CAA News Today
NEA and NEH Receive Additional $10 Million
posted by Christopher Howard — March 12, 2009
On March 11, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was approved by the Senate that same day and by the House of Representatives nearly two weeks earlier. Funding most government operations through September 30, the act includes an additional $10 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, increasing their current fiscal-year budgets to $155 million each. The legislation also raises the budget for the Department of Education’s Arts in Education programs to $38.16 million, and for the Office of Museum Services through the Institute of Museum and Library Services to $35 million.
In a happy coincidence, the Omnibus Appropriations Act was passed by the Senate and signed into law on Humanities Advocacy Day, in which CAA participated. Robert L. Lynch, president and chief executive officer of Americans for the Arts, said “On the heels of its landmark support for nonprofit arts job recovery in the economic stimulus package, Congress has taken another step forward in restoring full funding to the nation’s cultural agencies. This marks the second consecutive increase in federal grant funds for local and state cultural organizations across the country. We are pleased that Congress is recognizing the cultural, educational, and economic contributions that an investment in the arts brings to communities and states throughout the nation.”
David Alexander has more on the larger picture in his article for the Washington Post.
NEA AND NEH RECEIVE ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION
posted by Christopher Howard — March 12, 2009
On March 11, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was approved by the Senate that same day and by the House of Representatives nearly two weeks earlier. Funding most government operations through September 30, the act includes an additional $10 million for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, increasing their current fiscal-year budgets to $155 million each. The legislation also raises the budget for the Department of Education’s Arts in Education programs to $38.16 million, and for the Office of Museum Services through the Institute of Museum and Library Services to $35 million.
In a happy coincidence, the Omnibus Appropriations Act was passed by the Senate and signed into law on Humanities Advocacy Day, in which CAA participated. Robert L. Lynch, president and chief executive officer of Americans for the Arts, said “On the heels of its landmark support for nonprofit arts job recovery in the economic stimulus package, Congress has taken another step forward in restoring full funding to the nation’s cultural agencies. This marks the second consecutive increase in federal grant funds for local and state cultural organizations across the country. We are pleased that Congress is recognizing the cultural, educational, and economic contributions that an investment in the arts brings to communities and states throughout the nation.”
David Alexander has more on the larger picture in his article for the Washington Post.
FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT INTRODUCED IN HOUSE
posted by Christopher Howard — March 10, 2009
Representative Peter King, a Republican from the State of New York, reintroduced the Free Speech Protection Act (HR 1304) to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans who are sued for defamation in foreign courts. With the rise of libel tourism, the fear of a lawsuit has become a deterrent for American authors, journalists, and publishers seeking to publish works on topics such as terrorism. The bill provides protections that will deter foreigners from suing Americans.
Recently there has been a rise in “libel tourism,” where foreigners take advantage of plaintiff-friendly foreign court systems, such as in the United Kingdom, in order to sue Americans for defamation. When sued in foreign courts, it has been difficult for Americans to countersue, as they could not establish standing in US courts. Without the ability to retaliate, there is nothing to discourage the practice of libel tourism.
The Free Speech Protection Act does the following to protect Americans and deter foreign libel lawsuits:
- Allows US persons to bring a federal cause of action against any person bringing a foreign libel suit if the writing does not constitute defamation under US law
- Bars enforcement of foreign libel judgments and provides other appropriate injunctive relief by US courts if a cause of action is established
- Awards damages to the US person who brought the action in the amount of the foreign judgment, the costs related to the foreign lawsuit, and the harm caused due to the decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding
- Awards treble damages if the person bringing the foreign lawsuit intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights
- Allows for expedited discovery if the court determines that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment.
While the goal of the bill is to protect Americans from the exploitation of libel tourism, it does not intend to limit legitimate cases of defamation. Nothing in the bill limits the rights of foreign litigants who bring forward good-faith defamation actions against journalists and others who have purposely and maliciously published false information.
In 2008, New York State passed a similar bill entitled Rachel’s Law. King’s bill raises the issue on the federal level so that all American’s rights can be protected. Senators Specter, Lieberman, and Schumer have introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Free Speech Protection Act Introduced in House
posted by Christopher Howard — March 10, 2009
Representative Peter King, a Republican from the State of New York, reintroduced the Free Speech Protection Act (HR 1304) to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans who are sued for defamation in foreign courts. With the rise of libel tourism, the fear of a lawsuit has become a deterrent for American authors, journalists, and publishers seeking to publish works on topics such as terrorism. The bill provides protections that will deter foreigners from suing Americans.
Recently there has been a rise in “libel tourism,” where foreigners take advantage of plaintiff-friendly foreign court systems, such as in the United Kingdom, in order to sue Americans for defamation. When sued in foreign courts, it has been difficult for Americans to countersue, as they could not establish standing in US courts. Without the ability to retaliate, there is nothing to discourage the practice of libel tourism.
The Free Speech Protection Act does the following to protect Americans and deter foreign libel lawsuits:
- Allows US persons to bring a federal cause of action against any person bringing a foreign libel suit if the writing does not constitute defamation under US law
- Bars enforcement of foreign libel judgments and provides other appropriate injunctive relief by US courts if a cause of action is established
- Awards damages to the US person who brought the action in the amount of the foreign judgment, the costs related to the foreign lawsuit, and the harm caused due to the decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding
- Awards treble damages if the person bringing the foreign lawsuit intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights
- Allows for expedited discovery if the court determines that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment.
While the goal of the bill is to protect Americans from the exploitation of libel tourism, it does not intend to limit legitimate cases of defamation. Nothing in the bill limits the rights of foreign litigants who bring forward good-faith defamation actions against journalists and others who have purposely and maliciously published false information.
In 2008, New York State passed a similar bill entitled Rachel’s Law. King’s bill raises the issue on the federal level so that all American’s rights can be protected. Senators Specter, Lieberman, and Schumer have introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
NEA Report on Unemployment Rates for Artists
posted by Christopher Howard — March 09, 2009
Unemployment rates are up among working artists and the artist workforce has contracted, according to new research from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Artists in a Year of Recession: Impact on Jobs in 2008 examines how the economic slowdown has affected the nation’s working artists. The study looks at artist employment patterns during two spikes in the current recession—the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008. Not unexpectedly, this downturn reflects larger economic declines across the nation: a Commerce Department report from late February noted a 6.2 percent decrease in the gross domestic product in the last quarter of 2008. The ten-page publication can be downloaded as a PDF.
Among the findings:
- Artists are unemployed at twice the rate of professional workers, a category in which artists are grouped because of their high levels of education. The artist unemployment rate grew to 6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 3 percent for all professionals. A total of 129,000 artists were unemployed in the fourth quarter of 2008, an increase of 50,000 (63 percent) from one year earlier. The unemployment rate for artists is comparable to that for the overall workforce (6.1 percent)
- Unemployment rates for artists have risen more rapidly than for US workers as a whole. The unemployment rate for artists climbed 2.4 percentage points between the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008, compared to a one-point increase for professional workers as a whole, and a 1.9 point increase for the overall workforce
- Artist unemployment rates would be even higher if not for the large number of artists leaving the workforce. The US labor force grew by 800,000 people from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008. In contrast, the artist workforce shrank by 74,000 workers. Some of this decline may be attributed to artists’ discouragement over job prospects
- Unemployment rose for most types of artist occupations. Artist jobs with higher unemployment rates are performing artists (8.4 percent), fine artists, art directors, and animators (7.1 percent), writers and authors (6.6 percent), and photographers (6.0 percent)
- The job market for artists is unlikely to improve until long after the US economy starts to recover. Unemployment is generally a lagging economic indicator, or a measure of how an economy has performed in the past few months. During the prior recession (2001), artist unemployment did not reach its peak of 6.1 percent until 2003—two years after economic recovery began nationwide.
As an example of how arts jobs intersect with the larger economy, consider the construction industry. Industry-wide declines, which began in 2006, have contributed to the shrinking job market for architects. While this group usually has the lowest unemployment rates among all artist occupations and all professionals, architect unemployment rates doubled, from 1.8 percent in fourth quarter 2007, to 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Unemployment in the designer category also doubled, from 2.3 percent to 4.7 percent. This broad category includes interior, commercial, and industrial designers whose work is closely associated with the construction industry. Eighty-three thousand designers left the artist labor market during that time period.
The contraction of the arts workforce has implications for the overall economy. A May 2008 NEA study revealed there are two million full-time artists representing 1.4 percent of the US labor force, only slightly smaller than the number of active-duty and reserve personnel in the military (2.2 million). More recently, a National Governors Association report recognized that the arts directly benefit states and communities through job creation, tax revenues, attracting investments, invigorating local economies, and enhancing quality of life. There are 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations that support 5.7 million jobs and return nearly $30 billion in government revenue every year, according to a study by Americans for the Arts.
The NEA Office of Research and Analysis produced Artists in a Year of Recession: Impact on Jobs in 2008 using published and unpublished data from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The research note measures unemployment rates among workers who self-reported an artist job as occupying their greatest number of working hours per week, whether the employment was full-time or part-time.
NEA REPORT ON UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR ARTISTS
posted by Christopher Howard — March 09, 2009
Unemployment rates are up among working artists and the artist workforce has contracted, according to new research from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Artists in a Year of Recession: Impact on Jobs in 2008 examines how the economic slowdown has affected the nation’s working artists. The study looks at artist employment patterns during two spikes in the current recession—the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008. Not unexpectedly, this downturn reflects larger economic declines across the nation: a Commerce Department report from late February noted a 6.2 percent decrease in the gross domestic product in the last quarter of 2008. The ten-page publication can be downloaded as a PDF.
Among the findings:
- Artists are unemployed at twice the rate of professional workers, a category in which artists are grouped because of their high levels of education. The artist unemployment rate grew to 6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 3 percent for all professionals. A total of 129,000 artists were unemployed in the fourth quarter of 2008, an increase of 50,000 (63 percent) from one year earlier. The unemployment rate for artists is comparable to that for the overall workforce (6.1 percent)
- Unemployment rates for artists have risen more rapidly than for US workers as a whole. The unemployment rate for artists climbed 2.4 percentage points between the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008, compared to a one-point increase for professional workers as a whole, and a 1.9 point increase for the overall workforce
- Artist unemployment rates would be even higher if not for the large number of artists leaving the workforce. The US labor force grew by 800,000 people from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008. In contrast, the artist workforce shrank by 74,000 workers. Some of this decline may be attributed to artists’ discouragement over job prospects
- Unemployment rose for most types of artist occupations. Artist jobs with higher unemployment rates are performing artists (8.4 percent), fine artists, art directors, and animators (7.1 percent), writers and authors (6.6 percent), and photographers (6.0 percent)
- The job market for artists is unlikely to improve until long after the US economy starts to recover. Unemployment is generally a lagging economic indicator, or a measure of how an economy has performed in the past few months. During the prior recession (2001), artist unemployment did not reach its peak of 6.1 percent until 2003—two years after economic recovery began nationwide.
As an example of how arts jobs intersect with the larger economy, consider the construction industry. Industry-wide declines, which began in 2006, have contributed to the shrinking job market for architects. While this group usually has the lowest unemployment rates among all artist occupations and all professionals, architect unemployment rates doubled, from 1.8 percent in fourth quarter 2007, to 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Unemployment in the designer category also doubled, from 2.3 percent to 4.7 percent. This broad category includes interior, commercial, and industrial designers whose work is closely associated with the construction industry. Eighty-three thousand designers left the artist labor market during that time period.
The contraction of the arts workforce has implications for the overall economy. A May 2008 NEA study revealed there are two million full-time artists representing 1.4 percent of the US labor force, only slightly smaller than the number of active-duty and reserve personnel in the military (2.2 million). More recently, a National Governors Association report recognized that the arts directly benefit states and communities through job creation, tax revenues, attracting investments, invigorating local economies, and enhancing quality of life. There are 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations that support 5.7 million jobs and return nearly $30 billion in government revenue every year, according to a study by Americans for the Arts.
The NEA Office of Research and Analysis produced Artists in a Year of Recession: Impact on Jobs in 2008 using published and unpublished data from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The research note measures unemployment rates among workers who self-reported an artist job as occupying their greatest number of working hours per week, whether the employment was full-time or part-time.
NEA and Smithsonian Benefit from Economic-Recovery Bill
posted by Christopher Howard — February 19, 2009
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress late last week. The $787 billion stimulus bill includes considerable appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million for a federal agency with a $245 million budget for the current fiscal year) and Smithsonian Institution ($25 million, but cut from the House’s original request of $150 million). Language that, in the Senate version of the act, would have excluded museums, theaters, and arts centers from receiving federal funds was removed from the final legislation.
Casey Selix and Cynthia Dizikes of MinnPost.com report:
According to the bill, the NEA money is “to be distributed in direct grants to fund arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn.” Forty percent of the money is to be distributed to state arts agencies and regional arts councils . . . and 60 percent for “competitively selected projects.”
Helen Stoilas from the Art Newspaper and Robin Pogrebin at the New York Times have also reported on the arts portion of the stimulus bill.
In a press release from last week, Americans for the Arts argued that 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences generate $166.2 billion annually in US economic activity, supporting 5.7 million jobs and providing nearly $30 billion in government revenue. While politicians debated the merits of including the arts in the economic-recovery package, some stood firm. On the House floor last Friday, Congressman David Obey (D-WI) stated: “There are five million people who work in the arts industry. And right now they have 12.5 percent unemployment—or are you suggesting that somehow if you work in that field, it isn’t real when you lose your job, your mortgage, or your health insurance? We’re trying to treat people who work in the arts the same way as anybody else.”
The New York Times has published a full breakdown of the $787 billion, although arts and education funding don’t appear in standalone categories. However, Doug Lederman at Inside Higher Ed once again lists higher-education allotments in the House and Senate bills, as well as amounts in the final compromise that was approved by President Obama.
While groups like Americans for the Arts and CAA applaud the provisions for art and education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, others point out larger issues. In the Wall Street Journal, Greg Sandow writes that “Fifty million dollars . . . is just a bubble on a wave” and feels that arguments about the economic value of the arts need closer examination. Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes also casts a skeptical eye on the NEA funding, suggesting that people in the arts should “join Washington’s think-tank culture . . . to develop new ideas about how government should be involved in the arts (and not just in one little agency, but across the federal apparatus).”
NEA AND SMITHSONIAN BENEFIT FROM ECONOMIC-RECOVERY BILL
posted by Christopher Howard — February 19, 2009
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress late last week. The $787 billion stimulus bill includes considerable appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts ($50 million for a federal agency with a $245 million budget for the current fiscal year) and Smithsonian Institution ($25 million, but cut from the House’s original request of $150 million). Language that, in the Senate version of the act, would have excluded museums, theaters, and arts centers from receiving federal funds was removed from the final legislation.
Casey Selix and Cynthia Dizikes of MinnPost.com report:
According to the bill, the NEA money is “to be distributed in direct grants to fund arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn.” Forty percent of the money is to be distributed to state arts agencies and regional arts councils . . . and 60 percent for “competitively selected projects.”
Helen Stoilas from the Art Newspaper and Robin Pogrebin at the New York Times have also reported on the arts portion of the stimulus bill.
In a press release from last week, Americans for the Arts argued that 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences generate $166.2 billion annually in US economic activity, supporting 5.7 million jobs and providing nearly $30 billion in government revenue. While politicians debated the merits of including the arts in the economic-recovery package, some stood firm. On the House floor last Friday, Congressman David Obey (D-WI) stated: “There are five million people who work in the arts industry. And right now they have 12.5 percent unemployment—or are you suggesting that somehow if you work in that field, it isn’t real when you lose your job, your mortgage, or your health insurance? We’re trying to treat people who work in the arts the same way as anybody else.”
The New York Times has published a full breakdown of the $787 billion, although arts and education funding don’t appear in standalone categories. However, Doug Lederman at Inside Higher Ed once again lists higher-education allotments in the House and Senate bills, as well as amounts in the final compromise that was approved by President Obama.
While groups like Americans for the Arts and CAA applaud the provisions for art and education in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, others point out larger issues. In the Wall Street Journal, Greg Sandow writes that “Fifty million dollars . . . is just a bubble on a wave” and feels that arguments about the economic value of the arts need closer examination. Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes also casts a skeptical eye on the NEA funding, suggesting that people in the arts should “join Washington’s think-tank culture . . . to develop new ideas about how government should be involved in the arts (and not just in one little agency, but across the federal apparatus).”
US Senate Passes Stimulus Bill without NEA Provision
posted by Christopher Howard — February 11, 2009
Yesterday the US Senate passed its version of an $838 billion stimulus bill, entitled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a 61 to 37 vote. The legislation included the Coburn Amendment, which eliminated a $50 million provision for the National Endowment for the Arts that was included in the House of Representatives’ bill. The amendment, voted on last week, passed 73 to 24.
The Senate legislation, as Eddy Ramírez reports for US News and World Report, “is stripped of, among other funds, $16 billion for school construction and $40 billion more for states to fund schools.”
The Washington Post lists how senators voted on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. CAA encourages you to show your approval or disapproval to your congressional representatives, using Americans for the Arts’ Capwiz feature to send a customized letter.
US SENATE PASSES STIMULUS BILL WITHOUT NEA PROVISION
posted by Christopher Howard — February 11, 2009
Yesterday the US Senate passed its version of an $838 billion stimulus bill, entitled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with a 61 to 37 vote. The legislation included the Coburn Amendment, which eliminated a $50 millionprovision for the National Endowment for the Arts that was included in the House of Representatives’ bill. The amendment, voted on last week, passed 73 to 24.
The Senate legislation, as Eddy Ramírez reports for US News and World Report, “is stripped of, among other funds, $16 billion for school construction and $40 billion more for states to fund schools.”
The Washington Post lists how senators voted on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. CAA encourages you to show your approval or disapproval to your congressional representatives, using Americans for the Arts’ Capwiz feature to send a customized letter.