Arts and cultural actvities should be privately funded.

And when people come our town to attend these events, they go out to dinner, stop in for a drink, maybe do some shopping, add to the revenues of establishments, which provides jobs, thus increasing tax revenue etc etc etc!
Typical Small mindedness!

Gene Sicard

Sometimes the government works better than free markets at organizing economic activity. Although not-for-profit arts organizations always have to keep an eye on the bottom line so they can pay their bills, they are also supposed to make decisions based on artistic merit rather than profit. Government support recognizes the enormous contribution that arts organizations make to our lives, and allow those organizations to present important work that would not otherwise be seen on Long Island, even if the audience for that work is sometimes smaller. All of these organizations also depend on private charitable organizations and for profit businesses, but government support is essential as well.

Suffice it to say, the proper means to support "artistic merit" is voluntary, not by force of taxation.

The way to solve this problem is to generate alternative revenues through new media solutions. Those that are interested in the towns art programs will go to the online presence and generate revenue which can be used as a donation to the arts in general. This is free market working to solve the problem.
Something like themuseumcenter.org can rss feed the info from many art sources or let them login directly and then tweet to their page. There are at least 12 revenue sources that can be used and then returned as donations to the entities.

The government does many things "by force of taxation" that I hate, but when you live in a nation with a popularly elected government it is necessary to understand that your tax dollars will sometimes be used for things you don't like. I feel that supporting the arts is one of the very best uses for my tax dollars. You clearly disagree. I vote for politicians who support my views, and I assume you do the same. New media is helpful for some arts organizations, but not for others. A free market solution is sometimes the best option, but not always, and that's when it is right for the government to offer alternative support.

Patrick, I agree with your recommmendation.

Dylan, I understand your POV but I prefer Liberty and the representative constitutional Government that is required to maintain Liberty. Popularism or Democracy produces unlimited Government that we can not afford...not to mention rules that reduce our freedoms and confiscates wealth from people like me, who may not support much of the rules and programs that you may support. Patrick's solution offers support for those services that you want while repsecting my rights. The economic travails that we are facing today are evidence for the long term consequences of our conversion from a representative constitutional Republic into a Democracy with majority rule and unlimited Government.

I like liberty as well, but there do need to be rules and taxes to maintain a just and stable nation. I'm not sure what rules are reducing your freedom, but I haven't noticed any government rules that are reducing mine. America can most definitely afford Democracy. The government does indeed as you say "confiscate" wealth from me. I wholeheartedly support some of the things that my taxes are used for, and disagree with others. However, I do not want our government reduced to a pathetic rump that cannot provide essential services like the social safety net and support for the arts.

Agreed. However today there is a very different model that exists in every form of business or revenue generation, just like in times past. The world is changing and everything needs to change as well. The base has shifted and how we do things needs to shift as well. Think bigger and different.

What we are seeing today is an illustration of the failed experiment that is big government. It is inherently currupt and inefficient. Our arts, like our healthcare, home ownership, retirement savings and everything else, would be better off without the false promise and dependancy of governmentm "help". They take over our lives. Make us dependant on their help. And inevidably fail. We need to wean ourselves away from this dependancy before its too late. Governement needs to do few things and do them well. Keep us safe and protect our rights.

What we are seeing today is an attempt to destroy the social safety net that keeps millions of Americans from living in abject poverty. This gutting of these most basic services that the government offers is being done simply to protect the tax breaks of a tiny percentage of the wealthiest Americans while we are distracted with odd claims that the government is taking over our lives. I haven't noticed the government interfering in my life. The government is not offering false promises, it is offering essential services to people in need that corporations cannot provide. The most important things are government provides are health care, retirement benefits, welfare, food stamps, regulation of business, and yes, things like support for the arts. There is plenty of fat in our government, but instead of cutting these vital programs that actually help Americans we should be taking a knife to the bloated military and intelligence budgets, as well as the insane handouts and tax breaks that are given to large corporations.

Hi Patrick, I think we have lots of things we can agree on. I'm a big fan of digital media, which I use in my work. However, it is not a cure-all. I also see that there are multiple reasons for the decline in taxes. The shift to a knowledge economy is important, but you also need to look at globalization and drastic changes in our tax code that have disproportionately benefited the top 1% of Americans. Just as with arts financing, a multifaceted approach is needed to help our economy.

Agreed. But since industrialization 1% has controlled 99% of the wealth. I just caught the original Wall Street and Gecko says that statement. I also agree that today everything is being funneled towards that 1% the reason being as Michael Moore said the other shoe hasn't dropped. So I propose that that shoe is the long term effect of a new economy. This is not just a prerogative this is much bigger than that. This is a global shift in economic structure. Digital media is a very strong up and coming model. Apple's profits were one billion less than ExxonMobil this past year. 347 to 348 billion. I am sure I don't need to explain Google's power in the marketplace or other entities. I am not talking about just building a site I m talking about shifting revenue structures. Embracing a new structure that cannot easily be controlled by any importing or exporting or trade agreements. It is pure content like movies and television. There are few countries who prohibit content delivery. Think bigger and like Saint Steven said "Think Different"

Theres plenty of the pie left to go around. If you havent noticed, the "new" money is comprised of recent immigrants. Why? Because they recognize opportunities when alot of us red blooded Americans would never do what they are getting rich doing. How many people are pissed because they have an unmarketable education or job skills. Is that the fault of the 1% also? Forget about the 1% nonsense. That will not get anyone anywhere. People have overleveraged themselves to the hilt in the last 20 years. Buy now pay later etc etc etc. No money down... blah blah blah. A lot of people are hurting because they shot themselves in the foot. Now its time to pay and the smart ones are holding the notes and the not so smart are stuck with the check at 20% interest. If anybody thinks wealth redistribution works, go check Cubas economy. People have a right to protest and yes you are right its not easy but who ever said it was gonna be easy.

Dylan, Government, the most inefficient and ineffective institution known to Man, is involved in most everything you do and every good and service you consume. Government controls almost every business transaction with a spider-web of rules, regulations, licenses, subsidies and taxes. Most of us would be far better off with less of the rules, regulations, licenses, subsidies and taxes imposed upon us by Government.

There has always been an extremely wealthy elite, but the gap has shrunk and grown over the years. However, the past thirty years has seen a drastic growth in income inequity. According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. The equivalent number for the richest 0.1 percent rose 400 percent. There is a point where the middle class starts to disappear and America becomes a third word country.

Good grief! I don't whether that is Denial 101, or something more insidious.

While I might dispute whether the split is 99%/1%, or 97%/3%. I do not dispute the fact that there is a super-rich class which has largely gotten there on the backs of the less fortunate.

Certainly there are some super rich (like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) who are not only responsible citizens, but lead the way toward responsibility, but that is all too rare.

And as for those poor saps who "overleveraged," who do you think came up with the schemes that encouraged people to stretch unreasonably, and then came up with the "clever" asset-backed security structures that took advantage of the consumer debt paper created by the over-leveraging, and then pocketed huge fees when the ABS were bundled and sold to foolish investors in the US and overseas -- who were themselves misled on the "quality" of that debt paper -- and then, when it all exploded and investors lost money, and governments propping up the interconnected system lost money, and taxpayers therefore lost money, the "clever" investment bankers and the politicians they are in bed with smiled, and safely walked away, leaving their fat accounts safe and sound, while the rest of us struggled.

To condemn the poor souls who over-leveraged, or who did what they were told and studied for careers now on the decline, or who found themselves out and with little to show for it when the economy tanked, is callous and disingenuous.

Both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are leading the way with The Giving Pledge (http://givingpledge.org) by which they, and other very wealthy Americans, are pledging to give at least half of their wealth to charity.

Patch readers may also get more information about their philanthropic efforts at the following site, http://philanthropy.com/section/Gates-Buffett-Giving-Pledge/461/.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have been the subject of numerous articles on charitable efforts around the world in fighting disease, and Mr. Gates has become well known for efforts in reforming the US educational system (and boy does it need reform), aided by his generous grants.

You can argue about whether certain ultra-rich people are more ethical than other in their class, but that doesn't change the essential fact that this extremely small group of Americans has taken control of our government. This will not change unless large numbers of working-class and middle-class Americans force the government to pay attention to their needs. The first step is to stop the current effort to destroy the social safety net. Like all "one-size-fits-all" solutions, the idea that government can never do anything as well as the business sector is a dangerous oversimplification. There are some things that can be best accomplished by private enterprise, and others that are done better by the government. Providing a social safety net can only be done by the government. The idea that we can cut our way back to financial prosperity is bad economics, and will only send us deeper into an deflationary downward spiral.

Dylan, a nation where wealthy individuals and/or businesses control or influence Government is characterized as fascist. The best way to fight fascism is by reducing the power of Government over business, limiting Government power to simply enforce contracts and protect property rights. Then wealthy individuals and businesses have little ability to control Government to provide an unfair advantage over competiton. The only way for business to gain is to compete for customers in a free market.

As far as "providing a safety net", Government does a terrible job of creating an environment that produces wealth for a nation's citizens. Keep in mind that Government does not produce wealth but only confiscates wealth from those that produce and redistributes wealth to those that mooch.

Capitalism directs captial, labor an natural resources to produce exponential gains in living standards for everyone...not necessarily equally. Capitalism "raises all ships in a rising tide." This is the best way to enable private charitable institutions to "provide a safety net.

Amazing; more distortions from Paul (whomever).

I don't know about Bill Gates, but Warren Buffet is one of the leaders of those responsible very-wealthy citizens who say that they, and other very-wealthy Americans, should pay higher levels of taxes; they also say it is immoral that the middle class and lower classes, on a total taxes to total income basis, pay a higher share of their annual income than the middle class and lower socioeconomic groups of Americans.

Anyone focusing solely upon the income tax rate, and either ignoring or deliberately avoiding discussion of all levels of taxation (which disproportionately affect middle class and below ), is not being honest with us.

Please stay on topic. Thanks.

I have made my final comment on the Patch. Good luck to everyone.

Leaving behind the Church of Ayn Ran, and returning to the topic, I am afraid that our current economy does not permit the proper funding assistance for the arts.

While I disagree with Mr. Sondock's usual libertarian philosophy, the removal of funding from the Town's budget is simply an economic reality that does not appear to have any rapid solution.

On the other hand, I am not satisfied that there is not some fat in the Petrone/Cuthbertson budget which could be excised and redirected to the arts. But, I have no evidence of my belief.

Jerry, we agree that you have no evidence for your belief. In principle, I believe that Government has no legitimate purpose to finance the arts or cultural activities. The Arts and cultural activities are rightfully financed through voluntary private contributions. So, regardless whether the Huntington budget has any "surplus", taxpayer money should be used only for necessary public infrastructure and services.

What about a municpal policy that assures the public good? Mr. Sondock, I believe you are making a very subjective value judgement regarding the arts - "necessary public services" could include the arts in the opinion of many.

A premise of a public good is that if the Government did not provide the good or service, the good or service would not be provided. Additionally, the necessity of the public good to everyone must be compared to the cost. In the case of The Arts and some cultural even(s) as a public good, the assumption is that the private sector including charitable organizations would not provide the "arts or cultural event." I objectively argue that what Government determines as arts and cultural events for public consumption is subjective. Therefore, a select few will use the arts and cultural events at the cost of everyone. Conversely, if a large protion of the population would use the arts or cultural event, then the private sector would likely provide the arts or cultural event. Moreover, Government has limited resources which is confiscated from the citizens. It is rather arrogant for a select few citizens to determine what arts and cultural events the whole of a community will value. I view Government's primary responsibility as the arbiter of disputes, protector of property rights and the enforcer of contracts.

You may view those as the government's primary responsibilities, but many of us think that would make this a pretty pathetic excuse for a country. The government has numerous responsibilities, and one of them is supporting the arts. Corporations do a lot of things well, but supporting the arts is not one of them. Yes, a comparatively select few citizens determine what art is funded, but their track record is fairly good. Popular art can be great, but great art is not always popular. A country where popularity was the sole measure of art would be depressing place. Don't believe me, just turn on your TV. Government support is one of the vital ways that the creation of important art can be financed, whether it proves popular or not. This is a use of my tax dollars that makes me happy, unlike many of the other ways that the government spends my money. I view the government's primary responsibility as providing the services that corporations cannot provide (or do very poorly), like the social safety net, health insurance, regulation of corporations, protecting the environment, enforcing the law, and yes, funding the arts.

Cilfford... I am talking the "public good", as in "promote the general Welfare" As in WE THE PEOPLE of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..., promote the general welfare. I am talking about sound public policy that provides cultural opportunities in local municpalities. I believe the government needs to play a role in assuring that the general welfare of its constituency is maintained... You seem to only see quantifiable value, and that is sad. I agree that government spending is not always done prudently, but I see the role of government in ensuring the public good.

As far as private sector's role is concerned, there was a time that I would have partially agreed with you; however, that was prior to default swaps and the new catch phrase (new to me anyway) "moral hazzard"... My faith in the private sector looking to invest in the general welfare of we the people is not at a high level these days.

At the end of the day, I see you simply not wanting to pay for something (the arts) that is not high on your list of priorities.

The fact remains that the cowardice of the Huntington Town Board is ridiculous. 3 voted against the budget who no proposal on how to make cuts elsewhere or better balance funding. Petrone knew this and let the budget pass by default because the 3 council people could now run and cry to their constituents (except glenda of course) that there's nothing they can do about it. How about this:
There are well over a dozen elected and patronage positions in the town of Huntington that make nearly $120,000 or more. A 10% reduction in these top salaries will more than be able to pay for the lost arts funding. And a reduction of salaries will also lessen the pension burden - don't thank me, it's just common sense.

It definitely makes sense but they want US to support the arts, not them. The clock is ticking and we see over and over how we pay more and receive less. Those that are interested in these programs should make an attempt to raise the necesary funds. Private funds that is. If by chance its not there, I dont think the country will collapse.

We want to support the arts. It is a good place for our tax dollars to be spent. Government is an important part of these organization's budgets, but it doesn't cover their expenses. All of these organization raise money privately as well. These cuts will not cause our county to collapse, but that's a pretty low threshold for making a decision like this. By that standard, you could also cut all the sports programs on Long Island. In fact, there are plenty of budget cuts that could be made without the county collapsing, but when you add them up, you will see a drastic reduction in our quality of life.

In a time where solutions are needed, but not necessarily readily available, it is important to stay true to certain principles and not let the circumstances of the moment guide your decisions. For me, I believe in the words of former President Lyndon B. Johnson and believe they are something we should all consider, if not embrace.

“The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce, but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.”

For everyone wanting to support the arts please feel free to mail a donation. If the Huntington High School Band can raise $65,000.00 ON THEIR OWN, you can too. Take the lead instead of crying for handouts. If our SCHOOLS have to do it then arts should to, honestly, that goes for many people, but since your the focus? buck-up.

Bravo! I think we're done...

So nice of Mr. Sondock to tell us we're done.

Do make donations, to the extent you are able. Many of you are not suffering in this economy, but far too may people are barely making it and cannot afford to do so. For those who have lost jobs, or had hours cut back, the cruel philosophy of Ayn Rand and her libertarian high priests is never kind to them.

But don't imagine that private donations is the only path; government has an important role in supplementally funding the arts, but now may be the time for cuts, until things turn around.

The arts will continue no matter what, but government spending on the arts makes our society richer, stronger and healthier. I'm not sure what food shelters have been closed because they do not pass health dept regulations and building codes, but if that is true, they should be closed. Health department regulations are essential to the protection of all. There is no reason why we should accept that the homeless should receive poisoned food. Regulation is one of the most important functions of government. We need more regulation, not less.

Please don't tell me I don't understand. I do understand. I don't agree! Do not belittle my views by trying to make me out to be an idiot. I am far from it. I can actually see the forest through the trees, whats left of them.