Government money should be used to support children in school for sports rather than to support professional sports and arts that perform for the general public. To what extent do you agree? v.1

It is undeniable that the government must deal with some urgent issues first, such as poverty, pollution, education and so on. From my perspective, this does not mean the government should not spend money to support artists. Art is the main medium of culture. It bridges the culture gap between different countries or religions. Take the art of Erhu of China as an example, in 1980s when Erhu first appeared on the international stage, this traditional Chinese instrument electrified the audience. Ever since that, western countries have started to learn about the Chinese culture through this art. Hence, the government’s support of art will help disseminate cultures and promote commerce with other countries. Furthermore, government spending money on art is also a way to make money and create jobs. For instance, if the government holds art festivals and exhibitions, they will attract a large number of tourists to visit or travel, which will bring economic revenues and increase local employment rates. Therefore, I believe that government has the necessity to invest money on artists. On the other hand, the government spends a lot of its budget on public services mainly because these things determine the quality of life of most people. Public services or goods include hospitals, roads, schools and so on. If the government does not spend enough money on health care, people's state of health may badly affected. Similarly, if there is not enough fund for schools, students may not get a good education. To conclude, it is true that most of the government's funds should be spent on providing people with public goods or services……. . However, artists still worth government's financial help.