The Observation Deck

DL,

I think you truly condensed this discussion down to what it is really about when you said it is about the inequity of a sin tax.

Permit me to ramble a bit with a story....

The Row Boat to Arts Isalnd


Nine people are in a row boat floating in Lake Erie. (We'll have Jim O'Bryan leading the way for this story.) There are four people on each side of this boat. A discussion begins as to whether or not we should row over to Arts Island. Some want to get there quickly, some hope the drifting waters take us in that direction, some don't care, and others simply don't want to go.

Jim says "Hey, this discussion is getting us nowhere. Why don't we vote and agree that if the majority wants to go, then we will all row and we will get there with the same effort being given by all. A vote is held and by a 5-4 vote it turns out that not enough people want to put in the effort.

Time goes by and the boat continues drifting, unfortunately it is drifting away from arts island. There's some grumbling beginning and some of those who want to go to the island suggest we vote again but this time we vote that those two smokers at the back of the boat should have to do the rowing. "Brilliant" says another. With this, a decision to hold another vote is held.

Now the smokers say, "Wait a minute, we had to row us all over to Jacobs Island, Gund Island, and Browns Isalnd too. We already had a vote where everyone had to row and the majority said no. We don't think it's fair that you want us to row to arts island too."

Well, a vote is held and suprise, suprise the majority decided that it was a great idea to go to arts island as long as the smokers had to do the rowing. Oh, and by the way, it was decided that those darn smokers needed to get out of the boat if they wanted to smoke.

The End

Of course, we all know this is just a silly story and no one would actually think that this could happen. I mean really, it's about as silly as throwing a bunch of tea off a boat in a Boston Harbor.

I think many of these "art groups" have gotten lazy, and have never had to worry about the bottom line or putting out a marketable product. From a person that buys CDs, Art, Theater Tickets, and go to museums.

I don't think this makes much sense. Cleveland and much of NE Ohio is one of the few "1st Class" regions to NOT help fund art with public monies. You can only get lazy if easy money was already there and it wasn't. Cleveland area theater (the art sector I am most familiar with) is artistically strong and diverse, in spite of the fact that there isn't much funding. They have fought, scraped and begged to keep the amount of theater we have in the region.

The problem is, to remain a top city theatrically (and artistically) these programs need help during tough economic times. Much funding for programs have come from larger corporations that have spent a lot of money to keep the arts in town. Key Bank, Progressive Insurance, and many others think the arts are important and put their money in place to help it. The problem is that our city is losing big business, not gaining. As places shut down, move off shore, downsize, so does arts funding.

I will find the book that shows a lot of evidence that a strong arts community is a big draw to bring in new big business (and when done right, a lot of smaller businesses). It points to the fact that companies want to relocate to areas where their employees will have a richness of community to live in, one with not only arts but sports, museums, etc. It is hard to get programs like these started and when they go away, they may go for good. This makes us harder to sell as a place to be. Lower taxes would be nice and so would nice weather but a healthy, rich, diverse arts and cultural community is a bigger draw that people might expect.

Arts isn't just another business. In our capitalistic society we tend to forget that much art in this world historically has been created not to profit, not to sell, but to enrich and illuminate. Look at the many religious monuments in the world created by the greatest artists in history.

I think the USA has gotten too far into the "if it can't be run like a business, it has no business being there..." way of thinking. People want to apply the business model to education, the most horrible idea I can think of and yet there it is on the front page of the paper from time to time. Health care, the actual care for the health and well-being of a person, has been left in the hands of a business model, a model that fails completely 40 million Americans and puts the hurt on many working families who have insurance but are still left holding larger and larger bills.

I am not saying the government run or funding things can solve all problems. But I think we as a nation need to let Capitalism fit where it fits and see to the well being of our hearts, bodies, minds and our souls in some other way that benefits all people.

.......


That is my (weak) call to support the arts and why even those that don't use it need to have it in their communities. I wish the arts-funding people could make a better argument and try again as they did with a more generalized funding program. The Sin Tax is an easy crutch that puts the burden on a select few. Maybe they should broaden it to a larger Luxury tax that would tax a wider variety of non-essential items or services. Why not maybe spread the burden to restaurants? They benefit from a vibrant arts community as destinations before or after shows. Why not have our sports tickets in our publicly funded stadium add a bit? Why not booze? Why not movie tickets? Why not theater tickets? A bit of the higher priced touring show tickets would go back into the arts coffer to help out more local arts organizations?

I like the boat story. A sad addendum to the story would be to have a boat out in the middle of Lake Erie with no where to go because Arts Island closed down.

Sock it to the poor, yet again.

Here's who pays the cigarette tax:

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/269

Overall, the prevalence of current smoking was greatest among persons inâ€â€￾and independently associated withâ€â€￾working class jobs, low educational level, and low income.

I agree that the way this is being funded isn't the best. Though it isn't just "the poor" that smoke. Your own quote shows "working class" folks as well and I would think that a large portion of Americans can call themselves "working class."

That said, if we are so worried about the economically disadvantaged poor, why don't we lower cigarette costs so that they can afford to smoke more often? Smoking is a habit but it is a voluntary habit and one that maybe 50 years ago we could say people started without knowing but in my 4 decades of living I can never remember a time when smoking wasn't touted as being bad for your health. Yes, more should be done to help people with less resources to get off of cigarettes. Maybe increasing the price out of their budget would be a good start? This was certainly discussed as an idea with gasoline as those who were in favor of reducing our dependence on oil thought higher gas prices were a good thing to encourage us to "kick the habit." By this "logic" a higher priced cigarette means less cigs for those poor people.

But if we are going to bring out the poor people to defeat this proposal, lets do so knowing that worrying about their need for cheaper smokes is not the way to do it. We have plenty of wage issues, health care issues and so on that I would rate higher than an inexpensive carcinogen.

I think we really have two distinct issues here:

1) Should we publicly fund the Arts?and;

2) If so, in what way?

First, I believe, for all the reasons cited by Phil, that we need a vibrant Arts community as a part of our quality of life. In the same way that a Zoo, or a public golf course, or the Metroparks adds to the quality of life and is paid for with public monies (whether you go see the bears, hit a golf ball, walk the trail).

But for the reasons discussed by Kevin and Grace, I also feel that imposition of a (if not THE) most regressive tax to provide that funding is simply not appropriate. But, it's such an easy sell, "Stupid schmuck shouldn't smoke anyway....look at the societal costs involved. Might as well tax a behavior which is reprehensible and let the pariahs pay for the (stadium) (arena) (ball field) (concert)". Why not tax BMW's or Benzes?

I support the Arts. I understand what they mean to the region (what do we have to be proud of here anymore, if not the Orchestra and the Art Museum?). There should be public support for the arts, but the current proposal is just not the way to get it done. But being against this particular tax proposal doesn't mean a person is against public funding of the arts.....

Jeff Endress wrote:But being against this particular tax proposal doesn't mean a person is against public funding of the arts.....

If bottled water, or brie cheese, or cheap Chardonnay, green tea, or even black clothing had been selected to be taxed extra to fund the arts, I would still object.

I agree with Kevin's example. It's simply wrong to make a few people "row the boat" while the majority contributes nothing.

Just as a point of interest, one that is demonstrative of the level of support that this community funnels to the arts....

Last year, gifts to the Cleveland Orchestra totaled over 16 million (of which 1.13 was government grants). (Not, I repeat, NOT ticket sales)

Its current endowment is 122 million.

This is not to say that there isn't need for further support of the Arts including the Orchestra, only to demonstrate that those who patronize the institution have consistantly put their money where their mouth is. And frankly, the outreach done by the orchestra, including free concerts, the youth orchestra and chorus are funded by a small minority of the patrons to the benefit of the entire region. So, to the degree that the community demands "civic contribution" by the arts community, there should also be a reciprocal obligation in the funding......

But this sin tax is still the wrong way to accomplish that funding.

Jeff