I think we need government funding for our tournaments ! We are a real federation and we should be realized for it ! Look what happened because of our lack of funding we have no Foxwood’s Open anymore. I think the main reason that we have a lack of titled events and interest in chess is because of the governments lack of involvement. I think the government should give the USCF some federal funding for tournaments.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I wonder if that guy on TV that hawks his book on getting government grants could help us get some moola?
Welcome to the forums!
I think it’s a fine idea. Which government agency do you think would give us funding for tournaments, and how would you go about obtaining such funding?
ETA… post clash. Perhaps Tim stated it better… 
The approach might be that we “save or create” jobs for chess professionals. If there’s no current government program into which we could fit, there might be one in the future as the unemployment problem drags on.
The US government supported artists during the Depression of the 1930s. It’s not too big a reach to think that chessplayers might get something this time.
NASA supports chess.
[size=85]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition17/chess_earthvsspace.html[/size]
C’mon, that’s easy: the Department of Defense.
Of course, then you need to draw up budgetary allocations for the French Defense, the Sicilian Defense, the King’s Indian Defense . . .
Would you have to go to the FDA for the Fried LIver attack?
State department for the English, Scotch and Polish (maybe the Indian openings as well).
I would have thought the Scotch would be the concern of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Department of Wildlife for the Vulture, Bird, and Hedgehog.
You forgot Ourangatan. Or would that be a different department dealing with exotic animals?
The Indian Openings would be passed to the Dept. Of The Interior. Or the name would have to be changed to “The India Openings” 
Judging from how this thread deteriorated into jokes, it is clear that everyone understands that the role of government in American society is quite different from, say, Europe. If so many folks oppose a public option for health care, then do you expect a public option for funding of interest groups such as chess players? Forget it; it ain’t happening.
Michael Aigner
Yeah, the US government would rather fund studies on the reproductive habits of frogs.
However, it’s possible to do something on the local level. We had a chess player elected mayor of one local municipality, and he was able to get a free tournament site for a number of years (though a later administration eventually tossed us).
That’s not obvious to me. This isn’t the old America, it’s a sort of Depression America, and different things are possible. Well I think they’re possible anyway.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax was funded by Defense.
Well, they did actually start the internet that allows you to play chess 24 hours a day and read this post.
But the unfortuntate introduction of the Government into chess would only bring new meaning to the term “chess politician” (and a further waste of my hard earned money).
----- Ed
It will be mostly other people’s hard earned money! Or from another viewpoint, money created in arbitrary amounts by the Fed, to be repaid, or not, later. It would be some really needed help for USCF and professional chessplayers.
Maybe we could offer the commercial community the rights to opening names or variations and derive income that way?
Start with the Stolichnaya Variation of the Russian Game… 3. Be6 or other similar move to make it look like you’ve been drinking.
We could have the Intel (or AMD) Defense. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 and Black files a lawsuit over failure to secure a license to the name “Italian” plus trademarks the designation “e5(86)” and therefore Black can force White to play a Ruy. White retaliates by noting “e5” is an opening notation and not a trademark, enters consumer opinion surveys into evidence, and forces Black to redesignate the opening a King Pawn “Pentimove.”
The GE System - sacrifice the bottom 10% of your pieces so that the top 20% of pieces have better mobility and space to expand. (Also, if you don’t have mate in 1 or 2, have somebody else take over that game.)
And finally, how about the Enron Gambit… 1. f4 e6 2.g4 
(Relies on not seing the inevitable indefinitely.)
OK, but seriously. I wonder if HEW would offer any grants that might be applicable? But the secret is in finding how it’s possible, beyond wishing. Which is why “grant writer” is an actual profession.
And, were money to be out there for the application of it, it would not be the USCF’s (or any other party’s) fault to take advantage of it. 