Hollywood Receives Government Help — Why No Salary Caps?
by Dan GiffordWhen Uncle Sam fought WWII, Hollywood backed him with patriotic movies and war bond drives and moral boosting celebrity appearances. When Uncle Sam fought Communists, Hollywood was a mixed bag. His GIs in Korea got support. His GIs in Vietnam, not so much, as some damned his war with movies of faint praise that depicted Imperialist aggression by ugly Americans against peoples who just wanted be free from capitalist exploitation.
Hollywood on Uncle Sam’s terrorism fight? Don’t even ask.
But now that it’s Uncle Obama on the warpath against the most diabolical villain in the populist panoply, Hollywood is back to showing its anti-Axis resolve against this most indefensible of enemies.
That enemy (for now anyway) is the army of the overpaid — those individuals who represent an unholy axis of unsupervised greed with incomes that evoke envy in the psyche of the ordinary workin’ mench at the mercy of The Man. And why not? According to human resources expert Patrick R. Dailey, top corporate salaries are now 411 times the amount of the lowest paid worker. In 1980, that ratio was 42 to one. By comparison, star actors are often paid more than 1,000 times the amount of the lowest salary on the set. No matter.
To hear Hollywood multi-millionaires like Oscar winner Michael Moore and Emmy winner Lawrence O’Donnell myopically channel Huey Long’s populism, highly paid financial industry execs and Wall Street traders are the only serpents in the suites, the only rapacious rich for making more than the $500,000 annual salary Obama deemed reasonable earlier this year for bank CEOs that received federal tax bailout bucks. But that’s bound for change.
Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg says the upper limit will be more like $200,000 for AIG’s top people and possibly the others at rescued companies if he has his way. Feinberg’s notion is to expand the list of the capped and that has members of the chattering class like CBS Early Show host Harry Smith openly talking about the next logical step: “Why wouldn’t we make this law across the board and put a governor on compensation for everybody in private enterprise?”
Keeping in mind that members of said chattering class do not consider themselves part of “private enterprise,” its members in good standing undoubtedly see their multi-million dollar incomes as exempt from limitations. So today, it’s pay limits only for companies that directly received taxpayer cash. But tomorrow, could it be any company or industry that benefits from special federal legislation — like tax breaks…
Like the tax break Hollywood gets?
Some states give considerable financial help for filming within their borders, but Uncle Sam helps the cameras roll too. Films that begin production by December 31st qualify for special tax treatments and that would be more than enough of an opening for Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts to exploit: “We are trying on every front to increase the role of government.”
Moore and O’Donnell and their many movie-biz supporters would be fine with that for everybody else, but what if that means Uncle Sam also gets to cap Hollywood’s gigantic paychecks?
Could Disney’s Bob Iger (30 million in 2008), CBS’ Les Moonves (36 million in 2008), Time Warner’s Jeff Bewkes (19 million in 2008) or DreamWork’s Jeffrey Katzenberg (11 million in 2007) or Lion’s Gate’s Jon Felheimer (6 million in 2007) get by on a paltry 200 grand? Or what about Cameron Diaz and her reported 50 million income or Simon Cowell’s 72 million or Will Smith’s 20 million plus per picture or …
They’d all still be “rich” with an income of 200 large, according to Uncle Obama’s current rationale, but the gap between above and below the line would definitely be compressed, possibly to the point of adopting a new compensation model.
While it is true that quite a few of the huge executive pay packages in public corporations can be traced to boardroom cronyism which shareholders are all but powerless to fight, those maligned bonuses are usually paid to people like Wall Street traders or salespeople who have to show bottom line results. How would that work here in Hollywood?
Hollywood is now the land of schmooze, off-book arrangements and any number of other “things” that most here would not want to tell a Congressional investigation committee or the Securities and Exchange Commission. But let’s try one measure of pure performance for people that may be paid 15 to 20 million or more for a few month’s work.
According to Forbes, The Bourne Ultimatum grossed $29 for every dollar star Matt Damon was paid. Jennifer Aniston’s last three starring films earned $17 to every dollar she was paid. Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and Will Smith bring in about $12 per every dollar they are paid. And Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Jim Carrey bring in about $9 for each buck they get. Unfortunately, that’s where the simplicity stops.
How many saw The Bourne Ultimatum just because it starred Matt Damon? How many saw it because it was a well-written, compelling story that was superbly directed and had a terrific actor ensemble ? Would just as many have seen it had the film starred somebody else? How much of the credit and compensation a star gets is due to other’s work that makes him look good? The Wall Street traders now in the class warfare crosshairs have no such variables. They either made money or they didn’t. Whether that trading helps or hurts people is a subject for another discussion, except for one point that appears to be getting ginned up as a Hollywood defense against any attempt at exerting Washington control here.
That argument is that what financial industry types do affects the well being of individuals and the economy at large, while Hollywood doesn’t do either. Good luck with that reasoning to those who think it’ll keep them away from the Frank ‘n Feinberg fingers if they start to roam. On the other hand, running a riff on that Huey Long legacy might do the trick.
During the 1930s, Louisiana’s Democratic populist Governor Huey Long was so dictatorial about wages and most everything else, that Congress started to investigate whether his state was still a republican form of government as the Constitution required. Long was murdered before committee hearings started, but its question about the limits of legitimate government control is worth considering.
At what point would Barney Frank’s forewarned government micro-managing of America disqualify it as a republican form of government? Wherever that point is, it doesn’t necessarily have to crimp Hollywood.
Huey Long has been resurrected as Michael Moore, Hollywood’s anti-capitalist Kingfish of compensation, and he’s supported by Lawrence O’Donnell and his 99% socialist Writer’s Guild garrison. Together, this formidable semantics’ force could clear the way for Frank and presumably Feinberg while protecting its own.
How? By doing two things Hollywood does best: using film and television to alter a contract –in this case the people’s contract with its government — thus creating a false perception that eventually becomes a public opinion reality.
In scripts, Moore and O’Donnell could re-write the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause to depict pay czar control and other Washington dictates to have have always been an integral part of a republican form of government. Then they could exempt themselves by turning the Equal Protection Clause into a dramatized PETA approved “Napoleon” doctrine of Tinseltown exceptionalism reading that all animals are equal but that Hollywood animals are indeed more equal than others.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a stretch, but flyover land has been influenced by our scripted propaganda for over a century now, so why not again if it saves our bacon?
Oink.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
49 Comments
Imagine how much of the deficit we could pay off if we capped salaries in Hollywood! WAIT!!!!!
Let's ask those "Servants of Obama" like Ashton K!zz@zz Kutcher and Demi Demented Moore to VOLUNTEER to contribute their pay to help their Fuhrer accomplish this!
personally I'd behappy to run a studio for $200k. I'll even self impose a term limit: 5 years.
I have no experience, but i'm sure some of my choices on what movies are made and who will be in them can't be any worse than what they are putting out now.
why limit pay in just hollywood, why not athletes, how many athletes play in staduims funded with tax payer dollars? when they say we can limit pay because we gave them money, how much money is given away for staduims across the country? i'd say if your team plays in a gov't paid for stadium, you need to cap your pay, not just the players, but all the wayto the top of the team.
I'll make a wager that not only would your choice of movies be better, but they would bring in more dollars at the box office.
Back in the day we were told by Hollywood that "Greed was good." Brothers and sisters of the collective, This was a lie!!
Hollywood and big sports are making obscene windfall profits, CONGRESS SHOULD DO SOMETHING!!!! They are profiting on the backs of the poor and the poorly dressed. When so many are sacrificing and strugggling, how dare they live in a life of luxury and private jets.
Isn't it entertaining to watch Hollywood capitalize on a capitalistic system which they so despise?
What happens if we start funding the Obama's dream of health care directly from the money that would have been paid to Hollywood? We could find out if these people are willing to put their money where their moth is. All the saved money not paid to actors, directors, and producers would result in big corporate profits, so we could tax "Big Film" to reduce their margins to what they are used to today. The states would not have to give out incentives, so the film industry could make movies for less, and local states could save money for more important things. The only problem is that the Big O wouldn't have all those contributions anymore. Oh well, all for the good of the nation.
I would like to see the govt. impose the Social Benefit Income Tax. This is an income tax based on the social benefit produced by your job. Therefore, entertainers such as actors, singers, proffessional athletes who really don't add anything vital to society other than entertainment would be taxed at 90% of their income. Why don't these celebutards put their money where their mouth usually is, firmly planted in the butt crack of liberal politicians. Just once I would love to see Sean Penn come home from socialist Cuba or Venezuela and sell his Malibu home, then buy a home in east L.A. and distribute the excess of his sale to his new neighbors. Yes I know, don't hold your breath.
It would be interesting to see the results of an income topper. The effects on the current standard
of living and the adjustments made. All of a sudden Cameron Diaz is your next door neighbor in Anahein,Azusa
or Cocamonga as the old Mel Blanc, Jack Benny routine use to go. The imagination does wander a bit.
It would appear, many in the industry are intelligent enough to even understand the basic economics of capitalism.
Socialism sounds so much easier, a charismatic leader simply tells them what to do.
it's not how dare they, its hypocracy. it's ok for them to profit, and in reality what do they do for society as a whole, nothing positive, what does a ceo do? besides create jobs, deliver goods or services, and who is the profiteer? dumb movie actors, or well educated ceo's. but then what about the housing bubble, that was created by congress, but they aren't being frog marched before the cameras to jail, they are "fixing" the problem with more fuzzy math, and dumb rules.
Doesn't Moore equate better to Squealer, Napoleon's propagandist in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others"
That's easily rectified. Watch foreign films exclusively. Money talks. Government involvement private prophets is bad even if it is Hollywood.
No, CD would probably move back to Long Beach in the Bixby Knolls area. Echh! I'd hate to have her as a neighbor.
If the CEO class thought for a minute that this administration was all about the principles of "economic democracy" applied impartially to them, the Democratic party would have to live on union contributions and not much else. The whole point of attacking high salaries is to make sure those folks pay up their "insurance", in the form of campaign contributions to the appropriate candidates and taking government "suggestions" to heart.
Run it like a sports team, each production company gets a payroll. Actors can be traded among guilds, released, or have their contract bought out of their work is not up to snuff.
Let's face it, it's the writers, people who make the score, the cameramen, and the visual people deserve so much more credit than the actors.
How many NFL players do you suppose would become overnight Rush Limbaugh fans if the Dems proposed capping their salaries?
By comparison, star actors are often paid more than 1,000 times the amount of the lowest salary on the set.
These "star" actors (not necessarily the same as "good" actors) get paid only if people keep watching their movies….
Time to limit the salary of these over-rated communist actors and actresses. Time to repeal tax exempt of communist movie producers. Time for taxpayer to stop paying all these overated communists Hollywood zombies.
It is very interesting to read this post about hollywood
[...] rest is here: Hollywood Receives Government Help — Why No Salary Caps? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Not privvy and up close to movie stars personalities except what comes across the net.
I thought she was only partially prone to the Lindsay Lohan type of crazyness.
Would she be a neighbor from hell type?
If Buraq Al Obama put a salary cap on them, they could not donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the corrupt Dummycrats.
http://noliberalspin.blogtownhall.com/
The Anti Liberal Zone
isn't hollywood the place where the less talented actors go? failures at stage acting, can't sing and can't dance, may as well go to a place where each scene averages about a minute in length! i never understood the fascination with celebrities, the only difference btwn them and a monkey on a leash, is the leash.
Believe me the celebs hate the surtax on the wealthy. They probably are trying right now to get exempted if the ridiculous healthcare bill passes. Clooney is a pal of Obama and this probably a subject they discuss.
I'm against any government intervention into salaries. If the pols really cap actors' salaries then we have all have been screwed before them. Defeat liberals wherever they are.
I'm in! My cat walks across my keyboard at home when I am trying to work. I am sure what ever she can 'write' would be better that 99.9% of what comes out of La La land these days. Lets make lots of cash!
Exactly! And where they get rich and famous…which is what most wanted in the first place. What's not to understand?
I'm sorry…I can't sign on for that one. Foreign films bore me senseless as a rule, and the messages are often more extreme that Hollywood's.
Instead, I buy Christian fiction and films. I can put my money toward something positive and uplifting…rather than put money in the pockets of those making 8-figure salaries to crank out the same old junk.
Well, now, don't our elected officials draw a salary from the government largess too? Maybe we should cap their salaries too. Or at the very least, they should only get raises if the people approve by direct vote.
[...] Or overpaid actors taking public money? [...]
GE received $80 Billion dollars worth of federally backed loans. Do you see Jeffrey Immelt and the senior management having to worry about the 14-18 Million in annual compensation they get with help from Uncle Sam.
Nice to have friends in the right places and sit on the Fed Board along with Economic counsel for the president.
No, just a clueless leftist. Case in point: A few years back, she went to Tibet (you know, "Free Tibet!") and was photographed wearing full communist regalia. A Mao shirt and hat with a red star. Even her handbag had a big red star on it. The locals were less than impressed.
I still find it difficult to believe we graduated from the same high school.
That is more in line with the old studio system. Actors were under contract to the studio and as such were subject to the whims of studio heads. I'd like h-wood to go back to that system. As part of the studio system, actors were sent to 'charm school' to learn how to walk, talk, dress and even eat with class and dignity. Everything was controlled. Oh, and actors had to have real talent.
GE is exempt. They were in 3 troughs and only surpassed by AIG for welfare.
Remember Obama is stupid. He hasn't connected higher taxes for the rich as collecting less tax if he cuts their pay.
Alot. As aways, a liberal is only liberal with someone elses money. As soon as you get close to his..ZING! Instant Conservative.
This article is right on the money! (okay…bad pun.) The problem is that this debate makes us focus on restricting liberties, instead of fighting to extend liberties. The best show I've seen recently was an ad hoc performance created by my two children in our family room.
He is not stupid. They know exactly what they are trying to do. And THAT is why they are dangerous.
This is not about taxes to them. They want some kind of perverted revenge. It just so happens that taking our wealth is just an unfortunate symptom of their agenda.
Yes, I remember that. She probably doesn't read anything but favorable press
clippings so probably never learned anything by the experience. Ah well.
At least you turned out politically well adjusted from the high school experience. Its
a shame she didn't
I had the same idea a few weeks ago and then I figured out how to do it. If WE ALL join SAG and become voting members, we can vote for Studio pay caps and the return of contract-acting, where the studio owns your rights for so many years and you owe that studio so many pictures. Just like pro-sports.
The question of income ratios is a very important one. I'm not sure if the author is being satirical or not but over time the differences between the top to bottom salaries has grow at an obscene rate. I don't think government should cap salaries but I have thought that there should be a ratio of the max. salary to min. salary. Maybe a ratio of 20 to 1 would be good. If a janitor makes $10/ hour the CEO can make $200/hour. If the CEO wants a raise fine. Everyone in the company should get a raise. That way great companies could strive to be the best but everyone would benefit in the success not just one or two individuals.
Thanks! I blame it all on my mom.
Socialism for thee, but not for me…because [cue music] "we are the world / we are the people" and we are all equal….but some people are more equal than others.
With logic like this, you can see how confused they get, and why they think that it is so good just to hand over their lives to the Great Won.
When the government tries to take control of anything in the private sector, such as salaries, the liberty of Americans becomes compromised. Americans thrive under the free market system and using their knowledge and skill to build their bussinesses and raise their standard of living. If people aren't able to earn enough to make up for the work they are putting in, pretty soon they'll stop caring and stop innovating.
Agreed. I don't like the amount of money that entertainers make. But then again, I would pursue that route if I had that type of talent (i.e. "looks"), too. And there is nothing wrong with that.
You're right. If you have the talent, go for it
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Katy, Ingrid Fasching, Pamela Pope, johnnyA99, Big Hollywood and others. Big Hollywood said: Hollywood Receives Government Help — Why No Salary Caps? http://bit.ly/bVOBO [...]
[...] Written by Dan Gifford, Film producer and writer and published on November 3, 2009 at Big Hollywood [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Laurie Jones, Laurie Jones. Laurie Jones said: Hollywood wants help but pay caps?http://bit.ly/2RME4R [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.