Do Republicans want to bring the film industry and its jobs to Michigan?
Looking at their plan to require legislative approval for the tax credits for each movie, I wonder.
The proposed legislation would replace former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm's program that allowed qualified film projects to receive refundable tax credits of up to 42 percent of the cost of the projects. Instead of a maximum of 42 percent, the legislation would have maximum credits ranging from 25 percent to 32 percent, depending on the type of expenditure, according to the Livingston Press and Argus.
The problem I have is not so much with the reduced percentages, although it's strange that wages for the crew is reimbursed at the lowest level. If the object is jobs, it seems like that would merit a higher reimbursement rate. Even so, my biggest concern is with the notion that instead of being administered by a state film office, the tax credits would be voted on as an appropriation for each film by the Legislature. That process has multiple pitfalls. In fact, if you wanted to script the failure of the process, I don't think you could write a better one than what is in the Republican bill.
Great film projects surface on their own timetable, not the Legislature's. The legislative process is a cumbersome, time-consuming one. What happens if a filmmaker seeks a tax credit at a time when the Legislature is off on one of its many recesses? Won't a film office in a competing state be able to authorize tax credits before our lawmakers can get back from their summer vacations?
Will this process favor large corporations, who can afford expensive lobbyists, over start-up companies who can't? Some small Michigan companies are doing great work in the film industry, but they could wind up being shut out in favor of large, well-established studios with political muscle.
Might it mean campaign contributions from those corporate PACs will find their way into the campaign coffers of lawmakers who support Film A over Film B? Will lawmakers try to oppose some sort of values litmus test on the films that are awarded tax credits? What sort of disputes will that lead to that can delay or even kill a proposed appropriation? How is that "business friendly"? What filmmaker will want to bother when they can go elsewhere?
The film industry can be a valuable industry that will provide high-paying, long-term jobs for Michigan's creative and talented work force, especially if post-production studios have a chance to establish themselves. But I fear the legislative approval process for films is unworkable, and maybe even designed to fail.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Joe Hune Near Top of the List in Taking Lobbyist Meals
One thing is for sure. Republican Joe Hune isn't going hungry in Lansing doing his job as state senator.
The Detroit Free Press reports that Hune is third on the list of lawmakers taking free meals from lobbyists. The $1,903 in free meals puts him behind only Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville ($2,985) and Rep. Frank Foster ($2,814), both Republicans. Seven of the top ten free eaters were Republicans and three were Democrats.
You can bet those meals weren't paid for by local TEA Party members. I wonder how they feel knowing their guy Hune is sitting down for one free meal after another while a lobbyist for corporate interests bends his ear about how to vote on bills before the Legislature. It's not that the meals buy the vote of Hune or any other lawmaker. It's that the meals give those lobbyists special access to lawmakers that the average voter doesn't have.
According to the Free Press, the biggest spenders on free meals for lawmakers were multi-client lobbyist firms. No labor union was in the top five in free food buyers.
Hune makes enough on his legislative salary to split the tab at these meals.
The Detroit Free Press reports that Hune is third on the list of lawmakers taking free meals from lobbyists. The $1,903 in free meals puts him behind only Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville ($2,985) and Rep. Frank Foster ($2,814), both Republicans. Seven of the top ten free eaters were Republicans and three were Democrats.
You can bet those meals weren't paid for by local TEA Party members. I wonder how they feel knowing their guy Hune is sitting down for one free meal after another while a lobbyist for corporate interests bends his ear about how to vote on bills before the Legislature. It's not that the meals buy the vote of Hune or any other lawmaker. It's that the meals give those lobbyists special access to lawmakers that the average voter doesn't have.
According to the Free Press, the biggest spenders on free meals for lawmakers were multi-client lobbyist firms. No labor union was in the top five in free food buyers.
Hune makes enough on his legislative salary to split the tab at these meals.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Former Livingston County GOP Chair Makes News
The former chair of the Livingston County Republican Party is making headlines, but not in a good way.
Allan Filip, who was chair of the local party during the 2008 election, was hired as director of external affairs by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson last December. But now the Michigan Democratic Party says Filip was caught on taxpayer time hiring people to collect signatures to recall Democratic lawmakers. MDP Chair Mark Brewer has filed a complaint over the matter.
Filip says he left the Secretary of State's Office before coordinating the recall signature effort.
Even if that's true, shouldn't there be some sort of "cooling off period" between the time someone leaves the Secretary of State's office, which oversees Michigan elections, and the time the ex-employee takes a partisan job? This situation seems as bad as the revolving door between government and lobbyists. It just doesn't look right.
Allan Filip, who was chair of the local party during the 2008 election, was hired as director of external affairs by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson last December. But now the Michigan Democratic Party says Filip was caught on taxpayer time hiring people to collect signatures to recall Democratic lawmakers. MDP Chair Mark Brewer has filed a complaint over the matter.
Filip says he left the Secretary of State's Office before coordinating the recall signature effort.
Even if that's true, shouldn't there be some sort of "cooling off period" between the time someone leaves the Secretary of State's office, which oversees Michigan elections, and the time the ex-employee takes a partisan job? This situation seems as bad as the revolving door between government and lobbyists. It just doesn't look right.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Here's a Quote for Stabenow Campaign to Tuck Away
U.s. Sen. Debbie Stabenow doesn't know who her Republican opponent will be in her 2012 re-election contest. But if its Clark Durant, here's a quote Democrats need to file away for future use.
In an interview with the Grand Rapids Press, Durant was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
"In regards to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Durant said the protesters should 'go find a job.' In regards to the wealth gap the movement decries, Durant said, 'I think it should be wider.'"
That's right. Durant wants more income inequality. Having the 400 richest families in America owning more wealth than the bottom 60 percent isn't a problem in Durant's eyes. Less upward mobility for American youth? Just what the doctor ordered as far as Durant is concerned.
Should be a campaign ad in there somewhere.
In an interview with the Grand Rapids Press, Durant was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
"In regards to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Durant said the protesters should 'go find a job.' In regards to the wealth gap the movement decries, Durant said, 'I think it should be wider.'"
That's right. Durant wants more income inequality. Having the 400 richest families in America owning more wealth than the bottom 60 percent isn't a problem in Durant's eyes. Less upward mobility for American youth? Just what the doctor ordered as far as Durant is concerned.
Should be a campaign ad in there somewhere.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Where Were the People in GOP Debate?
Something was missing in last week's Republican presidential debate. It took me awhile to notice it, what with Perry's 53-second brain freeze and the drama over the sexual harassment allegations against Herman Cain.
That "something" was the main thing that matters in all these debates and the general election itself -- people.
I can recall few instancfes in which a candidate talked about a real person he or she had met while campaigning, someone who told them a story about his or her life that the audience could relate to or that illustrated the impact of the policies these candidates support or oppose. This debate should have been full of such stories. After all, it was supposed to be about the economy and jobs, and we are in need of more jobs. But the closest anyone came to talking about real people was Newt Gingrich talking about Henry Ford.
There are a number of possibilities. Perhaps these candidates are doing very little actual campaigning of the kind that candidates used to do in Iowa and New Hampshire and instead are spending their time in private fund-raising, media interviews, and speeches to special interest groups. They may be running a version of a "virtual campaign" in which they never really have to talk to voters so they don't have any examples of how voters are suffering.
Or it may be that the Republicans' positions -- against government actually doing anything to help people and in favor of dismantling regulations that protect people -- just doesn't lend itself to telling stories about how those policies would impact real people. At least not stories that most voters would want to hear.
Who's going to tell a story about a 1 percenter who can't redecorate a yacht if the government raises his taxes? Not a real sob story?
Who's going to tell a story about a doughnut shop owner who's mad about "government" regulations after food inspectors found rat feces in the flour?
The truth is policies Republicans favor hurt the average person so much that it is hard to illustrate them with stories that convey the idea that the candidates care about us. This will be a much bigger problem in the general election. If President Obama illustrates his policies with stories about people he met in Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania, he'll be connecting with voters while the GOP candidate praises the virtues of the "free market." Free markets don't vote. People do.
That "something" was the main thing that matters in all these debates and the general election itself -- people.
I can recall few instancfes in which a candidate talked about a real person he or she had met while campaigning, someone who told them a story about his or her life that the audience could relate to or that illustrated the impact of the policies these candidates support or oppose. This debate should have been full of such stories. After all, it was supposed to be about the economy and jobs, and we are in need of more jobs. But the closest anyone came to talking about real people was Newt Gingrich talking about Henry Ford.
There are a number of possibilities. Perhaps these candidates are doing very little actual campaigning of the kind that candidates used to do in Iowa and New Hampshire and instead are spending their time in private fund-raising, media interviews, and speeches to special interest groups. They may be running a version of a "virtual campaign" in which they never really have to talk to voters so they don't have any examples of how voters are suffering.
Or it may be that the Republicans' positions -- against government actually doing anything to help people and in favor of dismantling regulations that protect people -- just doesn't lend itself to telling stories about how those policies would impact real people. At least not stories that most voters would want to hear.
Who's going to tell a story about a 1 percenter who can't redecorate a yacht if the government raises his taxes? Not a real sob story?
Who's going to tell a story about a doughnut shop owner who's mad about "government" regulations after food inspectors found rat feces in the flour?
The truth is policies Republicans favor hurt the average person so much that it is hard to illustrate them with stories that convey the idea that the candidates care about us. This will be a much bigger problem in the general election. If President Obama illustrates his policies with stories about people he met in Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania, he'll be connecting with voters while the GOP candidate praises the virtues of the "free market." Free markets don't vote. People do.
Friday, November 11, 2011
It Wasn't Just 'Let DETROIT Go Bankrupt'
Democrats are letting the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination off the hook on the issue of rescuing the American auto industry. Ironically, they're doing so by using Mitt Romney's own words against him.
Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" opinion piece at the time of the auto industry rescue seems devastating, and in many ways it is. Bringing it up is especially effective here in Michigan, of course.
But why should the rest of the nation really care about Detroit and Michigan's troubles, when they have troubles of their own? By implying that the rescue was only for Detroit, or jobs in Michigan, Democrats let voters in the rest of the country forget about auto industry jobs around the nation -- in assembly plants, dealerships, and auto suppliers.
They also let people forget that not only Chrysler and General Motors would have disappeared, but so would the suppliers that furnished parts to Ford. Ford's survival would have been in jeopardy at that point, too. So even though Ford did not need a rescue itself, it needed a rescue for Chrysler and General Motors in order to stay in business. This point was made at the time, but it seems to have been lost.
Democrats need to remind voters of the broad national impact of Romney's foolish plan, not narrow it to one region.
Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" opinion piece at the time of the auto industry rescue seems devastating, and in many ways it is. Bringing it up is especially effective here in Michigan, of course.
But why should the rest of the nation really care about Detroit and Michigan's troubles, when they have troubles of their own? By implying that the rescue was only for Detroit, or jobs in Michigan, Democrats let voters in the rest of the country forget about auto industry jobs around the nation -- in assembly plants, dealerships, and auto suppliers.
They also let people forget that not only Chrysler and General Motors would have disappeared, but so would the suppliers that furnished parts to Ford. Ford's survival would have been in jeopardy at that point, too. So even though Ford did not need a rescue itself, it needed a rescue for Chrysler and General Motors in order to stay in business. This point was made at the time, but it seems to have been lost.
Democrats need to remind voters of the broad national impact of Romney's foolish plan, not narrow it to one region.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Perry Gaffe Distracts from Failures of Other Candidates
Texas Gov. Rick Perry finally overshadowed all the other contenders for the Republican nomination for president. Just not in the way he would have preferred.
Perry's huge stumble ranks as the most embarrassing moment I've seen in a debate at that level. It was as bad as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's inability to even read her notes in a 2010 debate, but the stakes were much higher for Perry Wednesday night. His inability to name the three government agencies he would eliminate was particularly embarrassing because the one he couldn't come up with just happens to be the one that regulates the largest industry in his state -- the Department of Energy.
Perry's flop is a shame because it takes the spotlight off all too many other failures by the other candidates -- for instance, their insistence on attacking the rescue of the auto industry by holding on to the fairy tale belief that private equity markets could somehow have handled the matter at a moment when the nation's financial markets were crippled.
And Herman Cain's ridiculous defense against sexual harassment allegations -- hey, there are only four accusers and thousands of women who say I never touched them. Then he shows his high regard for women in general by calling former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a "princess."
Then there was Newt Gingrich pretending to be a historian, lauding the business genius of Henry Ford when it's commonly known that when Ford started out he was terrible at handling the business details, as opposed to the mechanics of building the vehicle.
The Perry moment will go down in history, but the other moments won't do much for the campaigns of the remaining candidates.
Perry's huge stumble ranks as the most embarrassing moment I've seen in a debate at that level. It was as bad as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's inability to even read her notes in a 2010 debate, but the stakes were much higher for Perry Wednesday night. His inability to name the three government agencies he would eliminate was particularly embarrassing because the one he couldn't come up with just happens to be the one that regulates the largest industry in his state -- the Department of Energy.
Perry's flop is a shame because it takes the spotlight off all too many other failures by the other candidates -- for instance, their insistence on attacking the rescue of the auto industry by holding on to the fairy tale belief that private equity markets could somehow have handled the matter at a moment when the nation's financial markets were crippled.
And Herman Cain's ridiculous defense against sexual harassment allegations -- hey, there are only four accusers and thousands of women who say I never touched them. Then he shows his high regard for women in general by calling former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a "princess."
Then there was Newt Gingrich pretending to be a historian, lauding the business genius of Henry Ford when it's commonly known that when Ford started out he was terrible at handling the business details, as opposed to the mechanics of building the vehicle.
The Perry moment will go down in history, but the other moments won't do much for the campaigns of the remaining candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)