Submitted by Jim Hirsch on Tue, 11/11/2008 - 9:23am.
Like most everyone I know, I was glued to the television on the evening of Tuesday, November 4th. It probably won’t surprise anyone that I was pretty happy about the outcome. After all, I proudly work for our nation’s most diverse orchestra, the Chicago Sinfonietta, and have spent a good deal of my career working on promoting inclusiveness in the arts. But before anyone gets upset with me about bringing politics onto a classical music website, please note that this post in not about politics. This post is about what Barack Obama’s election might mean to the arts in general, and orchestras in particular. Here are a few of my thoughts, but as always, I’m much more interested in hearing what you think.In the short-term I suspect we won’t see much in the way of discernable impact. The economy will dominate the new administration’s agenda for the first 6-12 months, and if successful, might help orchestra’s institutional donors maintain their current levels of support. The tax changes proposed during the campaign might encourage high-wealth individuals to contribute at higher levels if they are enacted, but we won’t feel those for a while. I would also guess that the National Endowment for the Arts will be funded at its current level, and gradually increase if the economy improves.
This is really about people’s perception of the economy and our country. If we feel optimistic, we will buy tickets and contribute more. I think Barack Obama will help on this front.
Okay, it’s your turn.
Posted in
acappellago | Wed, 11/12/2008 - 11:21pm
While the Obama/Biden's official statement on the arts indicates that they want to raise funding to the National Endowment for the Arts to previous levels, I do not believe that it is fiscally possible. Our country has incurred more debt & has increased its deficit & this means that higher taxes loom on the horizon for all of its taxpayers. I believe that this would have happened no matter who won the recent election because this is the only way to pay down the deficit unless programs & spending are slashed significantly. The recent $7 billion bailout plan for the financial industry along with a proposed national health care plan will only limit funding to the arts further. Perhaps it is time for our government to favor things such as education, arts, realistic healthcare plans, social services, the national park system & other things that will benefit all of its citizens in lieu of bailing out companies that made bad, greedy financial decisions & shooting metal objects up into space.
- reply
- Month
- Week
- Day
- Table
- List
»acappellago | Thu, 11/13/2008 - 10:22am
Allow me to correct myself....$700 billion bailout plan. Yes, I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to government funding of the arts & I never expect our little choir to ever qualify for any NEA money except that which comes to us through the Illinois Arts Council. As I'm sure most arts boards will attest, every year is a leap of faith & this year will be a big challenge. Thank goodness for our audiences & private supporters!!
- reply
- Month
- Week
- Day
- Table
- List
»Guest (not verified) | Mon, 11/17/2008 - 4:17pm
Hi Acapellago,
Yes, I think you are probably right about where the federal dollars will need to go for the first year or so. I hope that the tax code changes Obama campaigned on will incent individuals to contribute at higher levels. In any event, it looks like a time to hunker down and hold on tight!
Jim Hirsch
- reply
- Month
- Week
- Day
- Table
- List
»