Come On N.C.

It seems that N.C. has been in the news a little too much. Last year started it all with Nifong slinging justice as the D.A. for Durham with no DNA and a victim who was only the victim of her own deranged mind. Those fun loving PETA mercenaries were arrested for euthanizing dogs and cats. And let's not forget the three Guilford College students assaulting the Palestinians. Now it seems that being a conservative doesn't exactly mean that we love small government. Just after we claimed on our last podcast that conservatives loath big government, we have this story from the Wilmington Star.

the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.

The controversy revolves around the movie that debuted at Sundance, called "Hounddog". In the movie, Dakota Fanning, a 12 year old, is involved in a rape scene and acts provocatively during the movie. Now, the movie hasn't been picked up by a single distributor. No one thought it was appropriate to bring to the public. Why is the government stepping in on this? The system that NC uses now, refunds up to 15 percent of what the filmmakers spend, all coming from the NC Treasury. Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said:

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.

My first question is why is NC subsidizing movie expenses in the first place? I understand NC wants the business, but shouldn't we stop funding movies in the first place? NC already pays too much in taxes in the first place. Let me redo Berger's question the way I see it...

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for Hollywood movies in the first place? They make millions as it is per movie. If they want to film in NC, then they are more than welcome, but NC citizens shouldn't pay for it and it should come to an end."

State law already denies incentives to movies that are obscene. Berger doesn't seem to have any problems though with obscene material.

Berger said the film-incentive ban should be broadened to include material considered objectionable. He said there should be no First Amendment concerns because the producer would be seeking money from the state government. But he did say that if constitutional questions confused the matter, it would be better not to have a film incentive at all.

The First Amendment statement makes sense as the movie companies are seeking a payment and NC is providing that payment in return for using our state. Typical business. NC, I say we stop paying these companies flat out. Use the money for better things. As a matter of fact, I thought we established the lottery to aid in funding some social programs in the state, I wonder if we weren't paying Hollywood, we might not have needed that lottery in the first place.