TURF THEM OUT.

Steve "Big Questions" Landsburg has a provocative suggestion.

According to Democratic congressional leadership, [it's stupid to fund] the border wall.

This is a radical new stance for the congressional leadership, which last year rejected the Trump administration’s bid to cut roughly $300 million a year from the budgets of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Assuming a 3% interest rate, that’s a present value of about $10 billion — enough to fund two border walls. (Take that, you pesky Canadians!).

One could argue that a border wall is not only stupid but a grotesque symbol of xenophobia. One could equally well argue that a National Endowment for the Arts is not only stupid but a grotesque symbol of government overreach and the politicization of everything.

Refusing to fund the wall is a good thing. Agreeing to defund the National Endowments would have been roughly twice as good a thing — and a whole lot easier, since the president was already on board. And there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit that would be at least an order of magnitude better. (I’m looking at you, Department of Commerce!).

Drain the swamp.

The national endowments, in particular?  They exist in order for taxpayers to validate the aesthetic preferences of the cultural establishment.  "External funding, however, involves the possibility of the principal investigator doing work that supports the agenda of the sponsor. That's not the same thing as doing research for its own sake."  It would be more honest for the creative types to seek genius grants or take Beethoven's approach of asking for a lifetime stipend.