Dick Netzer once said (1999), “While market failure justifies government support for the arts, it does not explain when, on whose behalf (other than for the arts’ sake), and to what extent governments actually do intervene” (p. 35). Funding is something widely accepted and reasonably popular within society today. The United States government has provided a means for several public funding programs throughout the years. However, within the last decade that percentage dedicated to the arts has dropped dramatically (Knight, 2017, p. 341). As new businesses and websites pop up with the drive of social media popularity and the expression of individuality, crowdfunding has begun to rear its head (Brabham, 2016, p.1). It has taken a monopoly over art funding because it offers a way for new, up and coming artists to essentially fund themselves (Brabham, 2016, p.1). However, as crowdfunding gains, the public arts begin to lose. When the government sees the sheer amount of annual revenue that these big-wig funding websites are bringing in; it projects the idea that money in the arts is not needed as much because the funds are coming from a third party (Bradham, 2016, p. 1). The problem with this, however, is that those third parties are catering to a small …show more content…
By doing so there will be less money wasted as each state can alter the amount of money needed for their own use. Allowing to funds to be shifted can make room for earmarking. The process of which details the use of reserving funds for a specific project. In this case, the earmarking would focus on small, miscellaneous taxes; all of which would be distinct for each state. The criteria for the taxes would be things related to the arts (i.e. movie tickets, museum tickets, etc.). Furthermore, the taxes, once chosen, would be slowly integrated as to allow for any alterations