Responding to Robert H. Newall’s letter (BDN, July 24) which, in turn, was responding to Mary Lou Colbath’s op-ed piece, (July 19-20) — all to the defense of the National Endowment for the Arts.

I do not know how you measure a “pittance,” using your word. But $100 million is not a pittance in my lexicon. I can think of many other social needs where $100 million would help those less privileged, those in need in Maine.

I can quickly think of small art projects in rural communities for young people which could make very good use of small chunks of money from the NEA.

In my opinion, after 35 years as a newspaperman, the NEA blew itself out of the water with its “pittance” grants of Mapplethorp and the urine crucifix.

A “pittance,” Mr. Newall? Perhaps so when you compare it to our trillion-dollar budget. But try to tell that to the likes of the Lincoln library staff where they struggle for funds to buy books for young people and old. I spend some time every week helping kids to read and write.

It is not my intention here to defend military spending, nor to support wasteful government programs. But federal dollars — taxpayers’ dollars — for the Mapplethorp or a crucifix in a jar of urine?

No way, nor did Jane Alexander’s haughty attitude in defense of NEA grants before Congress endure the NEA to Congress — and to the average American taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill.

A $100 million “pittance”? For shame on you, Mr. Newall! John Jay Hanlon Springfield

A triple play