Films or Potholes?

Cost of film subsidy program would repair over 5 million potholes

The Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature has passed a budget allocating $50 million for the state's film subsidy program.

Previously, the budget from House Republicans proposed eliminating the program, while Gov. Rick Snyder, who has said he is philosophically opposed to the program, asked for $25 million. But the GOP and Democratic leadership in the Michigan Senate wanted a minimum of $50 million annually.

Meanwhile, Michiganders are being told by the governor, legislators and outside groups that the state needs to devote more money to fixing the roads. That is true, but before legislators impose a tax increase on residents they should end the film program and use the money for infrastructure.

After all, if road funding is so important that it would literally "save lives," as advocates of increased road spending say, how many lives are the Legislature and governor risking by spending millions on subsidies to Big Hollywood?

Here is what taxpayers could get for the $50 million lawmakers are pledging toward films for the upcoming fiscal year (all numbers are approximate):

For a lot of reasons, film subsidies are one of the least efficient ways to use public dollars. Since the program began in 2008, the state has spent $400 million — that's an awful lot of unfixed potholes.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

* There are few sources for the cost of repairing potholes. According to the Calhoun County Road Commission, it costs an average of $9.41 to fix a pothole.


Related Articles:

Potential Corporate Welfare Binge Risks Second Michigan ‘Lost Decade’

84 Companies Offered $63.8 Million Michigan Taxpayer Dollars In 2016

Done: With School Pension Reform, State's Big Pension Liabilities Contained

Why Pension Reform Is Hard for Politicians

Other States Divulge What Michigan's Corporate Welfare Arm Keeps Secret

Gov. Snyder Signs Forfeiture Reform Bills

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:

Facebook
Twitter

There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites