Wednesday, December 1, 2010


Since I like to review the source of the data that these kinds of studies are based on (in particular how accurate the information is, how do the researchers insure it's unbiased, etc.), I did a little research and found the following link to the original paper...
This document was written by Shannon Spillane, 202-408-1080,, the Deputy Director of Communications for Strategic Initiatives at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (which I assume funded this study?):
I'm including her in on this email, since I wanted to ask if she could send a copy of the original research and data analysis she completed (to make these claims), and, of course, how she insures the accuracy of the information she collects? 
Shannon... do you make that type of information available?  Is it available on your website or can we purchase a copy of the full report?   Stacy 
In a message dated 12/1/2010 2:34:32 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, skullkrushing@MSN.COM writes:
I "ditto" what you are saying Corey.  Thanks!

All The Best!
Sue Lucas (Channel 26)
The Sky's the Limit Show
Breaking Bad Season 4 (Sony/AMC)

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery and today is a gift...That's why they call it "the present." - Kung fu Panda


Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:41:03 -0700
From: jolopyjockey@HOTMAIL.COM

Wow...this is just plain wrong.  I wouldn't own a house or have a job if it were not for these subsidies.  The film industry pumps a ton of money into the local economy. It filters down to all sorts of local business, from hotels and restaurants to construction supply companies.   I have lived here for 32 years and I have seen a big change in our local Albuquerque economy since the industry arrived. 

It is not the only industry that is publicly subsidized.  How about Sandia Labs, Kirkland AFB, Intel.....sure some is Federal money, but we still pay for it.  If I'm not mistaken Intel gets huge breaks.  

If film incentives were not offered, movies would not shoot here....or in Detroit, North Carolina, etc.   For example,  no film production exists in Arizona because they have no incentives. Film production nearly vanished from the United States in the 90s. This was due to Canada's incentive programs.  Thanks to State film incentives, much of that work has come back to the United States. If the incentives were to end in this State, the industry would vanish, and with it nearly 3,000 well paying jobs.   Also the positive trickle down to many local businesses. With it would also exit an entire industry that is keeping younger New Mexicans in the state.  Frankly, if you don't want to work at intel, the labs or as a public servant, there are not allot of  well paying jobs in this state.

If we end the film subsidies we should also not allow ranchers on public lands.   No oil on public lands.  Cut all funding to the labs.  Ask intel for the land it was given to be returned to the State, etc......

I guess we will see how this shakes out.

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:58:54 +0000
From: karenakoch@MAC.COM

***This is a MISP Listserv message. Responses are sent to the list by default.*** ***For more info about MISP and the listserv, scroll to the bottom of the page*** *
Check out this Center on Budget & Policy Priorities report on Film Business Subsidies.  You can be sure the new administration has.
The 17 page report is attached as a pdf but below is the opening premise ...

Like a Hollywood fantasy, claims that tax subsidies for film and TV productions — which nearly

every state has adopted in recent years — are cost-effective tools of job and income creation are

more fiction than fact. In the harsh light of reality, film subsidies offer little bang for the buck.

State film subsidies are costly to states and generous to movie producers. Today, 43

states offer them, compared to only a handful in 2002. Over the course of state fiscal year 2010

(FY2010), states committed about $1.5 billion to subsidizing film and TV production (see

Appendix Table 1) — money that they otherwise could have spent on public services like

education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.

The median state gives producers a subsidy worth 25 cents for every dollar of subsidized

production expense. The most lucrative tax subsidies are Alaska's and Michigan's, 44 cents and

42 cents on the dollar, respectively. Moreover, special rules allow film companies to claim a

very large credit even if they lose money— as many do.

Subsidies reward companies for production that they might have done anyway. Some

makers of movie and TV shows have close, long-standing relationships with particular states.

Had those states not introduced or expanded film subsidies, most such producers would have

continued to work in the state anyway. But there is no practical way for a state to limit

subsidies only to productions that otherwise would not have happened.

The best jobs go to non-residents. The work force at most sites outside of Los Angeles and

New York City lacks the specialized skills producers need to shoot a film. Consequently,

producers import scarce, highly paid talent from other states. Jobs for in-state residents tend to

be spotty, part-time, and relatively low-paying work — hair dressing, security, carpentry,

sanitation, moving, storage, and catering — that is unlikely to build the foundations of strong

economic development in the long term.

Subsidies don't pay for themselves. The revenue generated by economic activity induced by

film subsidies falls far short of the subsidies' direct costs to the state. To balance its budget, the

state must therefore cut spending or raise revenues elsewhere, dampening the subsidies' positive

economic impact.

820 First Street NE, Suite 510

Washington, DC 20002

Tel: 202-408-1080

Fax: 202-408-1056


No state can "win" the film subsidy war. Film subsidies are sometimes described as an

"investment" that will pay off by creating a long-lasting industry. This strategy is dubious at

best. Even Louisiana and New Mexico — the two states most often cited as exemplars of

successful industry-building strategies — are finding it hard to hold on to the production that

they have lured. The film industry is inherently risky and therefore dependent on subsidies.

Consequently, the competition from other states is fierce, which suggests that states might

better spend their money in other ways.

Supporters of subsidies rely on flawed studies. The film industry and some state film

offices have undertaken or commissioned biased studies concluding that film subsidies are

highly cost-effective drivers of economic activity. The most careful, objective studies find just

the opposite.

Given these problems, states would be better served by eliminating, or at least shrinking, film

subsidies and using the freed-up revenue to maintain vital public services and pursue more costeffective

development strategies, such as investment in education, job training, and infrastructure.

Effective public support of economic development may not be glamorous. However, at its best, it

creates lasting benefits for residents from all walks of life.

State governments cannot afford to fritter away scarce public funds on film subsidies, or, for that

matter, any other wasteful tax break. On the contrary, policymakers should broaden the base of

their taxes to create a fairer and more neutral tax system.


LEAVING THE LIST /LIST INFO: To leave the list, please email us at: For other list info, please visit: Available in RSS:

No comments: