<html><head></head><body><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div>I think you have the wrong focus. Thatchers statement, "The problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money" is true. And with an economy being dramatically restricted for so long, you just don't have as much other people's money to take.</div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Also, such funds are really the domain of the state budgets. The U.S. Constitution (if you understand it to mean what all the signers understood it to mean) didn't give the federal government permission to do any sort of stimulus spending.Of course what the words meant when the Constitution was signed, seems to be widely ignored. But, there is at least the possibility that Americans will eventually say "enough is enough". With a presidential election coming soon, it is hard to predict what will happen. States have a lot more freedom to do arts spending.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">So, I think the emphasis needs to be on a more realistic reaction to the virus that can preserve the funds that the arts organizations need to exist.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">-Joe<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div></div></body></html>