In the wake of the "explosive" evidence of the National Endowment for the Arts possibly being politicized for the Obama Administration's benefit, we're being painfully reminded about the true cost of money in any artistic endeavour. Like the Medici patrons used their considerable resources to hire only those fine artists willing to work under their rules, so can government patronage of arts and even news take a firm hand even with the best of intentions.

It's the timing of the NEA conference call scandal that makes President Obama's supposed openness to a "bailout" of the print news industry rather bad for his Administration. The Hill magazine reported that the President would be open to some kind of assistance package for newspapers if it made sense to do so. One proposal that has made headlines but has not gained traction in the Congress is Sen. Ben Cardin's (D-MD) Newspaper Revitalization Act. The bill would allow newspapers to refile themselves as 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations for tax purposes, reducing their tax liability and freeing up capital that would otherwise be going to Uncle Sam.

Now let's briefly set aside the debate over whether the government should be "bailing out" industries for just a moment. In terms of helping the industry, this bill would in at least some measure be just what the doctor ordered. The newspaper industry is in dire straights right now because the bad economy caused a short term cash flow disruption just as publishers started running into long term problems with the newspaper business model. The newspapers who will weather the current crisis will need usable capital to restructure their operations to operate at lower cost while delivering better quality products. It's easier said than done, and it requires changes in industry behavior that a simple injection of cash won't accomplish. By cutting down on their tax liabilities, newspapers can spend money they already make towards attaining necessary goals, and if they lose that money on poor business decisions, they suffer the consequences instead of the American taxpayer. So if a "bailout" of newspapers makes sense (and I'm not here to say it does), this method certainly seems pretty sensible.

But there are two questions that still must be addressed. The first, of course, is the (million? billion? trillion?) dollar question of whether government should be in the business of bailing out businesses who have made serious errors in judgement, and in some publishers' cases have crippling systemic weaknesses that no government assistance package can or should be expected to fix. But the second question ties into the NEA scandal and goes beyond this first question of a person's political gut instincts. And that question is this: Should our newspaper industry even want a "bailout"?

We've seen the NEA attempt to commandeer arts foundations to promote the President's agenda in exchange for federal dollars. We've seen GM and Chrysler dealerships closed arbitrarily and inexplicably despite high sales reports. Under the current Administration, we've been repeatedly reminded of the real cost of government money. With that money comes at best a certain expectation of respect from the person receiving it. At worst, it's a license to carry out an agenda. The Obama White House is not the first presidential administration to use the power of the purse like this, and it won't be the last. But the Administration's aggressive use of federal resources to promote its agenda is very, very unique, and appears to be part and parcel of its media operation. Whether it's Rahm Emanuel cursing out a White House correspondent for writing a critical article or the NEA asking arts groups to "help" the President, a pattern is emerging. Would similar hardball tactics be included in any "bailout" of America's newspapers?

I should certainly hope not. In an ideal world, the mere idea of a "bailout" for print news would be out of the question. And if in the world that we live in, we can't trust a President not to abuse even a setup like Senator Cardin's bill offers, then certainly even such a common-sense assistance package should be kept off the table. If this is true, then I suppose Americans will have learned a valuable lesson about how sometimes it's okay to be wary of bureaucrats who like to abuse the tax code to please the boys at the top. It's a lesson that applies equally to Democrat and Republican Presidents alike, if history is any indication.