I appreciate the message, but I'm not a conservative. 
Moreover, after having read your other statement,
That makes me think you think I favor the rich over the poor. And I certainly do not. I don't think you were trying to deliver a subtle jab when you called me a conservative brother, but I think you can see my point. I avoid all political labels, because other people will tell you what they mean, and because they are manufactured to begin with. I try to change my ideology to suit scripture and facts, not the other way around, which I see too much of from all manner of politicians on both sides of the isle.
Okay, fair enough. I told myself there would be no follow-up question, as I just wanted an honest answer, which I sincerely thank you for.
I would like to say, however, that one can support the arts without supporting the NEA, of course. There was art and art education before 1966. Also, again not trying to start anything, the NEA funding currently equates to roughly 50 cents per capita. I know that taxes come from many things other than people, such as corporations, but what does the tenth of a cent refer to? Is that how much is spend per student by the NEA? If that is the case, That seems to me to be a great reason to abolish it, as much of the money goes to salaries etc. Some positions in the NEA pay around $180,000 a year! I am in favor of each state handling their own art funding/education decisions, which I believe would result in greater opportunities, not fewer. That is my feeling on it, I didn't want you to think I was against the arts, far from it.
Moreover, after having read your other statement,
That makes me think you think I favor the rich over the poor. And I certainly do not. I don't think you were trying to deliver a subtle jab when you called me a conservative brother, but I think you can see my point. I avoid all political labels, because other people will tell you what they mean, and because they are manufactured to begin with. I try to change my ideology to suit scripture and facts, not the other way around, which I see too much of from all manner of politicians on both sides of the isle. Okay, fair enough. I told myself there would be no follow-up question, as I just wanted an honest answer, which I sincerely thank you for.
I would like to say, however, that one can support the arts without supporting the NEA, of course. There was art and art education before 1966. Also, again not trying to start anything, the NEA funding currently equates to roughly 50 cents per capita. I know that taxes come from many things other than people, such as corporations, but what does the tenth of a cent refer to? Is that how much is spend per student by the NEA? If that is the case, That seems to me to be a great reason to abolish it, as much of the money goes to salaries etc. Some positions in the NEA pay around $180,000 a year! I am in favor of each state handling their own art funding/education decisions, which I believe would result in greater opportunities, not fewer. That is my feeling on it, I didn't want you to think I was against the arts, far from it.