This Eugene Volokh (one of the brightest lights in the blogosphere) post reminded me of one of my pet peeves: people who think that Congressional oversight over the National Endowment for the Arts is unconstitutional.

It’s not a wonderful thing. Given the horrifying fact that some people seem to consider an NEA grant some sort of stamp of approval, it’s exceptionally bad to have Congress influencing it.

But outside of there being no NEA at all (hmm….), there is just flat no other option. If there is going to be an NEA passing out government funding goodies for art, clearly someone has to decide who gets the dough. Based on some criteria. Even if that criteria is as non-judgmental as “bona-fide art”, someone has to judge what bono-fide art is.

It’s a basic implication of scarcity. From pork-bellies to paint brushes, as long as competing interests can imagine uses for the same resources, there must be some way to say interest A gets the resources, and interests B, C, and D don’t.

Saying that Congress shouldn’t get to choose the criteria is identical to saying that some other, un-elected, body does get to choose. That may be a better practical policy, but I don’t see how anyone can find a principled way of arguing that it’s constitutionally required.