On Thursday, I took two calls on the Bush proposal to increase the National Endowment for the Arts' budget. (See: Who Needs the NEA?) As part of his continuing strategy to peel off Democrat voters by growing government, Bush wants to force all of us to give the NEA $15 to $20 million in 2004. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government will fund art? If we like it, we can fund it on our own.
I can only explain what I think is happening. I can't explain why the White House thinks their strategy is working when it's clearly not. Bush 41 didn't have a strategy, as one caller mentioned when comparing the two presidents. Bush 43 does - and I'm sad to say it's taken the shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (Now $540b) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted.
Who said Rush never bashes Republicans?
I agree with rush about the proposed NEA funding. Why are we giving government support to artists who can't sell their product? Now don't get me wrong, I think the government should always fund music and drama in our public schools but that's not what the NEA is. The NEA is for grownup artists who aren't very successful in selling their art. If these artists were popular, they wouldn't need government funding.
For some reason I get the feeling that Bush is trying to garner support from the left for his re-election by pandering to issues that are important to them. Unfortunately, the left doesn't hate Bush because of domestic spending, they hate him because he's a successful Republican conservative. Even if Bush conceded to every issue the left has on its agenda they would still hate him because he's just not their type of guy. He simply isn't going to win over many on the left, but he stands to loose a lot of people out of his conservative base.