Add a Keyword = Success

Maybe this shouldn't annoy me, but it does. Any politician can push an agenda through if they simply label it sustainable. Any no name article gets press if it mentions "sustainable" in the title. Here is the culprit I'm staring at right now:
RAND - Arts and Culture in the Metropolis: Strategies for Sustainability
The essence of the article focuses around the idea that government should provide funding for the arts because it increases the economic attractiveness of the city. I like the arts, but I don't think they should get public funding. If we had more disposable income we might pay more for events, music, etc. Our current focus on consumerism leaves little room for aesthetics, and they are maintained by tax dollars.
There is a valid excuse here. The valid idea is that spending $10,000 on some project will increase the attraction and generate tax revenue exceeding $10,000. Due to rippling effects, the increase in revenue is hard to calculate especially when complications such as general economic growth and interrelated systems prevent direct measurement. For $10k city money to repaid in taxes, there would need to be $525k in increased revenue.
I do agree that for subsystems (like the arts) to perpetuate they must be supported by the system as a whole. I am uncertain if government should take the primary role in this regard, it would be useful if RAND published their findings publicly.
If Google: sustainability site:rand.org is any indication, RAND seems to believe that "sustainability" means continued support for a specific project, and not a balanced budget, corporate or social responsibility. I'm picking on RAND here, but this sort of things bothers me because people take a hot concept, and then paint it like cologne over anything that stinks. Even worse, they were funded to do it.
Why not fund groups that actually do math, like theWatt: The Efficiency and Sustainability of Driving