Everybody wants a bailout. The University of Southern California says:

Why has the Obama administration given so much to the money-losing financial and auto industries, and so little to the profitable business of creating art? Elizabeth Currid of the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development breaks down the stimulus plan’s $50 million allotment to the NEA.

USC professor Currid says:

Maybe it’s just the skeptic in me, but I don’t think anyone on Capitol Hill deserves a pat on the back for throwing artists a few free paintbrushes. The amount reserved for the arts is less than .00000000005 percent of the total package. I don’t mean to be ungrateful, especially after Robert Redford himself had to place a call to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to get her to fight for the funding, but let’s consider some past contributions to and from the art world.

Another special interest trying to climb into the tub of butter that is the stimulus. This is not something that should keep you up at night. Arts and culture are great, but they are products of prosperity and economic growth; they do not create them. Let's first worry about restoring aggregate demand and function to the financial system.

UPDATE: Commenter Harry says:

Less than .00000000005 percent?

I'm not an art professor, or anything, but by my math, the number is more like .006 %.

I think she took artistic license. How creative!