Asa Hutchinson: “We have heard many arguments over the years that the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] is not living up to its…”

“We have heard many arguments over the years that the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] is not living up to its original intent of ``broadening public access to the arts.'' In fact, in NEA's original mandate and mission statement, they are charged with the responsibility of broadening public access to the arts. That is the key question: Have they really fulfilled that? We have heard a lot of debate through the years as to whether the NEA has really fulfilled that mandate. In fact, one-third of the Federal share currently goes to six of the largest cities in the country. The agency, in addition to sending most of those direct grants to six large cities, has also demonstrated soaring administrative costs. Nearly 20 percent of every dollar that the National Endowment for the Arts expends is spent in overhead here in Washington, DC--much more than most of the Federal agencies--even more, for instance, than the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH). NEH's overhead costs are much, much less than that 19 to 20 percent figure. Furthermore, the NEA continues to fund what many Americans believe is objectionable art. While we have heard a lot of debate on those issues--the administrative costs, the formula, whether or not it is fulfilling its mandate--very few actual solutions have been offered. So, this afternoon, I want to present what I think is a common-sense solution to the problems that we have seen in the National Endowment for the Arts.”