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.