appear on Sixty Minutes in Auckland.rnNext case.rn—Jacob NeusnerrnTHE NEH has provided me with severalrnsubstantial (and highly coiTipetiti’e)rngrants, and so perhaps I should maintainrna discreet silence in the current debaternover the proposed abolition of the NationalrnEndowment for the Humanitiesrnand the National Endowment for thernArts. (Strictly speaking, I am not thernrecipient, but rather the Principal hivestigatorrnfor grants received by m’ university.)rnBut the media and politicians havernso vulgarized and trivialized the issuern(and when do they ever not?) that therernare a few things that need to be said.rnhi principle, the federal governmentrnshould not be in the business of subsidizingrnthe arts (NEA). The argument isrnsomewhat less conclusive in regard tornscholarship. It is at least moot that therernis a proper role for support of certainrntpes of humanistic endeavor that haverna “national” purpose. This is the samernprinciple that justifies national parks,rnthe Library of Congress, and the Smithsonianrnhistitution. But in terms of bothrnprinciple and the amounts of mone’ in-rn’ol’ed, the NEA and NEH constitute arntrivial issue (which is why it has interestedrnthe politicians). Doubtless there isrnmore federal money stolen any Thursdayrnin Chicago than the entire annualrnbudget of the NEH and NEA. Andrnconsidering all the things tiie federalrngovernment is doing that it should notrnbe doing—consuming a third of thernnational income, inflating the currency,rnbombing Serbs, policing Haitians, incineratingrnmembers of obscure religiousrncults, interfering with schoolchildren,rnsubsidizing the proliferation of illegitimaternbabies with low IQ’s, subsidizingrnthe murder of other babies, etc.—rnthe arts and humanities subsidies arernsomewhere below number 200 on thernlist of things that need attention.rnEgregious abuses have been perpetratedrnby the NEA, without an cjuestion.rnBut it has not been pointed outrnthat this was largely an administrativernfailure. The RepubHcans controlled thernexecutive branch for 12 years, hi thisrnbroad and goodly land are hundreds ofrnpeople who are knowledgeable and dedicatedrnin the arts, who are conscientiousrnand talented citizens, and who even votedrnfor Reagan and Bush, histead of findingrnsuch people and getting them intornmanagement—the natural thing torndo considering that the NEA was, forrnthe nonce, established by law and notrngoing to go away—the Republicansrnappointed Washington establishmentariansrnindistinguishable from Democraticrnappointees. It was under the execrablernFrolinmaer, a Bush appointee, that thernworst obscenities were perpetrated andrndefended.rnHere, as in so much else, the failurernwas in the implementation of the “ReaganrnRevolution.” Imagine if, as originallyrnplanned, M.E. Bradford, a great gentlemanrnand a great scholar, had beenrnput at the head of the NEH in 1981.rnWonderful things might have happened,rnthings that would have beenrngood for the country, the administration,rnand the cause of scholarship. Instead,rnneoconservatives took over thernNEH and made an effort to turn it intornanother patronage machine for themselves.rnThey failed, largely due to a dedicated,rnprofessional, and honorable staff,rnand soon moved on to the Departmentrnof Education, where the} had more luck.rnThe NEH staff, in fact, has a goodrnrecord of restraining politicization byrnboth neocons and conventional leftistsrnand adhering to responsible standards.rnEthically, it ccrtainlv compares fa’orablvrnto Congress, the federal courts, thernarmed services, the Department ofrnHousing and Urban Development, etc.rnAnother aspect of the situation thatrnhas not been remarked on at all is thernscandal of Indirect Costs. Indirect Costsrnoriginated with scientific grants whichrnoften reqmred maintenance of extensivernphysical facilities. They were written intornthe arts and humanities law withoutrnrhyme or reason. This means that everyrntime a grant is given to cover the costs ofrna certain project, the necessary amountrnis multiplied by a factor of the IndirectrnCost rate. The I.C. rate for HarvardrnUnivcrsitv is 200 percent. For my ownrninstitution it is 49 percent.rnWithout I.e., the same projectsrncould be accomplished at much lowerrncost, or a greater number of projectsrncould be supported with the samernamount of money. I.C. constitutes anrnimmense subsidy for the higher educationrnestablishment, a hidden agenda.rnThese funds, moreover, are generally atrnthe command of administrators withrnfewer controls than normally budgetedrnfunds, which explains the famous StanfordrnUniversity scandal of a few yearsrnago. In addition, the intrusion of I.C. intornbudgets complicates c’ery potentiallyrnworthwhile endeavor. Whatever therncase for I.C. in the sciences, they seemrnunjustifiable in the arts and humanities.rnNone of us—not even the mostrnknowledgeable Washington insiders—rnrealK’ know at this point what, if anything,rnwill happen in regard to NEA andrnNEH. If the Republicans really want torndismantle the Great Society, there are arncouple of hundred better places to start.rnWhat I would recommend, whichrnwould be reasonable for Washington, is:rnaboli,sh the NEA; keep the NEH, withrnI.C. eliminated. This would both reducernexpenditures and preserve what isrnworthwhile.rn—Clyde WilsonrnENTITLEMENTS are leading therncountry headlong to insolvency. Theserninclude a whole range of programs suchrnas Social Security, Supplemental SecurityrnIncome, Medicaid, Medicare, Aid tornFamilies with Dependent Children,rnFood Stamps, etc. Some entitlementsrnare “permanent appropriations,” whichrnmeans the money to pay for them isrnautomatically appropriated and distributedrnto whoever meets the criteriarnfor receiving a handout. The two biggestrnprograms in this category are SocialrnSecurity and Medicare. The sum of interestrnon the national debt plus permanentrnappropriations is “mandatoryrnspending,” which is known in Washington’srnpariance as “untouchable.”rnThe figures are startling. This vear.rnSocial Security will cost $600 billion,rnabout 40 percent of the federal budget.rnBy 2004, if trends continue, the figurernwill double. Social Security began goingrnbust when Congress raided it to givernmoney to welfare mamas, alcoholics,rnand drug addicts and when retireesrnbegan to outlast the benefits to whichrnthey were entitled. But things will onlyrnget worse. Right now, four Americanrnworkers support one retiree. By 2030,rnthe ratio will hae dropped by half.rnIf what is past is prologue, considerrnthe past three decades of entitlementrnspending in general. In 1963, 70.4 percentrnof federal spending was discretionary,rnmeaning Congress had a choicernof liow much to spend. A decade later,rnthat figure dropped to 55 percent andrnentitlements had grown to 38 percent ofrnthe federal budget, with net interest onrnthe national debt at 7 percent. By therntime Ronald Reagan was two }’ears intornMAY 1995/7rnrnrn