Having kicked over a hornet’s nest in writing about the state tax credits awarded to “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” and hearing an earful from readers about my intellectual flaws and deformities, I was inclined to leave the issue be.
But, for what it’s worth, Palin offers a lengthy defense of the tax credit on her Facebook page, which can be found here. Those who find this issue significant should read her thoughts in full.
I would like to depart this brouhaha by noting the message of “government must get smaller, spend less, and do less” is obviously a hard one to sell to the public in most circumstances, or at least it’s easier to sell in the abstract than in the particular. I suspect a lot of non-conservatives think that the conservative vision of smaller government is actually so selective as to be meaningless; those darn rich Republicans want to cut spending on welfare, etc. (“balancing the budget on the backs of the poor”), but want to keep funding for their favorite programs. I think that we on the Right have a lot of skepticism and cynicism to overcome if we are to alter our current course of fiscal ruin.
To counter the skeptics, conservatives need to show that their preferred programs aren’t spared. When we see a defense program that doesn’t provide enough bang for the buck, we’ve got to cut it. We have to sniff out programs that amount to corporate welfare. We can’t keep agriculture subsidies at their current levels by invoking American Gothic and Ma and Pa Kent. We can’t tell Americans that they have to give up government money and programs that they like while we get to keep the ones we like.
Perhaps if I were in the film industry, I’d find these tax credits to be a terrific idea. But from the outside, they look like government liking television and movies more than other industries and giving it a tax break, not too different from the federal government deciding they like the Chevy Volt more than other cars and offering a generous tax credit to its buyers. Does Alaska’s film and television production tax credit help create jobs and promote the state? Sure. But the job creation and economic benefit numbers are hard to verify (as cited below) and perhaps Alaska alone has the budget circumstances to justify this. Maybe “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” really was the single-most cost-effective way to attract tourists to the state; I’m not an expert on the travel industry. (This Travel Weekly article indicates 2010 was better than 2009 for Alaska’s tourism industry, but doesn’t mention the TLC series at all.)
In short, tax credits for TV and movie productions strike me as comparable to tax credits or taxpayer support for sports stadiums and arenas — a frivolous luxury that doesn’t fit the vision of “limited government.” I know 45 states currently offer these incentives; their commonality doesn’t make them any better or wiser a policy choice. There were/are a lot of earmarks, too.
Palin’s in a unique spot in that she’s a supporter of these subsidies/tax credits and an indirect beneficiary of them; it is her unfortunate luck that the tax credit and her (reported but not verified) salary are in roughly the same seven-figure range. The traditional argument is that, “if we didn’t offer these incentives, the production company would just film the show elsewhere,” and in many cases that’s true. But I doubt even the most shameless producer would film “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” in California.
At some point (I expect and hope) Sarah Palin is going to go out before the American people as a presidential candidate and argue that government can and must do less and spend less. I just grind my teeth knowing that she’s now set up for the easy snickering response: “Yes, that way government can stick to its core duties, which is providing tax incentives to television programs.”
Why does Geraghty continue to link Sarah Palin's compensation for the TLC documentary to the tax credit the production company received when he has no idea if the figures are even accurate? It's doubtful that the creative person at TLC who came up with the reality show idea even knew about the tax credit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhh... Federal spending vs. State spending... Tax Credits vs. Subsidizing... words mean things.
You reward behaviors you want more of... If the state wants more tourism, it rewards the private enterprise that produces the travelog that gets more people thinking about coming to that state.
And you think this a bad thing? really?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis isn't the Volt. There, government is picking a car and deciding it's what we have to have. States offer tax credits to film production companies to get them to come to their state. They provide jobs and buy a lot of goods and services. These jobs would go to another state otherwise. And film production companies often spend money liberally because they need to get things done immediately.
With ethanol the U.S. government is picking a winner. Here, states are competing with each other to attract a business. Isn't creating an environment for businesses to thrive what conservatism is all about?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou make it sound like she wants the people of New York to pay for infomercials to bring people to Alaska - and we both know that is not what was happening here.
But glad to see you are now on the record against any and all tax credits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There, government is picking a car and deciding it's what we have to have. States offer tax credits to film production companies to get them to come to their state. They provide jobs and buy a lot of goods and services. These jobs would go to another state otherwise."
Replace film with Volt in your statement and you see why these tax subsidies for film production are exactly the same as Obama's tax credit for purchasing a Volt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"At some point (I expect and hope) Sarah Palin is going to go out before the American people as a presidential candidate and argue that government can and must do less and spend less."
Jim Geraghty a Palinista? Who knew!
I get what you’re trying to say:
"I just grind my teeth knowing that she’s now set up for the easy snickering response"
Hey Jim, just the mere fact that Palin gets up in the morning and breaths provokes a snickering response.
And even though I took exception with your earlier post, this Palin supporter doesn't consider you to have "intellectual flaws and deformities". I really do appreciate everything that you and NRO does to advance the conservative cause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Geraghty,
Which nominee from one of the five states that doesn't have the filming tax credits in place will you be supporting this election cycle?
Very interested in seeing who is actually available... please inform us readers.
Do tell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf President Palin can help bring as large of a surplus to the federal budget as Governor Palin brought to the budget of Alaska, I don't think the American public (even Democrats) will care if she spends millions of extra gas money each year firing up Air Force One to fly home every weekend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know if it is apples and oranges but isn't a tax incentive a tax break....lower taxes=smaller government. I think Jim is a little confused and his whole premise isn't worth the screen it was typed on....Now which MSNBC show will he be on in the next few days? I predict Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews or Larry "I'm a socialist" O'Donnell.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejimr3, you're spot on! I think Jim's heart is absolutely in the right place, but on the economics, his core argument is faulty. In economic terms from the point of view of Alaska, the benefits derived from "Sarah Palin's Alaska" are a "Public Good", very real, but impossible to fairly price and promote as though the state were ordering office supplies from Staples. Same thing applies to sports teams, stadiums, etc. The real problem comes in when government uses a real economic rationale to justify promoting its pet cause, crony, or project in a manner bearing little or no resemblance to any real benefit. In other words, its a slippery slope of corruption. A very interesting, almost impossible problem for political economists to address.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"At some point (I expect and hope) Sarah Palin is going to go out before the American people as a presidential candidate and argue that government can and must do less and spend less. I just grind my teeth knowing that she’s now set up for the easy snickering response: “Yes, that way government can stick to its core duties, which is providing tax incentives to television programs.”
Hit piece writer- no. Concern troll- yes.
If this is all the Left and the concern trolls on the Right have now to throw at Gov Palin, I'd say she has it pretty easy. No one is as battle tested as this woman.
Least she'll never have to explain on a debate stage why she appointed a CAIR-endorsed judge to her state judicial system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut as to the public's reaction to Sarah indirectly getting a tax credit in this particular case, I hardly see how she's got anything to worry about. Her target voters will tend to tune out the criticism as the tendentious mess that it is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, surely you're not as dense as you're pretending to be.
First off, the state of Alaska doesn't spend money by giving a tax credit.
Second, the law was legislated as a way for Alaska to compete with other states. Obviously, SPA couldn't have been filmed in another state, but don't you think it would be wrong to disqualify it from the benefits of the law?
Third, it's entirely possible that a state tax credit would make or break a project that would be created for filming in Alaska. Without that break, the project might not be financially feasible.
Fourth, whether it be TV, film, manufacturing, or some other industry, states compete for business. Tax incentives are often the tie-breaker.
Fifth, there's a huge difference in a state giving incentives to business to entice them to do business in their state and the federal government handing out giveaways to favor one group over another.
In your other thread, I suggested that you might be better off to quit digging. You obviously didn't take my advice. Shoulda known better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou didn't kick over a hornets nest. We believe that when an article is not well researched and ends up being a mild hit piece then the faithfull will respond. Don't take it as personal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you get DC Cocktail Circuit Invitation Points for attacking Palin repeatedly over such a trivial issue?
Without you, this wouldn't even be a story at the Daily Caller. That's all it takes to get them going -- one Palin basher it can call a 'conservative' and they'll go on for a week. Especially nice of you to suggest ways they can ridicule this fine and classy Republican leader in the debates.
Guttersnipe. I had thought better of you. Quit mote picking and go find some beams
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Geraghty,
Make some real news and really knock over a hornets nest | who distrubited the talking points that generated your article?
That'd be real news... come on - kick over the real hornets nest, you know you wanna.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs anyone else tired of the easy snickering response from Jahn Kasich below?
Your tax credits at work.
Except the real problem that Mr. Geraghty has with Palin - nobody is paying John Kasich a dime for John Kasich's Ohio...
"Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he has been in talks with city officials to bring shooting of a $40 million Marvel/Disney superhero movie to Cleveland.
The Republican governor said Sunday that the movie, which he would not name, was originally supposed to be filmed in Michigan.
"It would be a real shot in the arm for us," he said, while taking a break from the National Governors Association meeting.
Kasich joked that he would like a cameo role in the film, but not as a superhero.
"Probably holding the superhero's cape," he joked. "Just one little shot."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim wrote "To counter the skeptics, conservatives need to show that their preferred programs aren’t spared. When we see a defense program that doesn’t provide enough bang for the buck, we’ve got to cut it."
Using your bang-for-the-buck litmus test, Sarah's inititaive of incentives for film productions seemed to have passed that test with flying colors. Not only is there more film production in Alaska, tourism is up as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore on the supposed budget-hawk and fiscal conservative John Kasich and film-tax credits:
" Mar. 4, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- Marvel Studios will bring production of its superhero movie The Avengers to Ohio.
"We have confirmed the movie for Cleveland," an Ohio Department of Development spokeswoman said yesterday.
The Avengers, directed by Joss Whedon, will begin filming in April in New Mexico, then shoot on location in Cleveland and New York. The cast includes Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg.
The production is taking advantage of $8.1million in Ohio film tax credits, bypassing Michigan after a proposal by that state's governor to essentially eliminate the state's current film tax incentive.
The movie project is expected to spend roughly $30million in Ohio and create a number of jobs. The production will hire seven office employees, 150 crew members and roughly 3,700 extras, Ohio Department of Development spokeswoman Katie Sabatino said.
Ohio entered the picture after Marvel pulled out of Michigan last month in case a budget proposal eliminating the standing film tax incentives passed. Ohio officials, including state tax-credit chief Chris Magill, began talks with the production company. Gov. John Kasich revealed the talks with the movie studio over the weekend.
Earlier this year, Kasich said the state can't afford to lose businesses to other states that are offering tax breaks and other assistance, but it also can't be "Santa Claus" or "held hostage" by companies seeing taxpayer help.
His stance reflects a wave of retrenchment among state film programs, which have been drawing scrutiny in the wake of the recession. In New Mexico, where the bulk of The Avengers will be shot, the new governor has called for reducing the state's movie tax credit, which some say would take New Mexico out of the running for Hollywood productions.
Ohio's current motion-picture tax-credit program, approved in 2009, made a total of $30million available through June 30 of this year.
The state allocated $9.9million in the tax credit's first year. So far this year, the state has allocated $2.2million.
The fate of the film tax credit -- and the Ohio Film Office, whose purpose is to attract projects to the state -- will be known when Kasich unveils his first budget on March15.
Critics say film tax credits aren't money-makers for states.
The Center for Community Solutions, a Cleveland-based nonprofit social-services group, said so in a 2009 study titled "Film Tax Credit Will Be a Loser for Ohio."
An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston also said such credits stimulate little additional economic activity in other industries and concluded: "Film tax credits do not 'pay for themselves' by indirectly generating additional corporate income, sales and property tax revenue."
Studies of film production tax credits in several other states -- including Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- indicate that economic returns are improved only under certain conditions, such as when film companies invest in studios and production facilities, a specialized labor pool permanently lives in the state, or tourism significantly increases.
At least 10 projects are or have taken advantage of the state's tax credit. They range from a reality TV show set in Riverside Methodist Hospital's maternity unit to Unstoppable, the Denzel Washington movie about an unmanned runaway train carrying toxic chemicals."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, you Palin fans are a thinned-skinned bunch. I don't happen to think this is a particularly big deal given that it's state spending, but it's important for conservatives to vet their potential nominee.
P.S. -- She's not running. Not in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse