Conservatives cancel $4.7M arts travel program

[jdobbin]

Yeah, you keep up with the fantasies there, dobby. No one but an idiot would believe it - but then again, that's your party's target market.

Once again the namecalling and insults.

Tory spending exceeds their campaign promises by a long shot. GST and corporate tax revenues are down. These are not recipes for large surpluses.

I know Conservative supporters continue to believe that Flaherty never went into deficit in Ontario but that seems to be the minority view.

[jdobbin]

You cut transfer payments to the provinces, thus forcing them to cut actual programs, largely in health care, education and social welfare. You largely avoided cutting federal programs, except to defence, which Liberals hate

The hypocrisy is that even while slashing transfer payments to the provinces for health care and social services the Liberal government portrayed itself in every election as the great saviour and protector of health care and social services. And even while Martin was frantically trying to hide billions and billions in surpluses Canadians were dying on waiting lists and in overcrowded emergency rooms.

It has been shown numerous times here that cuts were made to every type of program in every department.

Yes, there was a lot of pain in regards to those cuts. I know that those on the right try to dismiss the ending of the deficit under the Liberals but they had their chance under Mulroney and all they did was raise taxes.

The Liberals have a lot to answer for in the painful cuts but it isn't like the right was holding their feet to the fire over health and social services.

[madmax]

I thought I might have read Max Berniers travel expense here. Maybe even Couillard, since she is an artsy media star now.

Could you see her getting money to sell her book in France.

"I Travelled Afghanistan with an Idiot"

Or

"Move over SHeila....I am nobody's Babe"

Regardless, since the CPC has already blown the budget, is floundering with deficit, why shouldn't they throw out the baby with the bath water.

Unfortuneately, they just can't do the same with their own problems.

[Wild Bill]

It has been shown numerous times here that cuts were made to every type of program in every department.

Yes, there was a lot of pain in regards to those cuts. I know that those on the right try to dismiss the ending of the deficit under the Liberals but they had their chance under Mulroney and all they did was raise taxes.

The Liberals have a lot to answer for in the painful cuts but it isn't like the right was holding their feet to the fire over health and social services.

I could have respected the Liberal cuts a lot more if there had never been a Jane Stewart with the HDRC money scandal, Shawinigate, the wasted billions on the gun registry and of course, AdScam.

I no longer felt proud for bearing up under necessary cuts. I felt like a chump as a working man tax payer being the only one taking the hit.

[jdobbin]

I could have respected the Liberal cuts a lot more if there had never been a Jane Stewart with the HDRC money scandal, Shawinigate, the wasted billions on the gun registry and of course, AdScam.

I no longer felt proud for bearing up under necessary cuts. I felt like a chump as a working man tax payer being the only one taking the hit.

I understand people's disappointment. Cost cuts are important but basic cost oversight is extremely important. The Liberals failed to bring oversight to a lot of their programs it ended up burning them.

I wish the Tories had followed through with their promise of freedom of information for the PMO and cabinet. As they correctly pointed out in Opposition, too much of poor spending is hidden in there.

[Argus]

Luckily for Canadians, this is a society where people can have different interests. But isn't it funny how some individuals can't stand the idea that maybe those interests hold value for a large number of people, even if they are of no interest to the individual.

I have no difficulty at all with people having different interests than mine. The difference between us, however, is I'm not demanding you pay for my interests or entertainment, while you insist I pay for yours.

As for the rest of your post... I have to say it looks like you are the one doing the sneering. It looks like you are the one being condescending. Your narrow-minded stereotype of the arts community only shows your ignorance.

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with it. I'm a published writer who makes a substantial amount of my income through writing. But I have never applied for a government grant, nor would I. I do, however, know a number of "writers" who aren't very good, who focus half their time on how to get grants, who to meet, what parties to go to, what sorts of stories to write which might be more inclined to interest those who award grants, etc. Talentless welfare writers, I call them.

(And that isn't because you apparently aren't interested in the arts; that does not make one unsophisticated. It is your own actions - i.e. the stereotyping of a particular group - that show your ignorance.)

I used to spend time at the National Gallery, and have a very good appreication of art (I really like the pre-Raphaelites), but I have little time for the sort of nonsensical modern "art" which seems to draw most government awards these days. It requires little talent and comunicates nothing. And I fail to see why I should have to pay for it.

[Argus]

It has been shown numerous times here that cuts were made to every type of program in every department.

Yes, there was a lot of pain in regards to those cuts. I know that those on the right try to dismiss the ending of the deficit under the Liberals but they had their chance under Mulroney and all they did was raise taxes.

The Liberals have a lot to answer for in the painful cuts but it isn't like the right was holding their feet to the fire over health and social services.

I am no fan of Mulroney, but he reined in program spending. It was the costs of the Trudeau debt under sky high inflation and interest rates which blew his budget.

As for the Liberals, who have always portrayed themselves, and continue to portray themselves as the "caring" party which protects social programs. The cuts to social programs might, possibly, have been justifiable during a time of deficit reduction. What cannot be justified is that even after the deficit was tamed and there were huge surpluses the Liberals did not restore funding to health care, education and social services. Why didn't they? Because they remained high in the polls, and saw no political gain to be made. The opposition was in dissaray, and the government remained well ahead in the polls.

As for the deterioration of health care and social services - well, they clearly didn't give a rats ass. All they cared about was their standing in the polls. So Martin kept squirrelling money away while health care fell apart. It wasn't until the new Canadian Conservative Party began to make inroads and threaten the Liberals that Martin started feeding money back into health care and social services again. Did he do it because he suddenly cared? Nope. He did it to buy votes. This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Liberal Party.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Argus

[jdobbin]

I am no fan of Mulroney, but he reined in program spending. It was the costs of the Trudeau debt under sky high inflation and interest rates which blew his budget.

Mulroney continued spending throughout his time in office. His choice of cuts was not very deep and he preferred tax increases to actually decreasing the size of government. There were many tax increases under the Tories.

As for the Liberals, who have always portrayed themselves, and continue to portray themselves as the "caring" party which protects social programs. The cuts to social programs might, possibly, have been justifiable during a time of deficit reduction. What cannot be justified is that even after the deficit was tamed and there were huge surpluses the Liberals did not restore funding to health care, education and social services. Why didn't they? Because they remained high in the polls, and saw no political gain to be made. The opposition was in dissaray, and the government remained well ahead in the polls.

I agree the surpluses were too high and the cuts started to affect the functions of social services.

The last term served out by Chretien was brutal in many ways. As for Martin, he did his job as finance minister as he should have which is to keep a lid on spending. Flaherty could take a lesson from that. I'd rather have a surplus than his overspending each budget.

As for the deterioration of health care and social services - well, they clearly didn't give a rats ass. All they cared about was their standing in the polls. So Martin kept squirrelling money away while health care fell apart. It wasn't until the new Canadian Conservative Party began to make inroads and threaten the Liberals that Martin started feeding money back into health care and social services again. Did he do it because he suddenly cared? Nope. He did it to buy votes. This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Liberal Party.

Not so different from the hypocrisy of the Tories trying to buy votes this summer when they said would keep a lid on spending?

[bk59]

I have no difficulty at all with people having different interests than mine. The difference between us, however, is I'm not demanding you pay for my interests or entertainment, while you insist I pay for yours.

That would depend on your interests I guess. Even for those who are not interested in art I would guess that in some way government money is going towards something they are interested in. Athletics, sporting events, parks, whatever. Even so, not all artists, as you yourself point out, receive funding. I have no problem with saying that government spending should be fair and benefit all of Canadian society.

While this idea that you are paying for someone else's interests is interesting, it gets a bit messy. By that perspective, if you derive income from your writing and (I hope) reduce your taxes by claiming materials (e.g. computer, home office, etc.) then even if we make the same income you pay less taxes. In this way I am paying you to be a writer.

Actually, I'm fairly familiar with it. I'm a published writer who makes a substantial amount of my income through writing. But I have never applied for a government grant, nor would I. I do, however, know a number of "writers" who aren't very good, who focus half their time on how to get grants, who to meet, what parties to go to, what sorts of stories to write which might be more inclined to interest those who award grants, etc. Talentless welfare writers, I call them.

It is your right not to apply for a grant. As it is your right to apply for one. And I have no doubt that there are a number of bad writers out there trying to get as much out of the system as they can. But you go to any workplace or organization and you will most likely find someone who is bad at their job and trying to get as much out of the system as they can. These people do not define the groups to which they belong. Your statements were aimed at the entire arts community whereas your last post shows a more balanced, and realistic, approach to how things are.

I used to spend time at the National Gallery, and have a very good appreication of art (I really like the pre-Raphaelites), but I have little time for the sort of nonsensical modern "art" which seems to draw most government awards these days. It requires little talent and comunicates nothing. And I fail to see why I should have to pay for it.

If government spending required 100% approval nothing would get done. There are people who do not think they should have to pay for other people's children and yet we have a child tax benefit. There are numerous other examples. Government should not be passing judgment on what it considered good art or bad art. Simply supporting the arts community is a worthy goal in itself. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider crap. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider a masterpiece.

[Wild Bill]

The debate between BK and Argus reminds me of those "starving artist" cheap oil painting commercials we used to see back in the late 80's. I finally heard the story of the source of their inventory and found it kind of amusing!

Apparently, they all came from the Netherlands. The government of the time (and perhaps that of today, I don't know) would buy artists' works to keep them employed as artists. The problem of course was that nobody amongst the public would buy them afterwards! They were nothing special, after all.

Eventually, there were warehouses and warehouses of oil paintings that nobody wanted, paid for by the government to keep artists employed.

Somebody bought them up for pennies and flogged them on North American TV, a la K-Tel.

The problem with government support for the arts is that the process is controlled by the government, who decides which artists are worthy of support and which are not. Historically, bureaucrats are very, very bad at this sort of thing. The system is really political by definition, in that it is really all about who knows who.

We have had a similar situation here in Hamilton, ON with a local arts complex called Hamilton Place. It was built to help shed the image of a "lunch bucket" town. For years now they book "artsie acts" for which few people will buy tickets. When they start to get into financial trouble they then book popular artists. So we get a few weeks of Tom Jones, Bachman and Cummings followed by some opera and an ethnic dance troupe called "The Lutonian Cheese Dancers".

The LAST thing any of these artsies would want is to be forced to survive on ticket sales alone!

Yet if you asked many of these "art supporters" they would define themselves as democratic.

[Argus]

That would depend on your interests I guess. Even for those who are not interested in art I would guess that in some way government money is going towards something they are interested in. Athletics, sporting events, parks, whatever.

I am against most funding which does not benefit the entire community. A park is a benefit to the entire community, whether you use it or not. It helps land values, helps the looks of the place, and gives a place for kids to play - instead of outside your window. Sports teams keep kids off the street, so they're not causing trouble. Money for schools and tax breaks for families with kids is to help raise the next generation. Do you want no one around to pay taxes and maintain infrastructure when you're old? Money for roads, whether you have a car or not, is necessary for the economic life of the community in which you live.

Money spent on crappy artists almost nobody sees benefits nobody. I bet you could poll 100 Canadians and not more than 2 or 3 could name a single living Canadian artist. A few could name writers like Pierre Berton and Margaret Atwood.

I have no problem with saying that government spending should be fair and benefit all of Canadian society.

And given the above, how does arts funding qualify?

While this idea that you are paying for someone else's interests is interesting, it gets a bit messy. By that perspective, if you derive income from your writing and (I hope) reduce your taxes by claiming materials (e.g. computer, home office, etc.) then even if we make the same income you pay less taxes. In this way I am paying you to be a writer.

Hardly. No matter where you work or what you work at you or your employer is able to claim tax writoffs based on the cost of doing business.

Government should not be passing judgment on what it considered good art or bad art. Simply supporting the arts community is a worthy goal in itself. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider crap. Sometimes that means supporting art that you consider a masterpiece.

Government never gives out money without passing judgement. That's a given. Else they'd give money to anyone who asked. So that's a forlorn hope. And I see no reason to artificially support an "arts community" which largely consists of people of little talent who could never find enough interest in their work to make it economically viable without government. If an artist is really talented he doesn't need government support.

[stevoh]

If an artist is really talented he doesn't need government support.

Van Gogh was supported by his brother, without that support, we would never have created his art. Real talent does not necessarily ensure financial success.

I agree with this statement:

Government should not be passing judgment on what it considered good art or bad art.

By your definition, good art is art that sells. Unfortunately, many artists true genius is not recognized until after they are dead. Bit late for funding at that point.

Art funding should be based on a known set of criteria, if you meet those criteria, then you get funding if funding is available.

[bk59]

The problem with government support for the arts is that the process is controlled by the government, who decides which artists are worthy of support and which are not. Historically, bureaucrats are very, very bad at this sort of thing. The system is really political by definition, in that it is really all about who knows who.

Obviously some determination must be made to give out money no matter the spending program. But you are right in that the government should be giving that money out based on neutral criteria not based on "which artists [they think] are worthy of support".

[Wild Bill]

Obviously some determination must be made to give out money no matter the spending program. But you are right in that the government should be giving that money out based on neutral criteria not based on "which artists [they think] are worthy of support".

Well, art is a subjective thing. If someone were called upon to actually DEFINE some of those "neutral citeria" I would much rather it were you and not me who had to come up with the answers.

I'd find it easier to make a soup sandwich!

[bk59]

I am against most funding which does not benefit the entire community.

Then you are against pretty much all funding. Almost no government spending benefits everyone.

A park is a benefit to the entire community, whether you use it or not. It helps land values, helps the looks of the place, and gives a place for kids to play - instead of outside your window.

Except for those parks that attract the so-called "riff-raff" and are considered unsafe (particularly at night). And let's be honest here, what benefit does a park give to someone's land value on the other side of town? Kids will find places to play whether there is a park or not.

You do not need a child tax benefit to "raise the next generation".

Sports teams keeps kids off the street? Athletics funding is more than just the local kids team. It's not like people are saying "Yeah, we don't want those Olympic athletes on the street. They'd probably just cause trouble." We do not fund these people because they generate economic activity or because it "keeps kids off the street". Yet there is still value in having a group of Canadians at the Olympics that we can be proud of.

Money spent on crappy artists almost nobody sees benefits nobody.

This is only true if you think the only thing of value in the world is the almighty dollar. Art has intrinsic value to a culture independent of how much the art itself sells for in a gallery. Plus you are taking a shortsighted view. Many artists, authors, etc. only get better with time. A few grants at the beginning of a career could help launch the next Margaret Atwood. Someone who creates economic activity and, some would say, respect for Canadian culture.

And given the above, how does arts funding qualify?

Sorry, I was not clear. I am not saying that government should only spend money if you can somehow trace a benefit to everyone in Canada. I am saying that government should spend money on all areas of Canadian life. If you want to support the local sports team with government money then support the local arts community as well. If you want to support a street festival in an urban area then support a rural community fair as well. I am saying that government is there to serve everyone, not just select areas of society.

Hardly. No matter where you work or what you work at you or your employer is able to claim tax writoffs based on the cost of doing business.

Exactly: "or your employer". Two people, A and B, do equal jobs for equal pay. A works for company X. B works for themselves. X gets to reduce their taxes, as does B. A does not. When comparing individuals, A is paying for B's tax break despite doing the same job. This is the conclusion you get when you look at spending programs as "I am paying for this". So why should we allow this? A huge portion of Canadians are paying for a few people to get tax breaks. That isn't in the best interest of those people. Not even remotely.

Government never gives out money without passing judgement. That's a given. Else they'd give money to anyone who asked. So that's a forlorn hope. And I see no reason to artificially support an "arts community" which largely consists of people of little talent who could never find enough interest in their work to make it economically viable without government. If an artist is really talented he doesn't need government support.

Well, your last statement isn't true. A number of people will get a boost at the beginning of their career and then be able to sustain themselves. After all, look at all the government spending on helping students get jobs. Using your own argument: if a student is really talented he doesn't need government support. The student will be able to find work without government help.

Yes, there will be judgment passed in giving out funds. That is why the criteria should be as neutral as possible. That is hardly a reason to cancel a spending program. There is discretion in all spending programs.

[bk59]

Well, art is a subjective thing. If someone were called upon to actually DEFINE some of those "neutral citeria" I would much rather it were you and not me who had to come up with the answers.

I'd find it easier to make a soup sandwich!

Mmm.... soup sandwich...

Trust me, I don't want that job either! Because it would be hard. But you get some recognized people from the arts community and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be acceptable to the government / auditor general / Canadians.

[Wild Bill]

Mmm.... soup sandwich...

Trust me, I don't want that job either! Because it would be hard. But you get some recognized people from the arts community and I'm sure they could come up with something that would be acceptable to the government / auditor general / Canadians.

Ah, here you are echoing my point!

It's who you know...

[bk59]

Ah, here you are echoing my point!

It's who you know...

Well, obviously "well recognized in the arts community" must mean something more than "my buddy Joe". And honest people do exist! People who would dispense the money fairly and impartially. Not just to their friends.

[Wild Bill]

Well, obviously "well recognized in the arts community" must mean something more than "my buddy Joe". And honest people do exist! People who would dispense the money fairly and impartially. Not just to their friends.

I dunno. After HRDC, Shawingate, AdScam, gun registries and who knows what all else I guess you just have more faith in the "system" than I do.

[bk59]

I dunno. After HRDC, Shawingate, AdScam, gun registries and who knows what all else I guess you just have more faith in the "system" than I do.

What can I say? I'm an optimist!

Realistically, compared to the number of programs being run by the government, those are only a few big scandals (I'm not counting gun registries as a scandal). Without any doubt, many more programs are run inefficiently (here I am definitely including the gun registry). That does not excuse the scandals or justify inefficiencies. But the situation isn't as bad as some would like to believe. In my (perhaps overly optimistic) opinion anyway.

[normanchateau]

While the inept Harper crew attempt to portray themselves as fiscal conservatives by cutting a $4.7 million arts travel program, their vote-buying spending spree on cultural programs is out of control. How do fiscally or socially conservative Harper supporters justify the following?

"For the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, 2009, Parliament has voted to spend more than $4 billion on cultural programs, including the CBC, the Canada Arts Council, the National Gallery of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. That amount is $660 million or 19.7 per cent more than was spent in fiscal 2006, the last year when the Liberals controlled the purse strings.

The CBC, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from the Tories this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals."

Source:

http://friendscb.org/News/Friends_News/arc...les08160803.asp

As I recall, before Harper was PM, many of his supporters viewed government spending on the CBC as being excessive. Now that Harper has increased it, do they bend over like ostriches and pretend not to notice Harper's financial incompetence? Or do they delude themselves once again by believing that Harper's out-of-control spending is necessary to win that majority which will ultimately be fiscally conservative?

[Moonbox]

Bull. You had massive surpluses, so massive that you played accounting games which would have had Martin in prison if he were in the private sector.

This is so true it hurts. If you could pretend Canada was a large corporation with subsidiary companies (provinces) what the federal liberals basically did was they milked their subsidiaries for revenue and dumped their expenses on them. They made the parent company look good (Canada) with budget surpluses, while the subsidiaries (provinces) bled and were forced to cut services drastically. This is why class sizes and hospital wait times have increased to the sad state they're in, and the cuts have been funneled downhill to the municipalities as well. This is why Toronto infrastructure is crumbling.

In the private sector, these would be considered accounting irregularities. They painted a rosey picture of their books to impress their investors (voters for the federal liberals), while completely hiding the fact that they were screwing their subsidiaries and that eventually, things would get really ugly for them.

Fortunately for the federal liberals, however, the federal government is not held accountable to a standard of transparent accounting. Also, the average Canadian voter is far too stupid to see through even well documented and well known accounting schemes. Even if the evidence is right in front of your faces, you still bleat like sheep and like the good little Liberal voters you are proclaim how fiscally prudent the Liberals are.

How can you possibly say the Liberals did a good job managing money when their most recent term was a period of unbelievable prosperity throughout the whole world? Not only did they benefit from a pretty much non-stop booming economy, they ALSO dumped the rest of the budget difference on the provinces.

Yes, they balanced the budget. That was necessary. I approve of this to be honest. With that being said, they had the easiest period possible in which to do so (the complete opposite of today) and they did so at the expense of all the social services that Canadians seem to think the Liberals are champions for.

Here's the reality: They are the opposite. They are responsible for more social service cuts than any government in pretty much all of Canadian history. The federal liberals under Chretien and Martin were about as right-wing as they come. We needed that after the idiots we had before them (Trudeau/Mulroney), but I prefer Harper's brand of financial management better. When the economy is doing bad, it's good practise to run a deficit anyways. It encourages the economy and helps us stay out of recession.

I like that Harper is trying to adjust immigration law to encourage useful immigrants to come to Canada ahead of useless ones (they are a drain on social services), and I like that he is spending where we need improvement (crumbling military and social infrastructure) and I like that they aren't trying just pad the books like the Liberals did.

[normanchateau]

but I prefer Harper's brand of financial management better.

So you think it's good that Harper is spending more on the CBC now than the Liberals did during their last year in power?

And you think it's good that our marginal tax rates are no lower now than they were during the Liberals' last year in power?

And you think it's good that Harper has increased government spending to unprecedented levels?

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Personally I'd rather see the Conservatives follow a policy of prudent fiscal conservatism rather than financial mismanagement and out-of-control spending. But they'll need to replace the inept Harper first. I suspect that after the next election they will.

[jefferiah]

Van Gogh was supported by his brother, without that support, we would never have created his art. Real talent does not necessarily ensure financial success.

I agree with this statement:

By your definition, good art is art that sells. Unfortunately, many artists true genius is not recognized until after they are dead. Bit late for funding at that point.

While that may be true, at least Van Gogh's brother had a choice. I agree that the amount of money a work of art makes does not always means that it is of greater quality. Despite that reality I don't think this should be visited on the tax payer. And I think it is quite snobby of the artsy to think that regular joes must support them, without question. If their art is not recognized as genius until they are dead how do you expect a bureacracy to figure out which ones are geniuses while they are living. Pretty much what they do is pour funds into "art" which is supposed to reflect Canadian culture. But if Canadians are not buying it, and rarely even paying attention to that art when it is subsidized, how can it be said that this stuff reflects Canadian culture. If "Holy F..." represents your idea of Canadian culture go out and buy one of their recordings.

Edited August 21, 2008 by jefferiah

[normanchateau]

So Martin kept squirrelling money away while health care fell apart. It wasn't until the new Canadian Conservative Party began to make inroads and threaten the Liberals that Martin started feeding money back into health care and social services again. Did he do it because he suddenly cared? Nope. He did it to buy votes. This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Liberal Party.

Stephen Harper is spending more on the CBC than Martin did:

http://friendscb.org/News/Friends_News/arc...les08160803.asp

Do you suppose it's because Harper suddenly cares about the CBC? This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Conservative Party.