Posted on 03/30/2011 6:42:33 AM PDT by Anamnesis
The company that produced Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s TLC reality show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” received $1.2 million in state tax credits for filming in Alaska through a government program Palin signed into law as governor in 2008.
The Anchorage Daily News first reported the story in February, but after an analyst at the Tax Foundation posted a blurb on the group’s blog linking to the piece Tuesday, Palin faced a fresh heap of criticism from Washington conservative pundits who may have been a bit late to the fight, but were not shy to throw punches.
The state legislature passed the subsidy program in 2008 to encourage media companies to film their projects in Alaska and offers up to 30 percent of the money they spend in the state.
But in a political age where it’s controversial in many circles to defend public funding of National Public Radio, critics panned Palin for supporting a measure that forced taxpayers to foot the bill for a private media project after many statements from the former governor in support of a government that only plays a limited role in the economy.
“I’d bet, like many politicians, Palin’s views on the proper role of government becomes more flexible as it comes closer to her own interests,” wrote the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney on Tuesday.
Jim Geraghty of National Review said that the reality show’s subsidy was “ridiculous” and that the policy was “problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy,” while Peter Suderman of the libertarian Reason Magazine cracked: “In 2008, Sarah Palin, then the Governor of Alaska, signed a special tax credit for filmmakers into law. … Who’s benefiting from that tax subsidy now? … none other than Sarah Palin.”
Palin, however, stood by her decision to sign the bill into law in 2008, and the media company’s choice to take the tax credit.
In order to obtain answers to the aforementioned questions, Palin’s aid required the Daily Caller to post the former governor’s statements in their entirety.
On the Alaska tax credit for media production companies:
“I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. It worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years. Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. For the record, ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’ was never intended to have a ’second season.’ It was always intended to be an 8-part documentary series with a definitive end date. It was a success for all involved. It highlighted the great beauty and promise of Alaska and our amazing natural resources. I’m proud of it, and I was honored to share Alaska with the rest of the world.”
On criticism for Palin benefiting from a policy she signed into law:
“Why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin? Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ludicrous. The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s absurd. Obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there? One could accuse me of ‘benefiting’ from my administration’s oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES) in the sense that due to that legislation the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.”
On accusations that Palin is being inconsistent in her views on the role of government and the economy:
“It’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government. I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers. Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program is an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked. The lawmakers’ successful legislation fit Alaska’s economy, as our economy is quite unique from other states’ due to our oil and gas revenue. Perhaps it would behoove people to learn much more about the 49th state’s young economy before making broad accusations about the efficacy of business programs.”
Well done!
So, if the production company that filmed the reality show got a $1.2 million tax credit, then that means that it spent at least $4 million in production costs in the state of Alaska, which generated tax revenues and other income in the state. Sounds like the incentive program worked.
Thanks to you both for your kind words.
That's game, set, match for me right there.
I’m relaxed; I’m just pointing out the difference between a tax credit and a direct subsidy for people who don’t understand where tax revenues come from in the fist place and whose money it really is.
I fail to see the problem. A basic conservative prinicple is that tax cuts spur the economy increasing overal revenue. This is a tax cut that benefits Alaska’s economy increasing overall revenue. There must be an error in the title since no real conservative would fault Palin for signing the legislation or for a company to make use of the credit.
I fail to see the problem. A basic conservative prinicple is that tax cuts spur the economy increasing overal revenue. This is a tax cut that benefits Alaska’s economy increasing overall revenue. There must be an error in the title since no real conservative would fault Palin for signing the legislation or for a company to make use of the credit.
If the tax credit ends up bringing more money to the state than it cost then what’s the problem?
Try telling that to the APB “conservatives”. Their logic and reason flies out the window when they see any chance to score a hit against her.
It’s too bad for them that she fights back instead of rolling over.
A 30% tax credit is modest when it comes to these give-away programs, but if you don’t like it - tell it to the Alaska Legislature. They’re the ones that enacted the law.
It’s not like Sarah Palin was going to film her program about Alaska in North Dakota, after all. The subsidy was totally unnecessary, and similar programs have proven to be completely ineffective everywhere they’ve been tried.
But it’s the legislatures fault - not Palin’s.
Peter Suderman of the libertarian Reason Magazine cracked: “In 2008, Sarah Palin, then the Governor of Alaska, signed a special tax credit for filmmakers into law. … Who’s benefiting from that tax subsidy now? … none other than Sarah Palin.”
Probably a Paul supporter.
In 2010 Alaska took in more than $200 million in tax revenue from the tourist industry, plus another $1 billion in tourist-generated business. The tourist industry supports more than 30,000 jobs. So it’s quite possible - likely even - that the $1.2 million to Palin’s producers will generate much more revenue than it cost. That’s why the program exists.
This is proof that lowering taxes generates wealth.
And of course the left are complaining about it.
A lot of states issue tax credits to get business into their state. The film industry is no different. The states that have them, get films shot in their state.
This is just more of the same ol same ol from the ankle biters.
More incoming from FAUX Conservatives.
Someone's got to stir the pot. :)
If there is any doubt concerning her statement, please be advised that some of the Alaska scenes from “The Guardian” were filmed at the Coast Guard air station in Elizabeth City, NC. They actually shipped in snow for scenes.
Boy, the ‘good ol’ boys club’ really fear that woman.
Oh now, when it comes to stirring the pot, I'm cookin' with gas.
FWIW, I used to get under pissant's skin back in 2008 when he was stumping for Duncan "0.05%" Hunter, too,
Any filmmaker who DOESN’T take advantage of state tax credits is a fool, and a poor businessman. You don’t like ‘em? End ‘em. Just like the home mortgage deduction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.