Not only is this the single biggest waster of the people’s money of all
such items extant, where citizens get back fewer than one dollar for every
seven transferred to mainly wealthy individuals (including state
elected officials), but also the time was just so ripe for it to happen.
Mounting budget pressures plus the commission’s exposure put the credit in the
crosshairs, so the political will seemed present to make major modifications. There
was talk, and legislation, about capping what would be claimed for salaries and
other expenses and limiting qualifying investors’ stakes, and even sunsetting
the program after a couple of years if it did not prove cost effective.
The move by a group of legislators calling themselves the “fiscal hawks”
to find new sources of revenues also seemed to make meaningful change more
possible. They talked up cutting the reimbursement levels of this and other
credits in order to find dollars to offset their
Great Satan of “one-time money.”
And then … nothing really happened. The “hawks” became more interested in
the insertion of a different of one-time money, a tax amnesty, than cutting out
credits of any kind as part of their abandonment of tax increases they initially
supported. Specifically regarding film, several of the group’s more vocal
members – state Reps. Jim Morris, Alan Seabaugh, Thomas Carmody, Jeff Thompson, Cameron Henry,
and Walt Leger
– represent areas where much studio activity courtesy of the credits occurs and
so perhaps didn’t want to have to explain to the special interests benefitting
how they were going to take their bottle away. Leger went further, by amending
out of a bill any reduction in the fiscal year 2014 budget that would have helped
in swapping the one-time money, negating its utility for their purposes.
Gov. Bobby
Jindal also backed off plans
to modify the program. His initial tax swap idea would have reduced the
credits’ utility anyway, but even with that discarded he lost his nerve and the
modification talk disappeared. The Department of Economic Development, which oversees
the program, cooperated in the sitzkrieg strategy by not releasing the program’s
most current data to show its tremendous drain to the state. This again
exposes the Achilles’ heel of Jindal’s otherwise solid conservatism – allowing
government policy to pick and choose at taxpayer expense winners in fields of
commerce through the use of government incentives, and even specifically crony
capitalism by favoring certain firms for location decisions.
In the end, only state Sen. Danny
Martiny’s tepid SB
165 made it through, which adds marginally to the reporting requirements of
credit applicants and will make barely, if any, fiscal impact. Worse, because tax
credits may be reduced only in sessions in odd-numbered years and the 2015
session rolls around in an election year, the next realistic opportunity to
reform the program’s inefficiency won’t come until 2017. That could mean, at
current levels, perhaps a net $1 billion more will have been transferred from
the citizenry to the hands of a few in that span.
As state Sen. Jack Donahue,
who had headed the commission, lamented,
“It won't be long before we're spending more on rebates for motion pictures
than we are on higher ed, and won't that be sad for Louisiana.” If he’s
speaking in general fund terms, to where tax revenues would go without the
credits, he may be overstating the case a bit; after the “hawks” machinations
on then operating budget bill HB
1, the general fund will have $534 million apportioned to higher education –
but this year’s credits may end up being half of that. By 2017, the figures may
be much closer together.
1 comment:
You obsession with this "fiscal hawks" group is laughable. Now your schtick is that everything wrong with the legislative session is all their fault. Typical Jindal handjob giver.
Garafalo, one of Jindal's biggest allies in the budget debate, took to the floor speaking out against reducing the film tax credit program. Alan Seabaugh, who you label as one of the outspoken "fiscal hawks", never had anything of substance to do with that group. He "joined" on paper, then aligned with Jindal on many budget issues. He was against reduction of film tax credit program. The Louisiana Republican Party called any reductions to the film tax credit giveaways a tax increase.
Has Jindal received his direction from Grover Norquist yet as to whether scaling back the film welfare program is a "tax increase"? Your hero has to get the ruling from Judge Norquist first before agreeing to any much needed reform or elimination of the program.
Post a Comment