Picking Nits in Outrageous Underwear Spending
I’m just winding down from a day of running around to events related to the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Spotlight on Spending report. $225 million dollars in spending we identified in the upcoming budget, and I’m hearing that the media is fixated on a minor example of past wasteful spending. That’s how it goes, I guess.
On page 7 of the report, in a section suggesting that the state should end general fund spending for the RI Council on the Arts, Drew Johnson and I write:
The fact that the Council would have a role in determining what counts as “art” for the purposes of the sales tax is not an argument for the body, but against it. In years past, the Council has come under fire for choosing to dispense grants to support questionable and widely offensive art projects — and for good reason. Among the projects the agency has funded using tax dollars in recent years are an X-rated, erotic holiday party and a series of underwear “art” that double as genital mutilation contraptions.
This is a reference to a 2011 Piglet Book that Drew put together for the Ocean State Policy Research Institute, which elaborated on some individual spending items. Among them was a $1,000 “fellowship in three-dimensional art” to Joanne Luongo: “Fellowships are highly-competitive grants designed to recognize and support artists doing exemplary work in their art form.” And among Luongo’s exemplary three-dimensional art is a pair of panties with needles sticking inward.
Similarly, on the list is $27,695 for “general operating support” for Perishable Theater (in addition to $4,000 for a specific performance and another $21,375 as a Community Service Legislative Grant). Among Perishable’s productions is an “annual burlesque benefit, Jingle Belles and a Few Balls.”
Four points have to be made, here:
First, one could contest our opinions about these performances and displays, saying we’re being overly dramatic, but the point is that all Rhode Islanders are funding whatever this council calls “art.” We can absolutely have productive public debates about what counts as “x-rated” or “genital mutilation,” but we shouldn’t be having those debates in the context of the government’s taking our money to fund it.
Second, you could argue that the council did not fund these programs specifically, but in these cases, the artists received general awards. Even if the council had specifically funded some other work by the same artists, I’d argue that money is fungible, but again, these were general awards recognizing bodies of work.
Third, as a housekeeping matter, we could have elaborated on these items in the report, providing the full series of links connecting all dots, but we were explicitly offering these as past instances. We had limited space, and (more to the point) lacking the government’s massive capacity to spend money, we could only devote so much effort to every passing example in a document that includes so much. (In point of fact, by the way, this post proves that we’re happy to spend time on specific items when people express curiosity.)
Fourth, I would hope for two things from any members of the news media who seek to make a big deal out of these two items:
- That they put isolated examples that they question in the appropriate context of the larger report.
- That they start taking the same skeptical approach to the claims of government insiders — when they say, for example, that there’s nothing that can be cut in a massive, opaque, and plainly bloated budget.