Thank you for the response, I appreciate learning about your views in more depth. As a follow up:
Are you comfortable with corporate censorship of the arts? I'm far more concerned with the values that Goldman Sachs, Shell Oil, or Facebook want to put into the world than those of civil servants who work for the federal government.
(Nor is there indication that the federal government does wish to censor art; indeed, the draining of the NEA's budget began because right-wing politicians felt that the NEA wasn't appropriately censoring radical works. It is the constriction of funds by a faction of our government that has brought about a more conservative, "American values" approach by the Endowment. I argue that cutting funding altogether only further advances that agenda.)
Also, do you expect that private and corporate entities will increase their contributions to offset the losses of a federally funded NEA?
Are you at all concerned that moving to state funding of the arts will further create cultural oases? Under your plan, would the arts become solely the province of cities and the "coastal elite"?
As federal funds have dried up over the past 20 years, we haven't seen the sources you point to stepping up at nearly the rate they need to, in order to keep our non-profit theater sector vibrant and flourishing. Why do you think they will if federal funding of the NEA is killed altogether?