Just like the people of SC are allowed to choose which corporation our tax dollars support??? Which Nimrata vacation the tax payers support?? which charter schools our tax dollars support??? Why is it Ron that all of a sudden you want to choose, the governor has been lining the pockets of her campaign supporters even before she was elected. Are you really that clueless??

It is a ignorant state not one word about handing over tax dollars to boeing, michelan, private companies but when it comes to education well they have to stand up and be heard about that. South Carolina is consider the sewer of the south for good reason the only people that succeed are the ones that leave and the policiticans.

Its OK to leave Ken. We live here voluntarily and no one forces you to stay. You seem to know a lot about ignorance. Why would you stay in an ignorant state?

@Bob Barnwell: "...OK to leave..."

at least a diff version of "if you dont like it here go back to wherever"...butbutt;

how does this contribute to understanding the issue...ie, does it in anyway address the pro/cons of government assistance to the arts...in general to a quality, well rounded, education...including adult education.

opine: generally personal attacks (adhoms) add nothing...more oft detract.
assume BB is opposed to gov assistance to the arts...his con points might help understand the issue...

That woman campaigned on creating jobs, her veto of the money for the arts instantly put 20 people out of work and will in the long run affect a portion of 78,000 more jobs connected to that organization. That crazy woman and her ignorant regressive policies do NOTHING for the people of this state.

actually, there was a $1 billion surplus last year. Haley just vetoed practically all of that "spreading around" money, including a veto that eliminated infrastructure funding to recruit new businesses ($10 million to help connect sites to sewer lines, power, etc). And the balanced budget this year that passed the House and Senate including funding for the Arts Commission (.00028% of the total budget) and some of that "spreading around money", $500,000 of it. Total investment? A mere .00035% of the total budget.

And if you want to talk roads and bridges, then not only talk to SC DOT, but also your local gov't as they own roads too - it's not all the state's fault.

John gets it. Way to go Gov!

Careful, you might confuse the people with facts like that.

@Ken: "Careful, you [ReadIt] might confuse the people with facts like that."

thanks, Readit, for the facts...all spending should be viewed/evaluated similarly...many are investments...all taxes aint all bad...we have been sold out by grover norquist and his pledge signers.

well ok. we have to spent taxes more effectively...but focus on fairness and efficiency or inefficiency vice program cuts or tax increases...dont be myopic...

cutting programs can, at best, be a short term fix with long term consequences...made by those (presidents/govs/legs) who lack vision and pander to the voter.

Readit,
How many things could the government participate in just because it makes sense or is a good idea. What limits do you have in mind. If I told you that people who go to church at least once a week have a 70% less chance of being involved in crimes then should we give tax dollars to programs that encourage weekly worship? It has been shown that in communities with higher gun ownership, personal property and violent crime is reduced, should we give tax money incentives towards or mandate that people buy guns. Just because things are good ideas does not mean that government should be spending tax dollars on them. Do you think maybe teachers, the poor, the sick or the hungry would benefit from having the money more than supporting the arts? With that perspective in mind, how can anyone say that supporting the "arts" is a good idea when we have other more substantial needs that the government should be required to do?

Dr. John,
good points, but diversity is part of the answer. I generally support programs which help people who can't afford necessities, but that does not mean I suggest all government money goes to poverty programs. If you are correct that communities with high gun ownership have less crime, should we tax-support gun ownership? I don't know, but statistics show that a homeowner with a gun is more likely to have an unfortunate gun accident in the home than he/she is to actually use the gun in defense of life/property. Should the government subsidize buy-back programs to get people to give up their guns voluntarily?
Can't we find a balance where we don't have to agree to an extreme, but we can recognize that quality of life has various components? I don't pretend to understand our governor's driving motivation, but I am sure it does not represent me. The arts are a contributor to our quality of life, and I like it when the quality of my life is enhanced. I like thinking I get something back for the many thousands of dollars I give(?) every year on my state income tax. I am not looking for a handout, but I pay a lot in taxes and would like to think my priorities are given some respect.

ReadIt, thank you!

Dr. John -

Those items you mention, relating to crime reduction, are a matter of personal safety and personal choice. The government can support they types of efforts you mention (I know there are other "good ideas" out there, but for now I'm just referring to the ones you listed), but at the end of the day going to Church is a personal choice and committing a crime is a personal choice. People who go to Church has the same amount of choice on committing a crime as someone who merely walks by the Church.

But the wonderful thing about the arts is that it benefits the person watching the Lion King and the person who hates the arts and walks by - or the person who doesn't agree with the government funding. The improvement of quality of life is a major anchor for attracting businesses. And while crime rate obviously is as well, law enforcement is much more re-active as opposed to proactive (while of course being proactive is a part of the law, people still commit crimes regardless of law). In terms of long-term quality of life improvement, the arts are a perfect investment that also has immediate results and can be proactively planned and incorporated into growing communities and states. (here's a study from the National Governor's Association on how the arts, culture and design are being used in various states for the better: http://goo.gl/lqD8O )

@Dr. John:

first a no brainer...no funds to encourage gunning of america...:)

then, 'all seriousness aside' some FYI gun stuff.

re: 'It has been shown that in communities with higher gun ownership, personal property and violent crime is reduced'

cato say the evidence is inconclusive...eg, 'Two jurisdictions may have the same gun control statute but experience very different effects, because in one of the jurisdictions little effort is devoted to enforcing the regulation.

however consider:, murder rates per 100,000: usa 4.8; uk (street cops dont carry guns) 1.2; canada 1.6...try a little common sense.

and reflecting on growing up with guns we were lucky someone wasn't killed.

BTW South Carolina is a "shall issue" concealed carry permit state. No permit is required to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns.

now to the issue: 'What limits (on spending) do you have in mind...'

re: 'should we give tax dollars to programs that encourage weekly worship?

yes and we do...churches pay no taxes (there are exceptions, eg, some property tax)

re: 'What limits (on spending) do you have in mind...'

limit programs NOT required for defense, health, safety and the long term general welfare...of course easy said and the devil is in the details.

Readit,
You made my point exactly. Just like government can't force a choice on gun ownership or religion... they also can't mandate the our tax dollars go to the arts. Participation in arts is a personal choice as well. To take money that could be spent on the poor and unhealthy or on the children for education and spend it on the arts is not compassionate. If you were a republican, people would say you hate the poor, old, sick and want kids to be stupid.

@Dr. John: 'Just like government Just like government can't force a choice on gun ownership or religion... they also can't mandate the our tax dollars go to the arts'

this discussion becomes more disjointed...eg, 'can't force a choice on gun ownership or religion...also can't mandate the our tax dollars go to the arts'

how does gov 'cant force a choice' relate to 'cant mandate tax dollars'...this is more SOP misdirection...butbutt;

if there is a relationship then doesn't gov force a choice by mandating tax breaks to churches...personally i dont see the connect...but dr john seems to...does he...

the issue is should gov assist programs for the arts...there is no relation to funding gun ownership (stupid silly) or religion (already funded, no taxes) .

Stanley,
To sum up your point then.. All money is governments first via the tax code and what you are allowed to keep, in part or whole, is considered "government funding" . So non profit groups like churches, the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Feeding America are all receiving govt funding through the tax code? Does that mean that the 48% of citizens who pay no federal income tax are funded through the tax code as well. What I make is mine first, and I will pay the absolute legal minimum in taxes for essential functions I am unable to perform that benefit the general welfare of all citizens (the establishment of an army, border patrol and protection, regulation of commerce and enforcement of the law and other constitutional duties). I do not think that supporting the arts is the job of the tax payer (private citizens should perform that function) or to pay for projects like these
http://www.investinganswers.com/personal-finance/tax-center/6-projects-you-wont-believe-government-funding-3620
I believe that having Americans pay for these benevolent programs is special interest politics at best and income redistribution at it's worst

Dr. John -
In your "gun mandate" example, you are requiring people to purchase a product in order to bring about a "good idea" (less crime). But with the arts, no one is asking or requiring you to buy a painting, take a class or see a show in an effort to bring about a "good idea" (economic development). The economic benefit exists whether you pick up a paint brush or not. There is no mandate for people to experience the arts, but studies show that gov't support of the arts is a root catalyst for community enhancement and economic development, therefore making it a wise investment of tax payer dollars.

And in terms of education - the SC Arts Commission supports arts education throughout the state. When schools cut their arts classes (which is ridiculous given a survey of CEOs showed 60% see "creativity" as the leading quality over the next five years and when GM's Vice Chair, Robert Lutz says that GM was not in the car business...but in the art business), many local arts organizations pick up the slack by offering after school/summer programs in the arts (visual, dance, theater, music) or programs in the classroom itself. Also many grants go to help keep programs at a low cost or free (helping the underprivileged). And the arts are used in nursing homes and hospitals for rehabilitation and mental health improvements.

@Dr. John: '...All money is governments first via the tax code and what you are allowed to keep, in part or whole, is considered "government funding" '

not exactly...it's your (usa citizens') money first a percentage which you are required to pay (per IRS tax code) to your gov...citizens pay other taxes, such as sales tax, property tax, etc...all of which you know but insist on making some kind of issue of the tax system.

the 48% whatever pay no income tax per the tax code...do pay sales tax and payroll tax and probably other fees...BTW bet any of the 48% would gladly swap incomes with you or gates...do you want to swap...

re: So non profit groups like churches...receive govt funding through the tax code?

yes they do. the same as those who take advantage of loopholes...call it what you want (funding, loopholes, etc)...their disposal income is increased...

oh/and do you want to cut funding to clemson's, usc's, etc, athletic programs...how far do you think you'd get...

[CLIP] '...perhaps now is the point at which leaders should give college athletics a long, hard look. Why? Two reasons: (1) They cost a gawdawful lot of money, and (2) they have nothing to do with the purpose of a university.' http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-sports

Stanley,
You know my point but try to misdirect. I realize that everyone pays a consumption or sales tax on things they buy, all of this goes to the state with the exception of gas tax and SS and medicare taxes. So why don't these 48% pay federal taxes for things like the military, customs and border agencies, the DOE, the DOJ, the EPA, the federal reserve, the treasury department, the IRS, the CIA, the Secret Service, the US marshall service, the US MInt, the offices of the white house, congress, senate, the SBO, the national weather service, the national park service the FDA, the USDA, the fish and wildlife office, the national guard, the supreme court, the office of verteran affairs, the library of congress, the job corps, the corps of engineers, the international trade office, HUD, the FTC, federal prisons, the federal court system and many other agencies. Is this the part that government funds for them. Also, your arguement about trading wealth is childish from the start. Why don't we all just trade wealth with those in Uganda or the Congo then? To propose trading wealth is an attempt to pull the heart strings of those who think that anything other than equal outcomes is unfair. There is no use in wishing for this Eutopia and to whine about it is childish. I am not wealthy (per Obama's definition anyway) but I started at the bottom with a $3.25/hour job and worked hard and at times fell on my face hard. I do think that state funding of college sports is wrong.

@Dr. John: "You know my point but try to misdirect..."

think you are confused as to who misdirects...anyhow...

re: 'So why don't these 48% pay federal taxes for things like...etc'

as you refuse to accept because the tax laws fairly do not require them to pay a tax...it's the same tax law which allowed the mitt to pay only 15% while buffett's secretary, etal, pays 20% plus...as mentioned bet any of those 48% would gladly swap places with a 1%

re: 'argument about trading wealth is childish'

no argument just a question which requires a simple yes/no answer. the question again: would any 48% gladly change places with a 1% and pay taxes...OTOH would a 1% change places with a 48% so as to pay no fed tax

re: 'I started at the bottom with a $3.25/hour job'

what does this have to do with fed/state tax structure and 'Should Taxpayer Dollars Fund the Arts'...but as long as you bring it up...i started out at less than $1/hr working from 7am to 10pm.

re: 'I do think that state funding of college sports is wrong'...

i dont and neither is state/fed funding of the arts...they all make for a well rounded education...my point in bringing up funding of college sports is to question those who oppose funding the arts but not college sports...