Union Pacific, film industry deals are very different

Comments

  1. Michael L Hays says:

    Paul:

    A brief answer.

    First, thank you for agreeing that you are not a principled “free-market” advocate.

    Second, my preferred method is twofold: one, develop research-industrial parks around local universities as happens elsewhere in the country, probably most notably in the research triangle in North Carolina; and, two, reform public education so that those whose business is as transportable as a laptop and whose spouses are concerned about their children’s education know that an educated work force can meet their entrepreneurial needs and satisfy their desire for their children’s education.

  2. realist says:

    I don’t think that’s what Sanchez is saying. We have according to LFC over 320 carve outs and the only one we get to put an actual cost on is Film. What does the hold harmless on GRT cost us ? How about exemptions to new car dealers which is one that even Don Chalmers doesn’t fully support. Our subsidies to the Medical Industries that several other states have looked to reduce are obscene. Its completely beyond me why this state seems incapable of combined reporting. The DWI “Industry” costs us conservatively half a billion a year plus extra insurance for those that do insure correctly. We exempt Cage Fighting for petes sake !. Gov Mart opened this conversation by reducing the Film Tax Credit by 40% while favoring an already heavily subsidized industry that was the first to receive a tax break 99 years ago ! ( not to mention the Gadsden purchase.) She right, we should look at film. But why stop there/

  3. pgessing says:

    So, Michael, eliminating a tax on locomotive fuel is now somehow anti-free market? Do you oppose doing this to attract Union Pacific to New Mexico? What is YOUR preferred method of developing New Mexico’s economy? You level these general criticisms, but offer few specifics.

    Taxes on motor fuel for vehicles should be allocated to paying for the roads. The railroads build and maintain their own tracks. There is really no justification for taxing locomotive fuel at all aside from the fact that government wants more money.

  4. Michael L Hays says:

    I wish that Paul Gessing were a supporter of the “free market.” Regrettably, he prefers government meddling through its support of big businesses with powerful political influence by cutting their tax obligations. Worse, he pretends that reduced or eliminated taxes do not leave millions owed to the state in corporate coffers. This tactic discourages companies from being good citizens in the states; indeed, it encourages them to gouge states for special treatment. Gessing’s “free market” serves, not as a principle, but as a platform to denounce government regulations which enable citizen to have better health from clean air and clean water, or protect workers’s safety in mines and factories, or on farms.

  5. Hemingway says:

    We do not have any “empirical evidence of the industry’s effect” on jobs in New Mexico. The only information we get is the hyperbole of the film industry and of a few misguided state legislators, who are clueless about the program.

    Also the details of how film production companies have been spending taxpayer dollars has been kept private (confidential) from the public ever since the state of New Mexico opened its arms to Hollywood. The public deserves to know about the reimbursement of expenses – all details. Plus we need an audit of the program ASAP before we give away more state money for a nebulous return. It appears to a bad investment for the state and a cash cow for the wealthy film producers. As they said in a TV commercial: “Where is the beef (real jobs)?”