The National Endowment for the Arts has had its share of controversy. The goal of the NEA is to provide funding for artistic excellence. Of course, truly excellent artists will likely be able to find financial support outside of the government, and many of the NEA's awardees have pushed the envelope of good taste. That being said, to be able to encourage art in America for less than $200 million (a tiny slice of the federal budget), it is worthwhile.
In the world's most dominant government, the world's most dominant democracy, we should make it easier and easier for a massive diversity of citizens to express themselves through all creative endeavors. The National Endowment for the Arts has been one of the best ways as a nation that we can find those working the hardest at their creative pursuits and reward them for their good work.
I believe the National Endowment for the Arts is worthwhile but it is terribly under funded and therefore does not make the impact that it could. This agency needs to fund more artists and it needs to have a larger budget to do so. The program receives flack, however government funded art projects are common in history and they funded some of the best artists that have ever worked. It is people who are not aware or forget these facts that endanger the program.
I feel like in this time in our government where the debt continues to rise and we are having to cut back on our defense and armed forces to get by that we should not be wasting money on the arts. I understand that art is important but right now we need action and protection not art. I just feel that the money could go to better causes.