GETTING BEYOND THE WELFARE ECONOMICS PARADIGM? Jonathan Chait proposes a baby step toward fiscal responsibility: abolish the National Endowment for the Arts.

Government is supposed to step in and provide things that the free market can't provide. We need the federal government to provide defense, interstate highways, healthcare for those who can't afford it (and soon). Art, on the other hand, is something that individuals can provide on their own. When projects aren't profitable, wealthy patrons can step in. If there's one cause that wealthy people have shown a willingness to support throughout history, it's art.

The mere fact that art has many salutary effects on our culture is not enough of a reason for Washington to subsidize it. Opinion magazines such as the New Republic or the National Review also have an important role to play in our national life. They provide a forum for political debate and ideas for policymakers. They're also almost inherently unprofitable. To suggest that the federal government write checks to such magazines, though, would be absurd. The solution is to find wealthy individuals who are willing to support them.

The other reason not to publicly subsidize magazines is that it would put Washington in the position of making tricky, subjective decisions about what to fund. And that's exactly the problem with the NEA. It puts the government in the business of deciding which ideas are worthy and which are not. I may not be offended by an AIDS nude-a-thon, but others are.

This is progress. The use of government funds to support the production of artwork (or of writings) is censorship per se. The evidence on government agencies' ability to pick winners is mixed.

It is probably a bit much at this stage of Mr Chait's education to expect him to see the error in "Government is supposed to step in and provide things that the free market can't provide." The Constitution calls for providing the common defense. Internal improvements, right back to the National Road, have been great boondoggles, and medical savings accounts an alternative to a National Pharmacy. "Supposed to" remains subject to debate.

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum concurs with Mr Chait in part, and dissents in part.

I actually agree with Chait, and I'd throw in a few other items, like NPR and Amtrak, things that the free market is capable of supporting perfectly well. (Did you know, for example, that Congress continues to support long-haul Amtrak routes largely because Amtrak provides jobs in their districts? And does anyone think that market failures have produced a shortage of radio and TV channels in this country?)

But as a strategy for Democrats, what exactly is this supposed to accomplish? A wedge issue is something that forces the opposition party to make a difficult choice, but in this case it would be easy: if Democrats were on board too, Republicans would almost unanimously — and gleefully — vote to eliminate NEA. It wouldn't hurt them a bit. And I'd venture to say that not one single Democrat would pick up one single red vote for having championed this.

So what's the point?

Perhaps to pursue a new kind of swing voter?