Gym, Tan, Laundry, Cut Off?

[LSN80]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/26/news/economy/jersey_shore_tax_credit/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

With all the depressing stuff going on in the world today, I felt we could go for a lighter subject today.

In the above article, the discussion centers around the recent controversial decision made by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie regarding The Jersey Shore. Christie has already been in the news lately as a possibility for throwing his name into the hat in the already overcrowded GOP race, but he's making noise here for a completely different reason. In New Jersey, TV shows filmed or produced in the state get a 20% credit. However, Christie vetoed the tax break Monday for The Jersey Shore, stating the following:

"I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the state and its citizens."

Yeah, I see where Christie is coming from. Ive seen the show exactly once, and that was at a marathon that was on at a New-Years Eve party my wife and I were attending. but it should also be noted that Christie doesn't approve of the tax break to begin with, and is seemingly using The Jersey Shore as a sacrificial lamb.

The danger here in my eyes is that we have one man telling us what does and does not make for good, conceptually sound television. A one-man censor doesn't bode well for any state that is run under a democracy. Is Jersey Shore trash? From what Ive seen, yes. They drink, swear, fight, screw, and get thrown in jail. But they've met the standards set by law in terms of criteria to air on television, so I have a hard time accepting one man being able to determine what deserves his tax credit, especially since his state is reaping the windfall of return the show brings due to it's unwavering success. The argument could also be made if the time comes where a lawsuit is filed against the state by Jersey Shore where the argument could be made that they met the law's criteria for being awarded the tax break, only to have it arbitrarily revoked by a politically motivated governor.

Further, this is a subjective decision that fails to take into account other shows filmed in Jersey. For example, The Sopranos was also filmed and set in New Jersey. Did James Gandolfini and his merry band of mobsters provide a proper "conception" for what New Jersey looks like? Id hope not- yet not a peep was made from Christie regarding it. I see the difference- The Sopranos was a work of fiction, while Jersey Shore is a reality show. But when looking at both shows by the numbers, you have two of the three highest rated and most successful windfalls in the history of cable.(Sopranos at #1, Jersey Shore at #3). So Christie's state, whether he supports the show or feels it conceptualizes it's "people", is still reaping the windfall of having Jersey Shore filmed in his state.

Detractors of Christie's decision are fewer then one would expect, especially with the popularity of the show. Seaside Heights(where Jersey Shore is filmed) Mayor P. Kenneth Hershey is one of those detractors.

Targeting certain shows and stripping "Jersey Shore" of its tax credit would have a chilling effect on production companies when they consider doing business in New Jersey. In the case of "Jersey Shore," the tax incentive was well worth it because it brings millions of dollars and additional jobs to the state.

Again, this is a double-edged sword for me. From a moralistic standpoint, I support Christie's decision. But it's a dangerous precedent to arbitrarily deny a credit to one show based upon one man's opinion and morality, even if he's right.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Mustang Sally]

The New Jersey's Economic Development Authority already approved the $420,000 tax credit, based on the production company's application. Governor Christie has the statutory authority to veto, but it could call into question whether the entire $10 million incentive program has to be canceled along with Jersey Shore's credit. A legal challenge may ensue.

Once again, though, the problem is the notion of one person dictating morals to everyone else; 495 Productions (the company that produces "Jersey Shore"), the state's Economic Development Authority......plus the taxpayers of New Jersey. It affects the latter if the Jersey Shore people decide to pack up their bags and take their business to another state, depriving the state of some of the benefits provided by the operation of the show in the state. After all, the producers could still call their show "Jersey Shore" even if they film somewhere else. Doesn't some of the shoreline in Delaware look what what they've got in Jersey? Then, they issue an announcement at the beginning of each show, stating that the show is filmed in that new location. It just might cancel out some of the attraction the show brings to Jersey.

I took a look at the "New Jersey Film Tax Credit Transfer Application" and while quite a lot of information is required, I didn't see a "morals clause" anywhere, forbidding approval if the Governor finds the production to be in bad taste.

Maybe he shouldn't be so quick to decide what's good for us and what isn't.

 

[Davi323]

he should have just used the more common sense reason. Tax credits/film incentives such as these are fiscal losers as far as the states go. You NEVER get as much money back as you put in to it. Michigan was doing the exact same thing, but once they figured the ridiculousness of giving away 40 million to get 25 million back, they wised up that while it sounds cool to have movies/TV filmed in your state, if you are losing money on the deal, it's not a good deal, regardless of the coolness factor.

But, Christie still has a valid point, I think. The Jersey Shore does depict the state in a negative light. That means less tourism dollars coming in to the state. New Jersey already has a huge inferiority complex because of New York, so anything additional that might harm their overall revenue stream needs to be looked at with a lot of scrutiny. It's not Christie being the morality police, its a straight up financial decision. Bad publicity equals reduced tourism to New Jersey equals less money for the state.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I don't like Jersey Shore. I also don't see how anyone else could. However, I respect the fact that many people do like it. If Christie gets what he wants then it poses a rather large issue due to an act of censoring being made from only one man's opinion. He lives in a nation where everyone has a right to their opinion. This was going to bring in a lot of needed money to the state, that should not be thrown away simply because one man doesn't like the stereotype that it promotes.

Stereotypes are not always bad. There are worse issues to deal with in the world. Look at me for instance, I live in Texas. The fact that I tell you that might automatically make you think that I wear cowboy hats, boots, drive a pickup truck, live on a farm, listen to nothing but country music, and am as far to the right wing of politics as one could be. Correct? Well.... I actually never wear cowboy hats, drive a Toyota Avalon rather than a pickup truck, live in an apartment rather than on a farm, detest country music, and am politically moderate. People like me are far more common in my state than one would think. I don't fit any Texan stereotypes other than the fact that I say "yall".

Much like my own stereotypes, not everyone in Jersey fits the stereotypes that Jersey Shore shows. Most people are smart enough to know that as well. It's just a tv show. Christie should think about the good things that can come out of the tax and just leave it alone. Everyone could use more money and job opportunities. Disliking what a show promotes is hardly a reason to take that away from the state.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

While I agree with Christie stripping the tax break for the show I completely disagree with the stated reasoning. The reason to strip the show from its tax break is that the show does not need the break. It is a proven success and does not need investment from tax payers to stay a success (see Oil Company subsidies).

I also don't believe that he pulled the tax break because of the content of the show. I believe that he pulled the tax break because of the positive conservative press this would get him. Does anyone know if he pulled the tax break from other less popular productions? Jersey Show has a huge following, it is going to make the news cycle. This is going to score major points with conservatives, the religious right and Tea Party members. In other words, the people you need to win the Republican Presidential Nomination. This $420,000 is not going to save NJ that much money but it is going to get Christie a lot of press and votes.

To me, this has nothing to do with censorship. Christie is sharing his viewpoint on the program but not legislating whether or not the consumer can consume that program.

 

[GI Cake]

The Jersey Shore is a disgrace, I have never felt so bad for anyone from a state from a merely Television show. That said, I personally had to deal with this idiot cast when I was at work in South Beach. They're glorified to be stupid and provide no real input to the economy or anything helpful. That being said, I feel that Chris Christie is making a poor choice in axing the $420,000 tax credit. As much as I hate to say it, the Jersey Guido thing has been the best thing to happen to Jersey's economy. You could have set a orphanage on fire but it wouldn't even compare to the headlines Snooki gets for sporting a new haircut. Publicity is publicity, if their is a bill that is inspiring people to go out and spend money on gym memberships, protein shakes, and tanning beds, then by all means, don't axe it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.