Bobby Jindal

Louisiana Dumps Huge Subsidies on Duck Dynasty, Gov. Jindal Snags Spot on Season Premiere

|

more people watch duck dynasty
screencap

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) has been a big advocate of A&E's Duck Dynasty. When the patriarch on the show, Phil Robertson, became the outrage target of the week after comments made in a GQ profile last year, Jindal was there to defend him. And the governor wasn't alone. Lieutenant Gov. Jay Dardenne announced he'd help the show find new producers if A&E dropped it. Dardenne argued that the show was a boon for Louisiana tourism.

Louisiana is among the most generous states in the nation already when it comes to subsidizing film and television. The state subsidizes up to 30 percent of local production spending, offering tax credits redeemable for cash. One industry blogger estimated that that meant Louisiana is spending $70,000 per Duck Dynasty episode on payroll alone.

Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise, then, that Jindal, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, will appear on the season six premiere of Duck Dynasty. USA Today reports:

A&E says the Duck Dynasty season premiere on June 11 will feature an appearance by Jindal, who will present Willie Robertson—CEO of the family's business—with an award.

In February, Jindal was at Duck Commander headquarters to present the first Governor's Award for Entrepreneurial Excellence to the Robertson family. The award is aimed at honoring "homegrown Louisiana businesses that grow and provide more opportunity, more jobs and more commerce" for the state, according to a news release from the governor's office.

An appearance on Duck Dynasty will lend Jindal some much coveted national exposure for his potential presidential run. It's a big benefit to be able to spend other people's money to build your brand, something we can expect to see more of by governors on both sides of the aisle as the 2016 presidential campaign season approaches.

h/t Mike M

NEXT: J.D. Tuccille Says Video Games Build Strong Brains

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m ambivalent about tax credits. If business ventures are going to be taxed, I would like it if they were done evenly. On the other hand, I want people to keep as much of their money as possible.

    Is what Jindal did here as bad as Christie spending more federal tax dollars on commercials just so he could be in them?

    1. Everybody should be taxed the same amount. It’s not like a tax cut to one person reduces the overall burden, it just means that somebody else has to pay more. So now, in addition to stealing people’s money, the government is picking winners and losers.

      That being said, my first point still stands. Everybody should be taxed the same, so if a tax cut brings you closer to even, I’m all for it. Note that this assumes the money’s being spent on public goods, as opposed to services that could and should be funded via user fees.

      Outside of that, taxes don’t matter, only spending matters.

      1. What’s worse is that every independent study shows film/tv tax incentives to be a losing proposition – these “tax credits” refund FAR more than the production would pay in taxes.

        Liberals should hate film/tv tax credits because they’re subsidizing private industry instead of public services.

        Libertarians should hate them because they distort the free market and raise taxes for everyone else

        Conservatives should hate them because ultimately the money invariably ends up in the pockets of liberal film/tv producers who are the biggest contributors to the Democrat party

        The ONLY people who support these things are the producers getting all the money, the politicians who get to pretend they’re creating jobs instead of just stealing them from other states and members of the public who have no idea how much money they’re spending to see their home state in a Hollywood movie.

        I’m amazed they’re allowed to continue.

  2. Where else were they ever going to film Duck Dynasty?

    1. In the abandoned homes of former Baltimore residents who moved to farms?

  3. Jindal is ineligible to be the President because he is not a “natural born Citizen” because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth. He is a citizen by way of the 14th amendment which means he was naturalized at birth.

    1. Really? Under Article II, he is natural Born. He was born in Baton Rouge. His parents were legal immigrants. Not that it matters, as even if they were here illegally, he is STILL a natural born citizen and could be President.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.