CommentFeb09ACORN - Page: 1 of 1

Every day, it seems, another opera company announces cuts in productions and/or elimination of a season. Size, apparently, doesn’t matter when it comes to pain. What in the world is going on?

In all cases, it’s a combination of various economic forces working against companies: lower ticket sales than usual, a reduction in charitable donations from wealthy contributors and lastly, but not least, high production costs.

Interestingly, while we read of these cutbacks, many companies are moving full forward, announcing their new seasons. It’s a mixed bag, for sure, and a troubling one too.

Everyone, it seems, is spooked. Until the public and markets regain confidence in the political leadership, the slope will be a slippery one. And that’s what concerns us here. The slippery slope is slippery only for some.

Someone in congress is repeatedly trying to slip money into the economic stimulus bill for clearly “political” organizations like ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. As of this writing, the amount targeted for this organization is around $4 billion. Spending for this organization was included in the congressional stimulus package and eliminated by Republicans and some Democrats. We read that it has surfaced again in the senate stimulus bill, and no one has raised an eyebrow -- yet – except some voices on talk radio.

ACORN, an inner city, politically connected organization, is being investigated for illegal voting practices in several states. In the recent presidential campaig, Sen. John McCain said of the grouip: It is, perhaps, “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In spite of this, members of congress still want to award this group $4 billion. The National Endowment for the Arts, on the other hand, is hoping for $50 million, which was cut from the senate bill. Funding for NEA is under constant assault and the funds are now considered problematic, as some elected officials seem to have focused on this item, labeling it as waste. These funds may very well die on the proverbial vine.

As we have noted on this site in the past (See Archives: Did Opera Bypass the “X” Generation . . .? also Commentary: Funding Opera: Where does the money come from . . .”) opera funding has always been a problem, but unlike ACORN, funding for opera and the arts provides real jobs, from carpenters and electricians, to singers, set designers, musicians, seamstresses, and the list goes on. All these jobs can justify their existence and actually give something back to the economy when companies are on stronger footing. ACORN employs around 13,000 community activists.

It just seems to us that the thousands of jobs that are at stake when opera companies close or cut back across our nation have a profound economic effect on the economy. These are productive jobs, not make-work jobs, and congress should know as much and know the difference. Thinkl about it.

That opera companies and the NEA should get their costs under control is a given. Priority spending should be focused on jobs and salary excesses such as we have seen in other industries should not repeat themselves in this one. That investment in the arts, however, should be considered a good investment also seems to us to be a case that needs to be made.

Its $4 billion to $50 million; which do you think is the more deserving? Which do you think is most likely to be cut by congress? Simply put: $4 billion for a community-based network of activists with a spotty record, is too much. Fifty million for the arts, which provides real jobs, is too little. The entire package lacks proportionality -- and that's our biggest beef.