Now THIS is a reasonable piece, Bruce.

I disagree with you... I don't think having the government confiscate money from me in the form of tax dollars, only to give it to George Clooney, is a good idea of job creation. And the other "good paying jobs"... the caterers, limo companies, and flower shops who may have benefited from the program were not earning Hollywood dollars... they were essentially receiving my tax dollars as part of a government redistribution program. Take my tax dollars, give'em to Hollywood, who in turn pays a few local labors.

But if we were so inclined, we could have a rational discussion on it. And on whether we believe Tom should've supported the program or not.

The headline aside, you avoided the hyperbole. You made it about the issue, without name-calling, or trying to attack his character.

I don't know about major movie productions but the TV shows like link below had 50% crew from Michigan all paid scale. I kept in touch with some of the Michigan crew. They went on to film in other states. The production company producers I spoke with were impressed with Michigan talent and said if they could overcome the weather, they might stay despite the cuts in film credits. However, I don't think they did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlE3NyEmGaU

Smile Mike at 10 seconds in.

http://www.filmslatemagazine.com/news/new-ernst-a-young-report-shows-positive-roi-from-michigans-fast-growing-film-and-television-industry

A new research study conducted by respected international accounting firm Ernst & Young shows a positive Return on Investment (ROI) from Michigan’s film production tax credit, despite the fact that the program has been in place for less than three full years. The report was commissioned by the Convention & Visitors Bureaus for metro Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor and Traverse City.

"When we hired Ernst & Young's Washington, D.C., office to look into the real financial picture behind Michigan's film production credit, we weren't sure what the report would show," said Larry Alexander, President & CEO of the Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau. "When the final report was presented to us last week, we were delighted to learn that this fast growing new industry had already created 3,860 full time equivalent jobs for Michigan residents in 2010, at an average salary of $53,700 - per year, and generated an estimated impact on statewide sales of $503 million in 2010 alone … or $5.94 per dollar of net credit cost."

The report examined the net cost of the film, TV and digital gaming production credit by subtracting the estimated new taxes, fees, and reduction in unemployment insurance benefits experienced by the state of Michigan from the earned credits in 2009 and 2010, producing a figure of $52.5 million in 2009 and $84.7 million in 2010.

Despite the positive results of the report, Rick Snyder, Michigan’s Republican Governor, has campaigned extensively to do away with the incentives and when he announced the fiscal budget earlier this week, it was clear that will soon be a reality.

Slashing the incentives, however, will most likely have a negative impact on Michigan’s budget problems and its economy. If the budget is approved, film production will soon dry up in Michigan – which means zero new dollars coming into the state of Michigan.

“Diversifying Michigan’s economy by investing $84.7 million – and generating over a half a billion dollars of economic activity and nearly 4,000 high paying jobs – sounds like a pretty good deal to us,” according to Alexander.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/motion-picture-association-attacks-tax-foundation-critique-film-tax-subsidies

Michigan Film Incentive Costs $90,000+ Per New Job

Their Michigan study, conducted by Ernst & Young but commissioned by and paid for by state economic development officials that push the film tax incentive program, found that the credits cost $73 million in 2009 and created 797 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, for a cost of $91,593 per new job. In 2010, the study found the incentives cost $117 million and created 1,039 full-time equivalent jobs, for a cost of $112,800 per new job. Only by taking credit for all economic activity remotely related to film production can you reach the numbers the MPAA cites, and even then, the Ernst & Young study finds a net cost of $34 million in 2009 and $60 million in 2010, unrecouped by higher tax collections from ancillary activity or reduced unemployment costs.
Note that Michigan's film office was essentially forced against its will to report cost-per-FTE-job figures, after a 2010 study commissioned by the bipartisan Senate Fiscal Agency criticized them for not doing so. That study, by the way, concluded that "film incentives represent lost revenue and do not generate sufficient private sector activity to offset their costs completely." Michigan recently scaled back its film tax incentive program.

Link to the SFA report is here: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/Issues/FilmIncentives/FilmIncentives.pdf

Mike, by my reading of the paragraph that you posted, the study does not take into account all of the business activity generated by the cast and crew pouring dollars into the local economy, which was substantial. Also, my understand was that the incentives would have been ratcheted down as the industry established Michigan as being a place moviemakers would want to come even without incentives.

To this day the federal government provides subsidies to industries like the oil industry, even though they generate MASSIVE profits for the oil companies.

For my money, I'd much rather see incentives going to industries that have growth potential, like advanced batteries, the movie industry, than mature industries like oil.

Mike, I think you are wrong again. If we had kept the film incentives in place, eventually the movie industry would have been able to survive and thrive even with smaller and smaller subsidies and tax credits.

But we'll never know now. Snyder and Republicans have killed the movie making business in Michigan with nothing to replace it.

Small thinking.

The fact of the matter is, leaving the film credit aside, Republicans have done NOTHING to improve the economic outlook in Michigan. The improving job market in Michigan has been the result of more jobs in the auto industry, thanks to President Obama's loans to Chrysler and GM.

The Republican administration and legislature has done nothing, absent reduce a few minor regulations, as McMillin mentions in his statement on this video and I guess about 600 or so temporary jobs selling fireworks prior to the 4th of July.

And please don't tell me tax cuts create jobs. That is just not a realistic argument, especially when the tax cuts for the wealthy were paid for by increasing taxes on poor people and seniors on pensions.

This is kinda funny to read.
At a time when Democrats are shouting from the rooftops that we have to tax companies at higher and higher rates we have local left-wing radical Bruce Fealk claiming we need to subsidize Hollywood billionaires to the tune of hundreds of millions of Michigan Taxpayer dollars? Surely you're joking!
Bruce has been arguing elsewhere that we shouldn't send our money out of state for coal. That we shouldn't send our money out of country for human labor. Yet, here's BobbleHead Bruce wobbling around telling us we should give billions of our hard earned taxpayer dollars not to help the poor or provide health care to the down trodden, but to pay for George Clooney's $20 million salary to make a movie in downtown Rochester - 42% subsidized by Rochester Taxpayers.
It is awfully compassionate of you, Bruce, to ensure we're taking care of our rich, liberal elite. If only we could subsidize everyone who cares as much as George Clooney does, right?

Bill, we aren't subsidizing George Clooney. The purpose of the subsidies for the film industry was to create good paying jobs in the film industry, which was just beginning to flourish when Snyder and the Republican legislature cut the legs out from under the film industry.

Instead, what do we do, cut education funding and tax credits for poorest Michiganians so the wealthy can have another tax cut that they don't need and does nothing to create jobs.

What's funny, Bill, is that you frame it as subsidizing George Clooney. The only reason Mitt Rmoney is as wealthy as he is is because he gamed the system to get as many federal dollars as he could and then ship jobs to China.

We're paying 42% of his $20 million salary. What do you mean we're not subsidizing George Clooney? He filmed in Michigan, his production company sent a bill to the MI Film Industry and we cut a check for 42% of those expenses. Sounds like we're subsidizing George Clooney and other rich Liberal elites to me!
What's even more funny, is you throw these accusations around about Mitt Romney, but then claim it should be okay and fine for George Clooney and Michael Imperioli. What a hypocrite. (They're your accusations, my friend, not mine. I have no need to defend Mitt Romney here).
It's funny that you and the rest of the Rochester Democrats talk about ending Oil Subsidies and corporate welfare. You pay lip service to "crony capitalism" and raising taxes on those who can afford it. Then you come here and tell us you want to spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to companies who otherwise could afford to film in Michigan.
The difference between Rochester Dems and Tom McMillin isn't the film subsidies. It's that Tom believes that ALL corporate welfare is wrong and doesn't promote long-term growth. It's a shame, because I think this would be an area you two could agree. So let's be honest, Bruce. This is just another sad attempt at being a political hack.

If we are going to provide incentives, I can think of many industries I would rather attract than the film industry. That one always seemed more about cachet than economics. Film crews seem by their nature to be nomadic and will leave as easily they came. On the other hand, an industry that makes a large investment in a building, equipment, employees, or a customer base has a much greater reason to stay once incentives decrease.

I would rather see incentives for high-tech manufacturing and knowledge industry companies, ones that require and will support a highly educated workforce. There is significantly more benefit in becoming a highly skilled and highly educated state than in becoming one that is visited by celebrities for the duration of filming. It may not be as glamorous, but I think we can live without that.

However, perhaps the best way to provide incentives is to lower the cost of doing business here for everyone. That way we aren't picking and choosing which industries we'll support. One great way is to lower corporate taxes. I find it odd that many who support film incentives reject lowering corporate taxes.

McMillin has created controversy with Muslims and Gays.

Bruce: if the 42% film credits were such a good economic idea, how come the other 49 states didn't match them? Are we just smarter then them? Based on our states record over the last decade, that would be a hard argument to make. Michigan has not been a competitve place to invest or do business. The current Govenor and Legislature have been making some progress to reduce those barriers. Multiple sources like Fortune have recognized that effort.

This coming election could reverse thst trend if several of the special interest backed propositions were to pass, although that is unlikely. Oh by the way, it was President Bush who created the original auto bailout. President Obama just followed suit by backing the bankruptcy process. They were both correct.

A small, very vocal (and whiny I might add) minority is all about the film credits. It is nothing but a scam. It does bring jobs, but at an outrageous cost. We could pick any other industry, give half the incentive amount and attract just as many jobs. If a party of 30 people come to town from elsewhere and have dinner at Ocean Prime and have a $3500 bill, that is excellent for the restaurant and its employees. Just tell me why the taxpayers of Michigan should pay $1470 of the bill. This is exactly what happened. The servers say "hey, that film credit was great. We never had such awesome business!". It all boils down to the cost. In this case, a ridiculous one. It is nothing short of hilarious to see those who are against tax cuts say they support the film credit. It IS a tax cut on steroids- a tax CREDIT! it helped rich actors and producers and "small" people in our area. But so would cash in an envelope- which I believe was a technique used in getting the credits passed to begin with.

As a Muslim I would like to ask Mr McMillin how a racially motivated bill like his Shariah law bill creates jobs.

You might want to get your facts right. Mr. McMillin didn't write any Shariah law bills.
There's an American Laws for American Courts bill that's still sitting in the house, sponsored by another legislator. The real disappointment isn't Mr. McMillin, but that anyone actually believes that family honor killings under Muslim law should trump Michigan or Federal law.
But while you're on a fake political crusade, what would Joanna VanRapehorst do to create jobs? What are her specific details?

There seems to be so much discrepancy in these studies of the monetary impact of film incentives. I'd just like to mention that the film could be, was, uniquely compatible with Michigan. What other industry can be invited to plunk down and set up shop in the vast urban landscape of abandoned, rundown and still mysteriously beautiful architecture of Detroit? What other industry considers vacant, unused high rises a plus?--and brings in thousands of employees to eat, drink, stay and play in our state? Or, invites celebrities and film crews to advertise it for us free of charge? And Joshua, the fact that another industry invests in a building doesn't necessarily mean they're going to put down roots or leave the community better than they found it simply because they've erected a building; we could ask Flint or Pontiac or any number of Michigan cities about that. We all know that incentives have made more than only the film industry nomadic, it's just the way it is.

There's another benefit to inviting film into Michigan from LA or NYC. The folks who live in these cities are used to their housing dollar affording them a tiny bungalow, compared with the kind of home they could have here. I had the pleasure of meeting many of the cast and crew members from Detroit 187. The housing affordability was an inticement for many of them considering a longer stay here before the film incentive was yanked and the show was cancelled.

Beth: The film industry came to Michigan for one reason....We were the only state in the country dumb enough to pay them 42 cents for every dollar they spent. The minute that was reduced, they ran for the hills. Just about any industry would come here for a credit like that. Government can't manipulate the free market system long-term. That is why Solyndra failed, Volts come with massive credits, etc...

It is fair to say that the government can lay the seeds for some new industries as an investment, but outright manipulation fails. Before someone says the internet, remember that the Defense Department created the inital version of the Internet. NOt exactly the favorite department of the liberal leaning crowd.

I agree with McMillin. We don't need more "alternative" lifestyle people in this area. All those movie people don't have values.

Bill, so answer me this, why in the world are we still giving the oil companies government subsidies? They are are the most profitable companies on the planet, but our money is still being redistributed to the oil companies. Not only that, the President and democrats have tried to eliminate the welfare for the oil companies and the Republicans block it every time.

Doug, what Bruce just asked...? Long term manipulation for what? We also have the greatest divide in wealth distribution since the great depression and we are telling the trust fund babies to sit back and ride on their George W. Bush tax cuts as long as they please. It's a tired, failed over and over again notion that recovery can come from the top down. Republicans are now asking the middle class to foot the bill for another extension...did the last one work? Did jobs trickle from the tight fisted? Or did it just afford another opportunity to beef up their Swiss bank accounts?

Great strawman argument.
Nevermind the fact that the President got everything he wanted the first two years of his Presidency, why wasn't one of them "ending oil subsidies"? I'm guessing Obama and the Democrats don't really want to end oil subsidies, or it would've gotten done.
The facts are pretty simple: the State of Michigan doesn't give subsidies to oil companies. You can count on Tom McMillin to vote against Corporate Welfare bills. Like I said earlier, Bruce, I would've thought you and McMillin would agree on this point.
But your question illustrates your hypocrisy, Bruce. You're so angry and bitter about the Feds giving out Corporate Welfare, but then you sit here and try to tell us McMillin is bad for voting against Corporate Welfare. Hypocrite.

Bill, you likely never worked for a 1%er either. This is stagnant wealth, money that makes its own money; it doesn't build anything or employ anyone. Heaping more on to it doesn't improve our economy one iota. Recovery comes from a healthy middle class. We get growth from small business. (Film crews are made of several small businesses by the way.) When we ease up on the middle class, suddenly Mom & Pop can finally replace that car or get a new roof. 1%ers needs are met in any economy.

Bill, nobody said all will be well when the wealthiest contribute what they used to before W's term. But why should they be exempt?--feelin no pain?

If the wealth is stagnant - not earning anything - then what makes you think raising INCOME tax is going to tax that 1% money? And who are you, of all people, the one to decide what someone else should do with their money?
But maybe you're right, the top 10% of income earners paid 70% of all taxes in 2011. In fact, Romney's 2011 tax return shows he paid more in taxes than the bottom 49% of income earners combined. Clearly those millionaires are not paying their fair share!
I think the biggest lie I keep hearing from leftists is that "Recovery comes from a healthy middle class." Wrong. Recovery comes from a healthy country as a whole. Remember John Kennedy's "a rising tide raises all ships"? Recovery comes when ALL the boats are rising. Not just the poor, not just the rich, not just the middle class. Let's work to grow our economy, not redistribute it and move pieces around to our pet causes - like film subsidies for Billion Dollar Film Studios.

This must be the same Dr. Craig that donated to Joanna Van Rappahorst.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/poor-americans-state-local-taxes_n_1903993.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

I did say that "it" makes "its" own money. And you sound smart enough to realize that percentagewise, the wealthiest are still not carrying the load that the rest of us are being asked to do.

Really? I make a very nice salary (puts me in the top 15 or 20% of wage earners nationwide, and my effective tax rate is only 6.38%. How much did Romney pay? 14.1%? And another 15% to charity.
I guess he's not paying his fair share - if he was willing to just give away 15% of his income, it should go to Momma Government, right?

Joshua, I really wasn't dissing the wealth of the 1%ers by saying that it is stagnant. It's just that when the economy is in a slump like this, growth will come from where it MUST, the grow or die, kinda scenario. If you have enough safety wealth, you can hang on and BE safe. You can wait it out. The truly wealthy do not need another free ride to make them "feel" safe enough to start hiring. Like I said earlier, many don't punch a clock anymore, they just allow their money to make them more money. Hey, who wouldn't? BTW, Bill, if you want to pay what the poorest 20% of households pay, you better kick in another 4.52%.

Sorry, Doll. The effective tax rate on the poorest 20% is negative - because of all the tax credits from state and federal governments. So on top of paying 0% in state and federal income tax (withholding isn't a tax), they get cash back from the government in the form of EITC and other "credits", resulting in an effectively negative tax rate.

 
 WOW... One of best emails I've ever received
 
Welcome to Greece, only it will be worse...

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?rel=0

note: The World Trade Center scene was to over the top and uncalled for -- a different scene could have made the same point.

Though I love to read -- both sides -- our community's opinion of State Representative Tom McMillin... Rochester Hills does not give a damn who is their State Representative -- they just care what political party they are affiliated with... just look at the facts.

http://rochester.patch.com/blog_posts/sad-but-true-c1f0e37f