S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley made a cameo appearance on the Lifetime Television drama Army Wives on Sunday night – despite the fact that she voted against taxpayer-funded incentives for the program less than a year ago as a S.C. Representative.
Filmed in Charleston, S.C., Lifetime executives threatened to move production of Army Wives out of the Palmetto state last year unless lawmakers agreed to keep the generous taxpayer-funded incentives rolling. The show’s producers claim that the program has contributed $120 million to the Lowcountry economy since 2006 – although it’s unclear how they arrived at that figure, how much taxpayers gave up in order to create this “impact” or whether those tax dollars could have been better invested elsewhere.
Of course therein lies the basic problem with government picking winners and losers in the marketplace … these investments almost never come with a cost-benefit analysis for taxpayers.
Army Wives premiered on Lifetime in 2007 to rave reviews and solid ratings. The show drew 4.2 million viewers for its fifth season premiere episode a week ago – no doubt making the network a bundle of money in ad revenue. No word yet on how Haley’s show rated … but her appearance certainly has South Carolina taxpayers questioning whether the juice was worth the squeeze.
Supporters of these film credits – most of them filmmakers – say that tax breaks and rebate payments (which routinely cover up to 50 percent of production costs) are worth the investment. Critics, on the other hand, refer to the incentives as “unfunded welfare programs for movie producers.”
We’re with the critics …
Last May – a month before then-Rep. Haley voted to sustain Gov. Mark Sanford‘s film incentives veto - Haley’s allies at the S.C. Policy Council released a report challenging these sweetheart deals. Entitled “Lawmakers’ Hollywood Dreams Hurting Taxpayers,” this report relied heavily on a 2008 study published by College of Charleston economist Frank Hefner which found that for every tax dollar spent on film incentives in South Carolina, the state’s general fund received only 19 cents back.
“The trickle-down spending produced by the film industry generates less in tax revenue than the tax dollars spent to attract film makers,” the Policy Council reported concluded.
The Policy Council also blasted film incentives for … you guessed it … a “lack of transparency.”
Will the Policy Council now criticize Haley for appearing in one of these taxpayer-subsidized shows? Oh … and for signaling her openness to supporting similar deals for other shows in the future?
Don’t hold your breath …
The Army Wives fiasco isn’t the only example of Haley wanting to “have her cake and eat it, too” as it relates to these controversial incentives. Last month Haley publicly questioned an incentives deal that was offered to Amazon.com during the Sanford administration – but then just last week she privately told lawmakers that she wouldn’t veto the incentives bill if it reached her desk.
(Click to enlarge)
Pics: Lifetime
***
By Shameless March 14, 2011 at 6:18 am
Her administration is one big political campaign. One bumper sticker press announcement after another. It relies on the fact that the press has been emasculated and will not do heavy research on the outcomes of all these pronouncements.
The phantom employee is the perfect example. He was never interviewed in a meaningful way, He was never asked “will you certify that you only receive $1.00 per year for your work, with NO outside income”?
If an administration can have a secret employee inside OUR government, who is in fact an agent for rich businessmen, then it can do anything it wants.
By Frappy March 14, 2011 at 7:29 am
Bitch needs to be looking for jobs, oh well the meth head tea baggers elected her as a protest to OBammie and now we are stuck with her.
By John Steinberger March 14, 2011 at 7:53 am
I commend Gov. Haley for her stand against giving preferential tax treatment for one particular industry. I hope she will get behind the South Carolina FairTax Act (S-274), which will eliminate income taxes on all South Carolina businesses and the consumers who drive 70% of our economy.
By Jeff March 14, 2011 at 8:08 am
….as I have said all along, for Haley it is about self promotion….she’s gotta get that book out and any tv promotions quick before Will shoots off his book about her….on her….in her….around her! Oh well, you get the point! More of the same irreverant (Do as I say not as I Do) B.S. from the Marky Mark Sandfraud play book! You’d think the people of this state would learn!
By costcutter March 14, 2011 at 9:31 am
How did he suddenly get a commission while in his mid 30′s with no military background? His only meaningful employment has been his failed bartering business. Did he enlist and then go to PMA? Where did the money come from to reside in Governors Grant as her employment was a legislator, intermittent influence peddler and employee as a fundraiser for the Lexington Medical Center foundation. I guess we will find out in her book.
By so much for family values (again) March 14, 2011 at 9:38 am
The AP story said Haley “could relate” to the characters on the show because her husband is in the military. HE’S NEVER BEEN DEPLOYED! It’s a cushy job she bought for him! There is NO COMPARISON between the Haleys and the thousands of REAL military families who sacrifice so much – including friends and relatives of mine who have gone through three and four deployments!
They want to have someone on the show from South Carolina who can “relate” to its military theme? How about Marine Lance Corporal William Kyle Carpenter, of Gilbert, who threw himself on a grenade to protect his buddy, and who was horribly injured and disfigured as a result. Who has been nominated for the Medal of Honor. Who is only 21 years old. There’s your REAL military man. Your REAL HERO. His family understands the sacrifice that is portrayed on the show. NOT the Haleys. She’s such a media whore.
Pingback: FITS: Haley’s “Army Wives” Fiasco
By Gillon March 14, 2011 at 10:17 am
“Costcutter” and “By so much…”. make good points. I’m sure the public would be interested in exactly what training, if any, that Michael Haley had to undergo to qualify to become an officer in the SC Army National Guard. Or did he follow the same route(instantaneous political appointment) as Mark Sanford did with his Air Force Reserves commission?
By cash March 14, 2011 at 10:38 am
How about the loving army wife who wanted to leave her husband for Fits founding editor? How about the adoring army wife who took her kids to Mellow Mushroom to introduce her kids to him? How about the caring army wife and the STD? How about the army wife who has been hit with multiple affair allegations, not to mention affairs that will never be known about? Now that would be an army wife show in itself.
By Huhhh??? March 14, 2011 at 11:13 am
“The trickle-down spending produced by the film industry generates less in tax revenue than the tax dollars spent to attract film makers,” the Policy Council reported concluded.
Gee, you mean the Koch/Rich/Cato bunch aknowledges, like the Reagan Administration’s budget guy David Stockman, that trickle down was/is just a carnival barker shell game???
By Step to the Right March 14, 2011 at 11:13 am
Big deal – Obama and the entire gang of socialist Democrats vote against all things “capitalist” and enjoy the benefits their entire lives. Maybe the RINO “faux conservatives” are just getting up to speed on this kind of taxpayer scam. NO problem here – The good folks in Connecticut would agree – they elected a US Senator scumbag who lied about his military experience and was overwhelmingly elected to dutifully serve the liberal agenda for 6 years! At least we will only have this governor for 4 years and then maybe a true conservative will run who can keep their zipper up, panties on and brain engaged.
A vote for Nikki Haley was a vote against liberal socialist who support Obama and the Democrat agenda. Plain and simple!
Haley will not be re-elected when a more viable and responsible candidate announces. The more serious problem is with our legislature that has no vision & no leadership. It’s all about big government and higher taxes – regardless of party affiliation – which does not bode well for our economy.
By Crooner March 14, 2011 at 11:15 am
Doesn’t that make Sic “Jody?” You know, the one who “got your girl and gone.”
By StateGuard March 14, 2011 at 11:20 am
Costcutter,
Probably a Direct Commission – the same way Sanford got his.
By cash March 14, 2011 at 11:23 am
Presently in the Punjab, adultery is punishable by imprisonment. Guess she’s glad to be in the USA. One proud American!
By Joel Sawyer March 14, 2011 at 11:44 am
Quit picking on Nikki and her wonderful husband or else !
By Tom Stickler March 14, 2011 at 11:53 am
Sic — thanks for the details on this “Army Wives” incentives issue. If I had to rely on my local rag, the only thing I would know was that Nikki had a cameo, and there was a controversy over incentives, but not the sort of details FitsNews provides.
By mama March 14, 2011 at 11:55 am
Well at least she brough forth positive impact to SC unlike Sanford who brough humiliation and shame to his family and SC. Haley did it before she was sworn in as gov and was not PAID.
LET SC SHINE!!!!!!!
By Alabaster II March 14, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Is there a video of that episode?
By Scooter March 14, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Policy Council? Yeah, one big bunch of agenda driven right wing nuts. Like we need to pay attention to that bunch. Haley? Two faced as ever. I am glad we have a few things in SC to be proud of, and Army Wives seems to be one. I don’t watch, but am glad it is filmed here. Good recognition for the state and money is generated. Why do we always have to blame anything that seems educational, artistic, or positive on a liberal agenda to break the backs of the rich? Really, we are all in this together. Let’s have a moral budget and try to have more things in SC we can point to as progressive and helpful to all, in one way of another.
By SCBoy March 14, 2011 at 3:49 pm
The only people I respect in the military are the ones who have been in combat. The rest, which includes most, get too much credit for just doing a job. We have to distinguish between the two when we are honoring military folks.
The top are the ones who make the ultimate sacrifice, followed by wounded ones and then the ones who were in combat.
By dwb619 March 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm
What’s Nimrata gonna’ be on next? Jersey Shore?
By Alan Smithee March 14, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Oy vey. This “story” is misleading in so many ways, that it’s any wonder how this site can make the audacious claim to be driving the debate on all things political in this state. Are people who frequent this site gullible enough to think that the information above constitutes anything remotely close to reality? Where to begin? First, Will: if you’re going to get your talking points from the SC Policy Council, at least try to have enough independence of mind to do a little research before regurgitating their flawed numbers. The original numbers provided to Dr. Hefner came from the Dept. of Commerce’s research department. I personally knew one of those former researchers who told me that the whole department was under tremendous pressure by Joe Taylor to make the film incentive numbers look bad. No one in the dept. had a clue how to read a film budget and in the end only supplied Dr. Hefner with a very limited report. Dr. Hefner then crunched what he was given to work with, and everyone with an agenda took it as gospel. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. It wasn’t long after that many of the researchers, including the head of the department, left Commerce because the atmosphere was so toxic on many levels.
A similar study was also conducted by Dr. Doug Woodward at USC that showed the exact opposite; that the state benefitted greatly from the film incentives. Why didn’t FITS or the Policy Council mention that? Oh yeah, this site is not held to the same journalistic standards as the old media, and I guess it didn’t quite fit in with your libertarian narrative, huh?
You wrote, “Of course therein lies the basic problem with government picking winners and losers in the marketplace … these investments almost never come with a cost-benefit analysis for taxpayers.”
It takes all of two seconds to go onto the state’s Film Commission website to look at the numbers generated by productions that shoot here: http://www.filmsc.com/about/reports/annual/default.aspx Seems like a pretty good return on the state’s investment from my perspective. But I’m just a simple tax payer who sees positive return from more than a tax-on-tax perspective. Some of us prefer our state to have films and other productions that bring new spending and positive media coverage. That’s entirely too esoteric for, as another poster stated, “agenda driven” folks.
So much for the Policy Council’s “blasting” claim of “lack of transparency.” But I guess when one has only a single gear to operate on, then letting facts get in the way only muddies the water and prevents an open debate to take place.
As for the Policy Council’s claim that the state is subsidizing 50% of a film’s production costs, that’s a disingenuous way of throwing numbers around. My quick review of the state’s film website shows that productions have to spend a minimum $1 million FIRST to even qualify for the incentives, and then they are rebated 20% for crew wages and 30% of supplies purchased. That’s certainly not the same as giving away 50% on BOTH wages and supplies. If you still think it is then why don’t you post that advertisers on your site can save 20% on a banner ad and 30% on a small rotator ad, so you can brag that you saved them 50%. Jeeze, if this is the way you all look at numbers then no wonder neither you nor the Policy Council have much street cred.
By Richard B. Starkey March 14, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Wow, theres enough botox and face structuring bone putty to fill a 50 gallon trash can.
By Peter O March 14, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I don’t understand how she’s a hypocrite. She nevr said she didn’t want the show there. Her vote signified that she didn’t think the state should pay for it.
It’s the same as how I think the state’s $300 sales tax cap should be removed, but, as long as it’s there, I’ll certainly use it when I buy a car.
By Lived it March 15, 2011 at 12:29 am
As someone who grew up in a family where the Department of Defense/US government made us move every three years, I get sick and tired of all of the weekend warriors demanding the respect of those that spent their entire lives making real sacrifices for our freedom. Screw Mr. Haley and his “military service.” It is nothing like the day in and day out service of full time warriors. Each of the four children in my family were born while my dad was flying missions over Vietnam. My mom never received an ounce of credit. No parades, no celebrations. My dad wore a uniform for the better part of four decades and he never held himself out to others as a hero. He did his job and served our nation without the self aggrandizement that is so common today. Serving full time in the real deal service is very different from one weekend a month and two weeks a year. The sacrifices of military families: the moves to strange places, the new schools, the loss of consistent relationships, the alienation from family, the constant adjustments, the toll on the family unit…none of these are given the proper credit. Haley is a joke and he is an embarrassment to those that earned their rank and deserve our appreciation. So many of our politicians stroke each other off in the Guard and brag through their campaigns about their “service.” Wonder why so many state politicians have high ranks in the Guard? Follow the money. As politicians, they control the Guard purse strings. The two stars my dad wore on his shoulder were legitimate. He earned them through hard work and dedication to the betterment of our nation, not to self interest or because of who his daddy was. I see so many pols that could never make a career or the same rank in the full time military….Lindsay Graham, Alan Wilson, Joe Wilson, Eckstrom, Gresham, Connor, Sanford, Spears. All bad jokes to those that spent their lives defending our nation for all the right reason and not as some punchline in a political campaign.
By not fair March 15, 2011 at 6:32 am
Lived It,
Many many heartfelts thanks to your dad and your family for your service and sacrifices.
By eggaday March 15, 2011 at 6:53 am
thank you Live it.
By The Colonel March 15, 2011 at 8:59 am
Lived it, Two words for you buddy, bite me.
As a “weekend wonder” I’ve spent an average of 100 days on active duty every year since I left active duty in 1992. Two days a month and two weeks a year is about all the free time I have.
I’ve deployed to combat zones twice as a “weekend warrior”. In fact I’ve been all over the world “weekend warrioring”. Most of the soldiers in my current unit of assignment have at least two deployments to their credit. My youngest child was born three hours before I left for my first stint in SWA. Because we didn’t live on/ near a post, my wife had to drive two hours to access the health care system my “weekend warrioring” entitled her and the baby to. I’ve actually been home for about half of my three boy’s birthdays because I was out “weekend warrioring”.
I don’t get 30 days paid leave a year and I spend most of what I do get “weekend warrioring”, the rest I do while on leave without pay from my job. I pay for my health care, I don’t get a housing allowance, my 8 year old has lived in two states and three different houses as my career required me to move. I know many “full time warriors” who have never deployed or if they have, it was “to get the patch” to further their career. Military brats are not the only kids who “suffer” for their father’s career choices, my dad worked for IBM, we moved every three years for the first 15 years of my life, he traveled 3-4 days a week, every week and damn sure didn’t get a “4 day training holiday” every month.
Kudos to your father for his service. When you’ve actually given some service to your country feel free to talk shit about those of us that chose to serve in the Reserve Forces of the United States.
By The Colonel March 15, 2011 at 10:38 am
Hey Lived It, Just a couple more thoughts about “weekend warriors”
Lindsey Graham served on active duty in the Air Force for 6 years and then joined the SC Air National Guard, he later transferred to the Army Reserves. He has served two short tours in Iraq (not at all unusual for an Air Force Reservist). Because he was a lawyer, he started as a CPT and is at the appropriate rank for a lawyer with his number of years of service (30 years). He will have to retire this year if he is not selected for Brigadier General.
Joe Wilson had 31 years of service in both the Army Reserves and South Carolina Army National Guard. He retired as a COL – an appropriate rank for a JAG officer with 30 years of service. Unlike your father’s son Lived It, all four of Congressman Wilson’s sons are serving their country in the military (Navy, Army and Army National Guard if I recall correctly).
Stan Spears earned the rank of brigadier General before he was elected to be the Adjutant General.
By follydude March 16, 2011 at 9:27 pm
oh, Colonel, care to comment on Mr. Haley’s commission?