Sullivan blames lawmakers for Perry’s wasteful program
Self-appointed fiscal watchdog Michael Quinn Sullivan blasted legislators yesterday (9/23) for a spending program that allows the state to attract and subsidize Hollywood filmmakers who wish to make movies in Texas. I find myself in rare agreement with Mr. Sullivan on this point. When I wrote a story about cutting the budget last October, I zeroed out the Film Commission.
Sullivan based his post on the Empower Texans web site on a Wall Street Journal story. Here is the lead for his article:
While other states have come to their senses about subsidizing Hollywood, Texas’ lawmakers continue pumping taxpayer cash into a scheme of dubious value to Texans and our economy.
The Wall Street Journal reports today that states are halting the subsidies as they find footing the bill for films isn’t as glamorous as the latte-liberals in the film industry would have us all believe.
There is one problem with Sullivan’s analysis. Film subsidies in Texas, while they are included in the state budget that lawmakers vote on, are not really proposed by the Legislature. They are one of several spending programs designated as “trusteed programs” in the Governor’s office. In other words, the subsidies come from Rick Perry’s office, not from general revenue or other funds controlled by the Legislature. If they represent foolish and wasteful spending, as Mr. Sullivan and I believe, the responsible party is Governor Perry–not the Legislature, which rubber-stamps this and other trusteed programs (the Enterprise Fund and the Emerging Technology Fund, among others). Blaming the Legislature is devious and flat wrong. The buck stops with Rick Perry. But Mr. Sullivan wouldn’t dare to criticize Perry, for whom he shills on command. He wants to preserve the image of a spendthrift legislature, which has no basis in reality.
Tagged: Empower Texans, Film Commission, film subsidies, michael quinn sullivan, rick perry
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Why really should states do this? New Jersey actually pays “The Jersey Shore,” to film there. A program I’ve never watched, by the way. A show about Las Vegas, or a show about New Orleans or even a show about Texas would at least need a few backdrops to make them seem real. This just looks to be another Perry slush fund we could do without.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yea, that’s almost as bad as a “journalist” shilling for Democratic lawmakers he likes.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Exactly. Casting the Legislature in a cold light puts more races in play and gives Tim Dunn more power. Freshmen legislators are merely sources of nectar for Dunn’s pro-oil, anti-education agenda. It’s not about fiscal policy–it’s about thought control.
Reply »
123 says:
Paul, you are right that it is a program under the control of the governor’s office, but the legislature created the program. The legislature also provides tax breaks to the film industry, which is a form of spending.
Reply »
texun says:
I have read columns by economists who argue that grants to film-makers brings in many more dollars than the state spends, supporting the related service part of the industry that’s already here,too. Is this argument correct?
Secondarily, Texas in the movies is a boost to tourism. I don’t know if there is any good evidence behind this assertion.
If so, the real argument should be over the criteria that cover the awards, one of which is that the films must reflect well on Texas. That requirment makes Perry’s buddies and state employees censors and film critics, certainly not reasonable if one believes in smaller government and freer expression.
Reply »
Texas State Senator John McLaughlin says:
Anyone who followed the Governor’s censorship of Robert Rodriguez’ film “Machete” is fully aware that the Texas Film Commission is an executive agency.
Apparently, a film about a corrupt State Senator with ties to a Mexican drug lord – who wants to keep drugs illegal and the border closed and will murder to get what he wants – hits just a little too close to home for Perry.
Reply »
Nun With A Ruler Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
You know, I remember the controversy and, at the time, I was skeptical of the Governor’s motivations.
Then I saw the movie, and I came to realize that the movie simply sucked. Very, very hard. In every way imaginable, and not as a political statement. It was just bad. Bad, bad, bad (and not in the Michael Jackson sense of the word).
Then I decided it was best that Texas taxpayer dollars were kept on the sidelines. Not for politics, but for the benefit of sanity, good taste, and wise investment.
Reply »
Texas State Senator John McLaughlin Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
If all of your taste is in your mouth, it would behoove you to not comment on art.
The Texas Film Commission agreed to allocate funds to the movie, and then decided after it was made that it was not up to their standards. That is flat on censorship.
Machete will be get lots of attention in years to come… especially after the drug prohibition goes away and people realize how criminals were in charge of their government.
Reply »
Nun With A Ruler Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
To your first sentence: pot, kettle, black.
To your last paragraph: put down the pot.
Northern Mexico Death Squad Reply:
September 26th, 2011 at 2:10 am
Hey Nun,
Why don’t you open your eyes man?
There’s a war in Mexico that has claimed 40,000 lives. Men, women, and children who have been murdered all to support this bullshit regime that is propped up by scrunch-nuts like Perry.
Maybe you need some pot, or maybe get laid (by a woman).
Mr. Smith says:
David Simpson fought this one pretty hard during the session. Many may not like him, but he was intellectually consistent, which is a rare thing in politics. We need to get out of the business of cities and states competing with each other to give tax abatements and grants to lure businesses away from other states and cities, while not giving the same tax breaks to Joe homeowner. Its an inevitable race to the bottom. And all tax breaks and loopholes should end. Seriously, let money and business flow where it should. We should have a flat income tax rate, flat property tax rate, flat sales tax rate, and let local jurisdictions succeed or fail based on what they do locally, with the same money. True competition.
Reply »
Puppy Mill Chihuahua Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
David Simpson wants to do away our legal system and replace it with judeo-christian, bible-based law. He can go fuck himself.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
This accusation is false. And you can fuck yourself.
Reply »
Groping TSA Screener Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Actually, I’m on Chihuahua’s side here. It’s pretty clear from how Simpson campaigned and currently operates that he has tapped in to the evangelicals.
I seem to remember in his personal privilege speech that he referred to the “violations of the rules of morality of state government,” or words to that effect.
Also, the whole “I’m Jesus, and I’m here to heal you” thing… he’s a freaking weirdo who can, indeed, go fuck himself.
texun Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
The argument for the subdsidies is that they bring in more money than they cost. If that’s true, Mr. Smith’s argument that they should be eliminated leaves me flat. We seem to have a major data shortage here. Can somebody address it?
Reply »
Mr. Smith Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Okay,
Lets say the City of Dallas offers AT&T $3 million dollars in a Chapet 380 Grant in exchange for AT&T employing 100 employees. The city loses that $3 million, but supposedly gets it back because AT&T pays property taxes where they locate, and the 100 employees and their families pay sales tax, and some pay property taxes. A good deal. Sure, Gets its tax “investment” back in about 10-15 years. Unless of course Frisco offers a $4 million grant. Then McKinney offers $5 million. And so on, and so on. At some point, a city has offered all it can, and is stuck with an abated tax structure for the 15 or so years it takes to recoup this investment. In the meantime, a city either reduces its servcices, or raises its taxes on the only source it can, home owners. Its like squeezing a balloon at one end. The air rushes to the other end, until you squeeze that end, when the air rushes back. The only group that in the end profits is the corporation that moves from one willing city to the other, pitting one against the other.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Welcome to Rick Perry’s Texas.
Impartial Atheist Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 6:37 am
After reading the comments above, I endeavored to answer the question for my own satisfaction… In other words, I decided to find out if David Simpson should go fuck himself by, basically, fucking myself.
To wit, I proceeded directly to David Simpson’s campaign website and I found a speech entitled “Why as a Christian I am involved in Politics.”
In it, Simpson explicitly advocates for limited government based on biblical direction. He says he wants to “restore individual liberty and freedom,” but seems to limit that to people who believe in the bible (which he references four times).
Presumably, in a world controlled by David Simpson, this would mean that anyone who does not believe in his version of god would not enjoy liberty and freedom.
Ergo, I believe David Simpson can, and should, go fuck himself.
Reply »
anita Reply:
September 26th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
I find some humor in those like Simpson who want to impose Christian law, but who also scream about the imposition of Sharia law — it’s a slippery slope once you start handing over your legal structures to mullahs of any faith.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Corporate welfare and cronyism are two areas where Perry is consistent and predictable.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
Michael Quinn Sullivan is intellectually dishonest and distorts more facts than revisionist Russian historians.
He should turn in his Eagle Scout credentials. With him, the ends justify the means, and the means are rarely with respect to others. (Then again, other Eagle Scouts have also demonstrated a departure from a moral center. See: L Ron Hubbard, Donald Rumsfeld, and Michael Moore.)
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Rick Perry is an Eagle Scout and just the kind of scoutmaster I don’t want out in the woods with teenage boys …
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Rick Perry held a big photo op as he praised Robert Rodriguez for making a film in Texas. Hilariously it was a movie that pretty much smacked Rick Perry across the face politically.
Then on 4-23-09 Perry issued a press release crowing about the Rodriguez film… soon to be known as Machete.
I will tell you this – the politicians do want the border open and they do want the drug trade flowing. They want it flowing up their noses and the money into their pockets or their friends pockets.
Here is Perry’s big press release on a film he ended up axing a subsidy for: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12277/
As for Michael Quinn Sullivan – he is a little step-and-fetch-it boy for Rick Perry. Sullivan’s position or non-position on toll road scams says it all. I remember at the 2007 Texas straw poll in Dallas as Michael Quinn Sullivan surveyed the negative response given to Ron Paul; Sullivan said “God, I hate Republicans.”
Ever since then Sullivan has been a shill for Rick Perry and the statists. If he doesn’t like all these stupid movie subsidies, why doesn’t he call up Rick Perry and suggest he stop them?
Reply »
anita says:
The film incentive fund is under the direct control of the Governor’s Office. It’s clearly set up in Chapter 485 of the Government Code in this manner.
The only role the Legislature plays is with the minimal sales and excise tax exemptions for Texas films in the Tax Code.
Reply »
southtexasdemocrat says:
Well usually when Im negative $-150 dollars in my bank account I don’t go to the movies that weekend.
It’s the same for the film incentives. Two sessions ago Perry signed the bill giving more money to Producers and Directors to come to our State. This session when we are in a hole and you have to cut everywhere you can. You are looking to much into it Paul.
Im sure when Obama pays back the State for the Billions Texas tax payers have payed on the Wall and border security we can give the incentives back to Texas film makers.
Reply »
Brown Bess says:
Meanwhile, Perry loses to Herman Cain in Florida straw poll.
Reply »
anita says:
Damn. Perry’s my man. I love me some Perry as the nominee.
Reply »
anita says:
Of course, the ever-classy MQS tears into Burka on his website, calling him “liberal” about 10 times in a single post. How petty.
Reply »
Nun With A Ruler Reply:
September 24th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Funny how the Mucous’ comments mirror what, just a little later in the overall timeline, was written by anonymous at 9:43 am.
If you’re going to have teeny, tiny little balls, they might as well be shaved hairless and powdered dry.
Reply »
anita says:
Let’s be honest about the politics on Simpson’s amendment. There are only two main backers of incentives for the film industry — Rep. Dawnna Dukes and Gov. Rick Perry. The Incentives survived in the House not because of Dukes — they survived solely because Perry wanted to protect the Governor’s Office.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
We need to clean house and elect people who will quit spending and giving away OUR money on goofy projects and pay for play incentive programs. They need to dump programs and state employees, and get back to basics.
Yeah, it will hurt, but our grandchildren will love us for it.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If Rick can’t be Herman Cain who can he beat? Welcome home Rick, we hardly missed you when you were out campaigning for—what was that you wanted to be?
Reply »
Herdon Katz says:
Rather pay the film industry than Formula Race cars. Susan Combs in charge of that one, I believe.
Reply »
Aynahneemuss says:
The legislature appropriates money. That they are pathetic and weak reflects on them as much, if not more, than perry.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Aynahneemuss……Perry has VETO and executive power….therefore the “pathetic and weak” remark reflects much more on Perry
Reply »
Aynahneemuss Reply:
September 25th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Neither the veto or executive power provides him with money for films. That’s on the appropriators.
Reply »
AnonYmous says:
Are these comments not being monitored? The F word and insinuations that Rick Perry is a pedophile? Not exactly the type of analysis I enjoy reading.
Reply »
Wag The Dog says:
Here is a Question for anyone…Why does anyone react or print or care what Michael Sullivan says? What are his accomplishments, his background that prove him as the voice of the fiscal conservative movement. Our legislators are supposed to be reacting to what me-the constituent- want our elected officials to care about. NOT what some random guy tells me or the legislature what they think the issues are.
If MQS popps his head up at any of your races or republican clubs touting what he thinks the issues are, ask him to divulge the names and addresses of those supporting him and why we in Austin or wherever should listen to someone from a different part of the state. Tell him you want someone that listens to your concerns- Not someone from midland. We have to start holding our representatives accountable for what WE as the voting public think is important to us – not what a one man self important man thinks SHOULD be important to us. I want my representtaive to voice Austin values – not a one man show that pics and chooses which votes he uses.
He was created by Perry to start a movement in the grassroots – he has gotten out of control.
Someone please shine a light on this goofball – OR stop writing about him or responding to his comments at all.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This Sullivan fellow is a product of our political system in Texas. Paul, please don’t take this the wrong way because I know you try…but where have all the Marvin Zindlers gone? If you don’t know who he is, do a quick search. There was a time in Texas where the press would go out, do a little research on a man like Sullivan, and find out the truth (the press was feared in Texas at one time). We haven’t that kind of press in Texas anymore. Quite frankly, if the press in TX would have gone after Perry on issues in years past, he would have been a stronger national candidate today. He has had a pass for the past decade and it is showing. The press in TX has to change. If it doesn’t, expect us to look more backwater as the years go by.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul- I am just happy to see you covering something that has to do with the Texas Legislature. Now on to a question people here are talking about… When is Denise Davis out of the Speaker’s office? Rumor has it that she resigned???
Reply »
Bonnie Bruce says:
Anonymous @11:26p.m. – I’m pretty familiar with that office and I can tell you that Ms. Davis has not resigned and her Caribou is safe on her wall.
Reply »