The state of Virginia is spending $3.6 million in public funds and tax credits to lure the production of Steven Spielburg’s production of a movie about Abraham Lincoln to Richmond and Petersburg. State officials justify the subsidies on the grounds that it creates economic activity and jobs. But it may be an argument that fewer states are buying.
Critics attack state tax credits for films on the grounds that the jobs created are mostly temporary positions, and they are often transplanted from other states. Moreover, a large portion of the benefit goes to the movie industry, not to local businesses or state coffers. In 2010, a record 40 states offered $1.4 billion in film and television tax incentives. But “2010 will likely stand as the peak year,” reports the Tax Foundation, “since many governors and legislators are ending their programs.”
Eight states — Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey and Washington — have either ended, suspended or de-funded their film subsidies this year. Nine other states are scaling back their programs, studying cutbacks or have rejected efforts to expand their programs.
Virginia is one the very few states to have increased its commitment to film subsidies.
Hey, it’s fun to have movies filmed in town. I had a bit role as an extra in the filming of Gore Vidal’s Lincoln, starring Sam Waterston as Lincoln, about 23 years ago. (I survived the cutting-room floor. I played an office clerk, appearing in the background of a shot for a full two or three seconds.) But I don’t see any economic justification for the subsidies. Creating temporary film-production jobs does not contribute to long-term economic development, nor does it advance a strategically important industry. This is the kind of program we can do without as the nation slouches toward Boomergeddon.
Update: I expanded this blog post for a column in Style Magazine. Read “Are we rolling out the red carpet for Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ — or are we bribing the producers to come here?”
