Here's another point regarding the National Endowment for the Arts: I went to an art school back in the days where the NEA was under attack. There was much concern about this at the school and many students and faculty members were talking about an organized response. Their solution (never implemented) was to produce a show who's intention was to offend what they saw as traditional sensibilities. In other words, they wanted to shock, offend, and piss off the people who were looking to get rid of the NEA. Instead of creating a show that would prove the value of public funding for the arts, they wanted to show how impetuous and irresponsible they could be with taxpayer money, as if that would help their cause. While they were furious about the potential demise of the NEA, they also showed great contempt for the funding at the same time. Those who used NEA funding to produce work that didn't carry a controversial leftist political message were considered patsies for the Republicans.

On principle, I oppose the NEA because I do not believe it is the government's job to subsidize this sort of thing (I would be equally opposed if the money were going to a group of churches.) After seeing first hand the mindset of the potential recipients of this grant, I oppose it even more. People like Andres Serrano, who used NEA money to produce such juvenile works as "Piss Christ" (I refuse to link) are viewed as heroes by anti establishment artists, but if the NEA is abolished they will still blame conservatives. American citizens, no matter how ignorant or knowledgeable they are about the arts, deserve accountability when their money is being spent. Better to leave artists to their own affairs than to piss away money on Piss Christ.