Should government be subsidizing art? I'll go back to the old Robert Maplethorp thing back in the 80s...he urinated in a jar with a crucifix or something and screamed when the NEA wouldn't fund it, screamed it was freedom of speech. No one said he couldn't do it, just that taxpayers didn't need to pay for it. He is welcome to urinate in anything he wants and if someone is will to pay for it, good for him. If not, move onto something that someone will pay for or get a job.

Second, who gets to decide who has enough money? If the government is paying for stuff and you have that stuff, why shouldn't you be able to get paid like anyone else.