citizenship, and while even at ournpresent high rates most people wouldnconsider citizenship cheap at the price,nthere remains the nagging questionnthat since the government forces us tonbuy its products, shouldn’t it pricenthem fairly?nThe very products we have nonchoice but to buy are the ones that arenpriced the most unfairly. The problemnis this: what the consumer pays hasnnothing to do with how much henconsumes, but with how much moneynhe happens to make. A man with anhigh salary pays more for the samensoldiers and diplomats than a man withna low salary. It’s hard to see how peoplenwho make a lot of money get more outnof the US State Department, for example,nthan people who make a little,nbut they pay more for it. And if a mannmakes more money this year than hendid last year, the price of the StatenDepartment goes up; graduated taxesnmake us hand over a larger proportionnof our income as incomes rise. Oncenmore, the rationale is the baldly exploitativentheory of “ability to pay,”nrather than any principle of fairness.nNor does the price of the State Departmentnhave an upper limit. Its, pricennever stops going up unless a mannstops making more money.nIs this fair? In every other transaction,ncitizens are treated equally undernthe law and under the accepted practicesnof commerce. The rich pay nonmore for the same tube of toothpastenthan the poor. Anyone can choose tonbuy toothpaste or not, and its price isnthe same no matter who buys it. Ifnincome or “ability to pay” is the wrongncriterion for setting the price of toothpaste,nwhy is it right for the StatenDepartment?nIn fact, as more and more tax moneynis spent on social programs, those whonpay no taxes at all — the legitimatelynneedy and the morally lax — receivenfar more government services than thenpeople who pay the most taxes. Thusnwe have the doubly ridiculous spectaclenof government not only selling thensame goods at different prices, butngiving away the most to the citizensnwho pay the least.n”Ability to pay” is as idiotic a pricingntheory for government services as itnwould be for anything else. Since productivencitizens all benefit more or lessnequally from government, they shouldnpay for it equally. The fairest tax is anfixed amount per person — a capitationnor head tax. It’s not hard to figure outnhow much that tax should be. Accordingnto the IRS, the average 1986nindividual income tax return netted thengovernment $4,280. This does notninclude Social Security, because thatntax doesn’t pay for common publicngoods and services. However, this figurenis close to the theoretical federalnhead tax, or the amount that eachncitizen should pay for his share ofngovernment.nWith a head tax, if there were variablenpricing, it would be based onninability to pay. A citizen with annincome of less than $4,280 clearlyncouldn’t pay his share, nor could onenwith an income of not much morenthan that. For incomes below a certainnlevel, there could still be a sliding taxnscale based on inability to pay. Thenactual head tax would therefore have tonbe somewhat higher than the averagentax, in order to make up for peoplenwho couldn’t pay in full. However,nanyone who could pay in full wouldnhave delightfully simple relations withnthe IRS. He wouldn’t have to disclosenany information about his wealth ornincome, and a personal check would benhis only tax form.nA head tax has two great advantagesnover an income tax. It’s fair: mostncitizens would pay the same price fornthe same government services. And it’snsimple: the nation would save billionsnof dollars wasted on figuring out taxesnthat are unfair to begin with.nHardly anyone recalls that KarlnMarx was one of the first and mostnvigorous advocates of graduated incomentaxes. It is only because incomentaxes have been part of our lives for sonlong that we have gotten used to them.nThe pain of even the most arrantninjustice is dulled by habit.n—Jared TaylornTHE NATIONAL ENDOWmentnfor the Arts has drawn fire recentlynfor funding two by-now infamousnprojects. One was a grant to AndresnSerrano in North Carolina, who proceedednto produce something entitlednPiss Christ, a photograph of a crucifixnsubmerged in a jar of Serrano’s urine.nThe other was a photo exhibit bynRobert Mapplethorpe, who died ofnnnAIDS in March, featuring displays ofnhomoerotica, nude children, and a sadomasochisticnself-portrait best leftnundescribed in these pages. The latternwas scheduled to open at Washington’snCorcoran Gallery of Art, but it wasncanceled for fear of spurring a movementnin Congress to cut federal fundsnfor the arts. These incidents place atncenter stage the politics of culture. Twonquestions arise, and Jacob Neusner, anmember of The National Council onnthe Arts, discusses them below.nFirst, once a gallery has made ancommitment to the artist, can it renegenbecause of pressure? No. The decisionnof the Corcoran’s board was pusillanimous,nand its public explanation utterlyndisingenuous. Second, was the ArtsnEndowment support for the projectnwell-conceived? No. As a matter ofnfact. The National Council on the Artsnnever discussed either the North Carolinanexhibit, which was a regrant, or thenMapplethorpe one, which the staffnslipped by us by concealing its controversialnaspect. So we never got tondebate the issues. I would have votednagainst both projects, whatever theirnartistic merits. For wisdom suggestsnthat there are far more important projectsnin the arts, in support of which ansolid consensus can be formed. Artnthat is deeply offensive erodes thatnconsensus. If, after all, public fundsncannot support any religion, then howncan we justify spending tax dollars tonblaspheme Christianity?nThe National Endowments for thenArts and for the Humanities are advisednby Councils that are supposed tonbalance the necessary work of the staff,non the one side, and the panelists andnreviewers, on the other. As a formernmember of The National Council onnthe Humanities and a current membernof The National Council on the Arts, Incan testify that right now the Councilsnare not used in the way in whichnCongress intended them to serve.nMost of the Art Council’s time is spentnadmiring artists’ and staff exercises innshow-and-tell. Interminable presentationsnof this, that, and the other artistntake the place of serious discussion ofnpublic policy, which when it happensnat all takes place in back rooms.nWhen we met in May 1989, withnthe Piss Christ controversy alreadyngrowing, not one minute of Councilntime was spent on the matter. The firstnSEPTEMBER 1989/7n