As more documents related to an Aug. 10 National Endowment for the Arts conference call surface, the more upset taxpayers should be about public dollars paying for White House propaganda that blurs the line between campaigning and governing.
The call aimed to enlist "artsy" types for the White House's United We Serve effort. Related e-mails obtained by public-interest group Judicial Watch via the Freedom of Information Act paint United We Serve not as just encouraging community service but as an attempt by Obama campaign hands to boost the White House "recovery agenda."
That obvious perversion of NEA's arts-fostering mission led to call organizer Yosi Sergant resigning as NEA communications director. But that fitting outcome must not obscure the larger concern:
Both the call and United We Serve were improper uses of taxpayer dollars that overstepped the boundaries rightly dividing campaigning from governing.
Community service is wonderful. But spending public money to encourage only forms of it that serve White House political ends is despicable.
Still, opponents of the Obama administration can take heart because this sorry episode can only diminish support for -- and increase healthy skepticism about -- its big-government policies.
Congressional de-funding of the NEA should not be far behind.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.