulus, unlike tax cuts, which only return something like 33 cents.

Unfortunately, my impression is that on a national level, when the NEA receives criticism, it is because their definition of the arts differs from the Chippewa Valley's collective definition of the arts. The CV consisitently offers arts that appeal to much of the community, be it shows, concerts, art or whatever. When people rail against the NEA, I think they are thinking of hugely expensive sculptures in big cities that few understand or find attractive, and of course the controversial art produced by some especially free-thinking individuals.

I am all for art for art's sake, but in a financial climate like this, we must give the money to the places that justify it. I think the CV arts community does a phenomenal job "justifying" its art expenditures. I don't think that's the case everywhere.

I’d like to put some measurable, specific figures to Nick’s post:

The Eau Claire Regional Arts Council alone has an economic impact multiplier of 1.3. That means that every dollar we spend as an arts organization, draws an additional $1.30 to the area. This is from our staff/vendors/suppliers/etc. circulating that money in the community. This does NOT take into account the over TWENTY individuals and organizations that also utilize our facility throughout the year and their staff/vendors/suppliers/etc. Those additions would easily take the “arts” dollar and multiply it by three.

In addition, it has been shown by the WI Arts Board that arts audiences in Wisconsin spend an additional $17 beyond the cost of the ticket. This increases to $48 if they are traveling in from out of the area. Ask the gang at Galloway Grill how busy they were on November 30th, or Houligan’s and Porters on January 29th. The bartenders at Haymarket always make money after a show at the State (and yes, some is from me – classic with a twist please).

As for employment numbers, Nick was right on there too.

“As noted in the NEA study Artists in the Workforce (June 2008), there are two million trained, entrepreneurial working artists across the country who are assets to their communities. Representing 1.4 percent of the U.S. labor force, artists constitute a sizeable class of workers -- only slightly smaller than the total number of active-duty and reserve personnel in the U.S. military (2.2 million).”

Those figures don’t take in to account the administrators, booking agents, accountants, production crews, managers, etc.

They have the same mortgages as everyone else, by the way.

I’d be glad to quantify the “wholistic” argument too if anyone would like to talk about the educational programs we offer to offset the cuts by the school district and the increased test scores and cognitive skills arts participants generally display.

Beyond the obvious and important contributions that the arts make towards a healthy community (tolerance, understanding, happiness, etc.), it is well documented (by the government itself) that small to medium-sized enterprises are the backbone in the US economy - and this importance is steadily growing as the US economy moves away from industrialization (factory jobs moving to countries with lower human resource costs). What are arts and cultural organizations but small to medium-sized enterprises that employ people, pay (sales) taxes, buy local goods, attract tourists, create a better atmosphere for new and expanding business investment, etc. So think of them as small businesses with an added bonus that their products enrich the communities in which they are located. Don't believe me - read the government's own understanding of the importance of small businesses (see below).

"Small business drives the American economy," said Dr. Chad Moutray, Chief Economist for the Office of Advocacy in a press release. "Main Street provides the jobs and spurs our economic growth. American entrepreneurs are creative and productive, and these numbers prove it."

Small businesses are job creators. Office of Advocacy funded data and research shows that small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all firms, they create more than half of the private non-farm gross domestic product, and they create 60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs.

In 2004, there were an estimated 23,974,500 businesses in the U.S. Of the 5,683,700 firms with employees, 5,666,600 were small firms.

toddy, the "compassion" you are feigning here isn't working. And you're not doing a very good job of explaining why "other tangible uses trumps the arts every time".

It's time for people to understand that the arts are a major economic engine of our communities. And investment in the arts pays dividends for years to come in many ways AFTER that initial investment is made.

"The arts", in a traditional visual/performing sense, not only employ hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people across the country, but they serve as a catalyst for millions in consumer spending. If people are going to go "consume" some performing arts for example, they not only buy those tickets and perhaps concessions at the show, they drive there, they go to dinner before hand and perhaps out for a drink after. Several businesses (and jobs) are supported in the process. This is just one example of the economic impact the arts have on a daily basis.

Arts are not just "essential in a wholistic" hippy-dippy sense. Art and creativity are devastatingly crucial to the future of the American economy. And its time this fact came out of the closet...

I know this is personal for you, Mike. I have friends and family that work in the arts as well. This is a time when all "needs" may not be met. Tough decisions may be made to protect the essential functions of our society. I will do my best to continue supporting the arts locally and I hope that the rest of our community continues to do so as well.

Health care is one thing, but I don't think it's a matter of regional infrastructure maintenance vs. arts jobs. It's about paying job versus paying job. Why is one person a "real person" and another ... not?

For a politician, this guy doesn't "spin' very effectively. The real issue here is prioritizing how this money is to be used. After all, it's coming from our own pockets in the very near future. I can understand why a legislator would take issue with financial support to the arts when people working in jobs that very directly impact the well-being of our country are at risk. You can argue all day that the arts are essential in a wholistic sense, but I believe that supporting health care and regional infrastructure maintenance among other tangible uses trumps the arts every time.