NEA Grantees Should “Spread the Wealth”
by Larry O'ConnorAlthough Broadway - and by extension National Tours of Broadway shows - tend to be the showcase for the American theatre industry, the vast majority of the works that end up in that showcase are born and nurtured in the vast network of non-profit theatres stretched across the country.
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco as well as smaller cities like Minneapolis, Houston San Diego and beautiful Costa Mesa (!) have major producing organizations that act as feeders for Broadway and the road. New playwright programs designed to nurture writers and their works are a staple of most non-profit and institutional theatres. And these theatres are funded, in part, by federal grants from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA).
Rather than waste time (and Mr. Breitbart’s precious bandwidth) arguing the legitimacy of the federal government’s role in using taxpayer dollars to fund the arts (let’s face it, Republicans didn’t even TRY to get rid of the NEA when they controlled congress, it’s here to stay, let’s be realistic), I would instead like to propose a more fiscally conservative set of ground rules for recipients of NEA grants. In short: If the NEA funds a play or musical that becomes a huge hit, we, the taxpayers should get our cut!
It always astounded me that “A Chorus Line” ran for over 6,000 performances, was the longest running show of its time, remains the longest running show originally written and produced in America, made fistfuls of money, and yet the producer – the non-profit Public Theatre – continued to be funded by tax dollars, and continued to beg for money from its patrons. Consider that “A Chorus Line” had a 19 person cast – none demanding star salaries, a basic unit set, and each character had one costume change. What I’m saying is “A Chorus Line” was a cash cow! And since “A Chorus Line” was developed with some tax payer funds through city, state and federal grants, we, the tax payers were investors. Where is our cut?
If you think we got our money back via corporate income taxes from the profits of the show, think again. Non-profit theatre means these companies are 501(c)3 organizations… meaning: THEY DON’T PAY TAXES! Joe Papp, the Artistic Director of the Public Theatre had a nice, tidy 6-figure income thanks mostly to the huge success of “A Chorus Line,” but we got nothing back for our investment, except an annual request for more money. This just doesn’t seem right.
Sometimes a non-profit theatre will mount a world premiere of a new play and it gets enough recognition that commercial producers mount a Broadway production of it. In these cases, the non-profit is not the producer of the show, so they are not in line for any additional revenue from the commercial success, right? Wrong! To ensure that they continue receiving royalties on future productions of a play they premiere, the non-profit theatres often contractually obligate the playwright to give up part of their royalties of future productions in exchange for the non-profit mounting the play in the first place. So, the non-profits make sure they get THEIR cut, but again, the taxpayers who actually funded the play via government grants get nothing.
What also irks me about the whole set up is that the larger non-profits these days are using their funding to produce plays that don’t require the non-profit protection. For example, the latest revival of “South Pacific” at Lincoln Center theatre has been a bonafide hit. And, again, all of those profits are coming in tax free to LCT. But come on, are we supposed to believe that the NEA needs to fund a theatre and the government needs to grant tax-exempt status to a producing entity so they can mount a production of “South Pacific” as though otherwise this great important work would not have been done? How many revivals of “South Pacific” have there been over the years? Why do we need to subsidize another one?
Here is my proposal: If a play or musical is developed at a non-profit institution which receives NEA grants, then a percentage of that institution’s revenue from any commercial production of that play should be paid back to the taxpayers as a return on their investment. And, while we’re at it, why is it that I’ve never seen a cut of any of the merchandise sales from the Muppets? Didn’t the taxpayer funded Public Broadcasting System pay to develop and promote those characters which in turn got turned into every toy, article of clothing and trinket imaginable? Shouldn’t we get a cut of those sales as well? I want my cut of the Tickle-me-Elmo and I want it NOW!
In the commercial theatre there is a word for a person who puts money into a show for the sheer joy and satisfaction they feel and never expects any return on their investment even if the show is a success: Sucker.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
25 Comments
Top rated actors (movies, sports, all entertainment) are getting salaries and bonuses that approach bankers. Could a 90% excess wage (income tax) on each entertainer and his company be used to fund non-profit theaters, public radio, and help pay off the national debt or subsidize schools? Could a tax on music help as well? Rappers, rockers, and retirees like Bruce Springsteen are grossly over compensated. What did Bruce S. get for the Super Bowel’s 12 minute performance? On a per minute basis, did it approach a banker’s salary? The good would be incredible….less entertainment and more work for the entire nation.
Rappers, rockers, and retirees like Bruce Springsteen are grossly over compensated.
No, the artists are not overcompensated unless they are holding a gun to someone’s head to get their money. They may make more than you think they are worth but whoever is paying them do not think so. It’s easy to gripe about how much money a singer or baseball player makes. But I don’t think A-Rod ever used the law to get Steinbrenner to pay him. That would be the UAW workers and others that use the Wagner act to extort raises.
I have a bigger problem with seeing someone like Bill Moyers get rich off of the public teat than a non-profit putting on South Pacific. If a production was a sure money maker (and South Pacific is as close to a sure thing as you can get) then why didn’t a for profit producer put it on. If R&H wanted the non-profit to produce it, that’s their business.
Most non-profits putting on plays and musicals are the hundreds of small local groups in every little town and city across America. You can’t write the tax laws to only apply to Broadway productions plus non-profits are stuck with a lot of rules on what they can do with any money they make and how much they can pay people.
Let’s make sure people know what money people at PBS and NPR are making so that maybe the Democrats won’t be so quick to stand up for them when a Republican wants to cut funding. Bob Edwards was making over $500,000 at NPR and Robert Seigel makes over $350,000. If Congress wants to limit what bankers make how about the pigs that have been feeding at the public broadcasting trough all these years.
It’s a clever idea, but I see a problem with it: if NEA recipients who create something that makes a profit have to give that profit back to the tax-payers, then what motive do they have to make a profit? What motive do they have to produce something that will actually enrich the world rather than just indulging their childish fantasies?
Yes, it’s disgusting that non-profits are putting on “South Pacific” while sucking on the public teat, but honestly I would rather have my tax dollars go to a production of “South Pacific” or “A Chorus Line” than “Tammy Does a Lap Dance While Covered In Blood and Chocolate Sauce.” I have the feeling that if we insisted that we the tax-payers get our fair share of any hits, then we would see less of the former two and far more of the latter.
NEA delendum est.
Its the same story wth PBS. Bert & Ernie, and the shows developed for PBS should have been revenue producing, but that would be mercenary. The true believers there don’t want to feel dirty, talking about money. ewww.
Brian E: My apologies to Houston. I am ashamed of that error. And I even had Lance Berkman on my fantasy baseball team last year… What a moron I am.
JEB: Actually, we could easily change the granting guidelines for the NEA and how the granting rules apply to various sizes of theatres. your point that the vast majority of non-profits are small entities in litte towns and cities all across America is true, yet most of them are not getting NEA grants. The lion’s share of NEA grants go to large, all ready established institutions who are most likely to garner commercial success with their productions.
Zsuzsa: Now… where exactly is that “Tammy” show playing….?
Americans should just all declare themselves nonprofit entities.
Stage:
Fortunately a lot of the small ones do get grants from state arts departments but you are right the NEA is not going to give them anything. They don’t have the time and ability to jump through all their hoops. I’ve helped some small groups and the paperwork for the NEA grants is ridiculous.
But I’m mostly mad at pigs like Moyers because they are getting a continuous infusion of tax money from PBS while the NEA gives one time grants. And a big factor for the grants is that like every other government organization, the NEA has to give out all their funds or else they won’t get as much next year. So it’s easy to give big grants to big groups than a lot to small arts organizations.
If the government is going to give money to the arts, and I don’t think they should, it should go to the smaller groups. Without taxpayer funds, twits like Moyers would be left cleaning windshields at the downtown corner.
Actually, there hasn’t been a full revival of “South Pacific” in NYC for decades. New York City will benefit from my hotel room, transit dollars and waiter tips when I finally get back there to see it, and I’ll get that ethereal, emotional indefinable joy that only the arts can provide. (to wit: In Los Angeles’ Grove outdoor mall last week the cast of Phantom of the Opera, in town for a hitch sang some of the songs and turned everyone to a gooey mess) And if I can stomach corporate and farm subsidies and airline bailouts, I can stomach Ernie & Bert getting some of my tax dough, too. And yet while I am a tote bag carrying, travel mug-wielding supporter of public radio as well, I don’t think that sports franchises should get city kickbacks to build stadiums. So take from that what you will. I just think arts money is well spent, and I don’t mind ponying up, even though I’ll probably only see %5 of the result.
Agreed.
I’ve had the same thought for years about another area of government expenditure: health and disease research. If our government is to spend billions on research into various diseases, then why don’t they get a cut of any cure that is found, especially if that cure is some sort of pharmaceutical?
The de-stimulus bill includes $50 million for the NEA. Contact your senator in Congress and let them know you’re against this funding. http://www.senate.gov.
LIZ
Non-profits have to report the compensation of all officers and the top five rank-and-file employees. The form 990 is supposed to be open for inspection to the public and most non-profits will give a copy to anyone that asks.
This is a really excellent point, and I’m amazed no one has ever though of it before. It’s the same if some sculptor gets a grant (obviously these currently-titled “grants” have to be restructured to include a “windfall profits” tax), works for a year making a statue, then sells it for $1.5 million to a collector. Even worse, it might be so lame and unsaleable no collector will buy it, so they sell it to the government to plop on front of some government building–then the taxpayer gets the shaft twice. I’ve been peeved about Sesame Street for decades. Even after it started making gazillions for the creators, PBS was still spending half the year with its hand out asking for donations because they didn’t make a cent. Worse, it continued to run the half-hour free infomercial for the owners.
And let’s not forget the NEA also currently rewards not “deserving artists” but artists with grant-writing skills.
Objections:
“No profit motive.” Then who cares? Let them work for free. If they want money they can get a real job.
“NEA will only fund profitable ideas.” It’s run top to bottom by raving liberals who don’t stand to (legally) make a cent if the project makes money or not. Why would this happen? And why would it be a bad thing if it did?
Should this apply to other government funded things like pharmaceuticals? Possibly, but could be messy. A university research project probably is a mix of government, university (money-making organizations, let’s not forget) and private funding. Much harder to detangle. And let’s be realistic–science/medical/technology advances are quite a different thing than entertainment such as “A Chorus Line,” as enjoyable as it might be. The rewards to the taxpayer are rather more tangible. Still, a good point.
As for declaring myself a non-profit organization, I’ve emailed my accountant. (On that subject, I’ve astonished local liberals for years by patiently explaining to them that a “non-profit” organization can pay their management and employees vast sums of money. They seem to have vaguely thought the staff worked for free or minimum wage or something. They just saw the words “non-profit” and popped a woody.)
I should also point out I’m working in a creative field where I actually have to produce art people will want to buy before I make any money, so I suppose it can be said I have an axe to grind. Not to mention the NEA is never likely to fund something I’d have an interest in, such as a documentary on the atrocities of Mao.
I’m visual artist, and disabled. I would like to give some money off for passes, like the art museum, and NOTHING. I asked if I could get senior rates,they get a break, NOT ANY BREAK for the disabled. This is Atlanta.
I can walk, but look at the ones that need someone to help so it is like two passes and parking($50) and it was hard to find someone would like stare at a painting. You don’t see many, they could give free passes for disabled. I don’t go the art museum but one in while like one in three years. Too much money. The arts for the rich.
I want every grant to give money off for disabled. Should be a law.
I work with a theatre group which is 501(c)3 as well as receives funding from an NEA grant. That NEA grant makes up just part of our total funding and budget. We’re out there knocking on doors, writing (non-gov’t) grants, begging for donations, day in and day out. I, honestly, would love to see our group be able to say, “hey, ya know what? I don’t think we need money from the government to keep producing, so you can keep that this year and use it for something else…maybe a toilet seat.”
We aren’t “living high” on the gov’t teat, as seems to be a dominant impression. Our stipends to production staff aren’t anything anyone could make a living on. I get approximately gas money to be the janitor, HVAC guy, plumber, electrician, facility carpenter, technical advisor, program typesetter and webmaster. I’ve got set pieces, sheets of lauan and 2×4’s that have seen more shows than I have, and I can tell by the layers of (home improvement center “mistake bin”) paint which shows they were. Only by virtue of the facts that other local theatres have upgraded their equipment out of the 60’s-80’s, and we’re friends of theirs, do we have usable gear. We’re beggers, borrowers, loaners, dumpster-divers non pariel.
We’re on a precipice, not to put too fine a point on it, and we tapdance there as long as we’re able. Grants and donations fill in the gap between the expenses of the facility, electricity, gas, repairs, production rights, stipends for the crew, stipends for myself and two other similarly-overtaxed individuals, production budgets, marketing and PR…and the income of ticket sales. If one of those grants, one which we definitely need, were to suddenly become a “loan” instead, with our continued receipt of that loan contingent upon prompt repayment with or without interest, well… can’t think of much faster ways to kill off amateur theatrical endeavors in the country, especially in the current economy.
People do community/non-profit theatre because they love it (it’s a bit like college hoops in that way – no big paydays, played for love, never know when the next show/game could be the last, very slim chance of parlaying it into an actual “career”, etc.) We’re not pros. We do the best we can. Sometimes we capture lightning in a bottle and pour it out on stage in a breathtaking series of moments and passions shared between performer and audience. Sometimes we anticipate uproarious applause and wind up with a cricket serenade from the house. We can’t plan these things. We spread the word amongst friends, coworkers, family, get commitments for attendance and then play to empty houses. Or, we find ourselves ten minutes before curtain rummaging extra seats out of the greenroom with rousing choruses of, “Where did we go right?” playing in our heads.
A loan rather than a grant would totally remove failure as an option, and would mandate constant full houses and low, read: no, risk-taking which would put the kibosh on innovation and serendipity, which is often what the arts depends upon. As art and entertainment are subjective, you don’t find investors gambling on much besides “sure shots.” The NEA helps those who aren’t in that category work their way towards it, slowly but surely, so that (and this is not unheard of) artists can become known as “sure shots”, start cranking out hit after hit, and contribute back to those who work for them as well as to the government.
Keep the NEA grants in place, but let’s work on freeing up the private sector enough that, someday, the NEA will find itself irrelevant and unneeded thanks to all the private patronage out there. That’s the dream, and not an Impossible one, at that.
[...] non-profit theatres to develop her work. You and I finance those commissions, as I explained in a previous post. I want to show you a bit of what you’re paying [...]
I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a little bit to find your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I but a link back to my site?
I REALLY liked your post and blog! It took me a little bit to find your site…but I book marked it. Would you mind if I but a link back to my site?
[...] that the government should be spending money on the arts, but for those of you who feel otherwise this idea seems to me like it would be a great way for the government to promote the arts while also saving [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.