re: WSJ major opinion piece on film industry welfare--quotes Jindal

I know trolling IB on this issue is somewhat of a spectator sport on this board, but quite frankly I'm surprised more posters aren't mad as hell that the state forks over a quarter billion dollars annually to Hollywood. I suppose all of you Rand Paul fans aren't as big into economic freedom as you claim.

To date, I haven't seen anyone persuasively refute anything IB has posted on the issue of film credits, mostly because the issue really is shameful. How many of you would be okay with government giving your neighbor a check for 30 cents of every dollar he spends (regardless of whether or not he actually incurs an income tax liability) while forcing you to pay your "fair share" just because your neighbor works in a profession that government favors?

One Question / One Observation:

1) What makes the film industry so special and so magical that it deserves to have 30% of it's operating costs subsidized by Government? Is Hollywood better at creating jobs than, say, shipbuilders, oilfield services companies, banks, or any other industry?

2) I would really like to see Hollywood's most-pious liberals - Matt Damon, Lena Dunham, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, etc - REFUSE to work on films that receives taxpayer subsidies. Or, better-yet, if their film receives taxpayer subsidies, voluntarily over-pay an amount equal to those subsidies in fed & state taxes so those dollars can be "invested" by government in education and the other wonderful ways that government spends $$$. After all, liberals unanimously believe government can best solve all of society's ills only if it had "enough" of our money, so it's time for our high-minded betters to put up or shut up.

I don't have a problem with continuing the subsidies for film production. I think there is a value we are getting back in both positive PR and ancillary industries, and we probably are getting a better return on investment there than many programs funded by the LT Govs office.

But there has to be a major rework in thinking about the way it's doled out. And above all else, there has to be a cap.

quote:

---

FWIW today's Advocate editorial is about shortfalls, one time budget money, and raising more revenues(hint taxes )

They claim next year we will need to find 900 million + dollars to maintain our current level of spending.

Think about it guys; we are short funds and yet we give out 250 million in tax credits. It doesn't add up.we aren't getting the return on our investment that we think we are. That is obvious.

---

Here is what gets me--neither the TP or the Advocate will criticize these subsidies. People like Forgotston and Mann will not touch Jindal on this. It's like the credits are untouchable. The media may be just too dumb to understand them. Forgotston will moan and complain about a $5 million consulting contract or something but will not touch the huge $250 million film tax credits. Same for Kennedy.

I know a very powerful guy the legislature and he says the lobby is so strong eliminating the subsidy is impossible. He says Moret goes ballistic at the simplest criticism of them.

If you don't think support of these subsidies at some level does not influence media exposure for politicians you are just naive. It is very, very dangerous for the press and the government to have such a relationship.

It just burns my butt I supported Jindal and he has expanded this special interest pork to the levels it has become.

If he had done this for oil companies there would be an impeachment process going on now. Yes there are tax credits for oil companies but none transferrable nor none cash redeemable so somewhere along the line the oil companies have to generate Louisiana taxes to use them.

The issue is so much more than money. It is a statement of actual governance. Regardless of anything Jindal says anywhere the reality is he expanded this stupid program to the point that well over a billion has been taken from taxpayers to fund it. It is his to own.

Until he addresses this big government corporate welfare he is nothing but an empty suited hypocrite. I predict the more opinion pieces tying his name to the welfare the quicker he will address it.

Kudos to the WSJ for bringing this belligerent treatment of taxpayers to light.