By John Seiler

Hollywood usually backs left-wing causes, such as tax increases and politicians who increase taxes. For example, Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand are big fans of President Obama. They agree with him that tax increases will spur growth, rather than retard it.

But Hollywood does insist that tax cuts boost growth for one group: themselves.

Here’s Amy Lemisch, executive director California Film Commission, writing a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

“Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent decision to extend our film and TV tax-credit program for an additional two years was supported by a uniquely broad bipartisan coalition of legislators, as well as business and labor groups from across the state for one simple reason: It works.

“Unlike the Massachusetts program referenced in your editorial, California’s tax credit is highly targeted and applies only to “below-the-line” spending, such as wages paid to carpenters, electricians and other crew members. Not a single dime of our tax credit goes toward salaries of highly compensated ‘above-the-line’ talent—in other words, those referenced in your editorial as ‘Hollywood’s mendicants.’

“Furthermore, independent studies (not just the ones you selected to reference) show that our program more than pays for itself in state and local tax revenue, not to mention direct and indirect jobs. Producers can’t claim a dime of our tax credit until after they pay their workers and complete all their in-state spending.”

A reader named Gary Stutz from Ben Lomond replied in another letter:

“Amy Lemisch, executive director of the California Film Commission, writes in her letter (Oct. 18) regarding tax credits for Hollywood that ‘our program more than pays for itself in state and local tax revenue, not to mention direct and indirect jobs.’ So, lower tax rates result in higher tax revenue and more jobs. Who knew?”

Of course, it’s total hypocrisy. Hollywood backs Brown’s Proposition 30 tax increase. In return, he backs continuing the tax cuts for Hollywood.

In the Hollywood movie “The Distinguished Gentleman,” Eddie Murphy learns how the same thing is done in the U.S. Congress:

By Joseph Perkins

The California Film Commission is holding a lottery next week for filmmakers and television producers. The lucky winners will share $100 million worth of taxpayer subsidies.

It’s part of the state’s three-year-old Film and Television Tax Credit Program, the purpose of which is to prevent rival states from luring productions away from Hollywood.

Since the program’s inception, tax credits have gone to some 165 productions, according to Amy Lemisch, the Film Commission’s Executive Director. Those “incentives” have generated nearly $3 billion in spending here in the Golden State, she said, and created nearly 30,000 jobs.

The Film Commission is hopeful that the Legislature will approve a bill, introduced by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar, which would extend the tax credit program, scheduled to expire next year, until 2018.

The measure passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee last week. It remains to be seen if it ultimately finds its way into the state budget the Legislature sends to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Tax Credit Program Does Not Reap Promised Benefits

Lawmakers just might consider the tax credit a luxury the state treasury simply cannot afford, giventhe $16 billion state budget deficit.

And especially considering a recent report by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment suggesting that the $100 million-a-year state giveaway does not yield the payoff claimed by Lemisch and other less-than-objective boosters.

The report, authored by Lauren Appelbaum, Chris Tilly, and Juliet Huang, studied the economic and production impact of the state’s film and television tax credit. It concluded that the return on the Hollywood subsidy program is, at best, an economic wash for the state.

According to the report, in order for the state to break even on the tax credit, at least 88 percent of productions applying for but not receiving the credit would have to film outside of California. But of the sample the authors studied, 36 percent of productions passed over for state tax credits nonetheless filmed in California.

That’s because, while film and television producers are only too happy to take state subsidies, the handouts are not the lone determining factor in where motion pictures and TV shows are made.

Other important factors cited by the report include production crew depth and quality, technological expertise and a critical mass of production and postproduction facilities.

That echoes a 2010 report prepared for the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation by the Kyser Center for Economic Research that listed those factors, as well as California’s unique confluence of well-regarded film schools, entertainment community and film industry suppliers.

All of those factors work in California’s favor, wrote UCLA’s Appelbaum, Tilly and Huang, and tend to keep film and television here in Golden State.

There is one tangible benefit of the film and TV tax credit, at least at the margin: and it helps to offset the high cost of doing business in California, includes state and local taxes, labor costs and regulation.

However, if the cost of doing business in California was average for the 50 states — rather than ranking worst among the states — it would have far more impact than tax credits on the share of films and TV shows produced in California, compared to other states.