“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said during a news conference Friday morning.
“We must act, and the urgency could not be greater,” he said. He revealed he is working on a bipartisan federal film incentive proposal that would be competitive with what other countries are offering for film productions.
He said the program isn’t about Hollywood’s stars; it’s about the jobs that productions create, including roles for set designers, carpenters and lighting crews.
“These are the people who make that magic happen. We want to keep those jobs here, and many of us are deeply concerned about what this potential merger will do to those jobs,” Schiff said.
Earlier this week, the California Film Commission revealed that 16 shows had recently received tax credits for filming in the state. The projects represent $871 million in qualified in-state spending and are expected to generate $1.3 billion in economic activity in California. Schiff said the state tax credit has generated more than $29.1 billion in motion picture production wages and supported more than 220,000 jobs.
Even as shows start to see gains in Southern California, Los Angeles film activity was still down 13.2% from July through September when compared with the same period in 2024. The downward trend extends the loss of 42,000 jobs in L.A. between 2022 and 2024, the continued suffering of local sound stages and the offshoring of productions internationally.
“Federal policymakers must act to level the playing field and make the U.S. film and television industry more competitive on the global stage,” said Matthew Loeb, the president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. “A globally competitive labor-based and tax incentive is. For us, production that supplements state incentives is essential to return and maintain film and television jobs in America.”
HBO Max’s medical drama “The Pitt” is filmed at one of Warner Bros. soundstages in Burbank and it’s one of the shows benefiting from California’s tax incentive.
Noah Wyle, the star and executive producer of the show, said during the news conference that “it’s really hard to shoot a TV show in Los Angeles, and it’s really expensive, prohibitively” — so adopting an economic model that allows productions to take full advantage of the California tax incentive was essential to “The Pitt” filming in L.A.
“As an Angeleno with generational roots to this city and as a seasoned member of its creative community, advocacy for Los Angeles-based production is something that is very close to my heart,” Wyle said.
“‘The Pitt’ has blessedly become proof of that speculative concept. I’m happy to report we’ll commence shooting season three this summer, and that a rising tide has indeed lifted all boats in season one under the 3.0 tax program,” he added.
The show received a 20% tax rebate on many above-the-line costs. The budget for one episode was approximately $6.6 million, so the show received a rebate of about $760,000 per episode. By the end of season one, the production was able to save over $11 million. Wyle estimated that the first season of “The Pitt” contributed around $125 million toward California’s gross domestic product.
Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is working with Schiff on production tax incentives, said that because California is already seeing benefits from the current program, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work nationally. Friedman added that tax incentives are a common practice among many industries in the U.S.
“Hollywood is not asking for special treatment. Whether it is computer chips, the energy sector or pharmaceuticals, this is something that is standard in the United States,” said Friedman. “In terms of our nation, Hollywood and its ability to tell the story of America, it is something worth saving.”
As the U.S. wades even deeper into the conflict with Iran, some Democratic and progressive political figures are trying to figure out how to connect the public’s wariness about war with concerns about affordability and the widespread reaction against President Trump’s xenophobic immigration policies.
If you’re looking for a template to do it well, one can be found in the words and actions of a political figure who recently passed away: the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
For while attention after his death has rightfully focused on Jackson’s long involvement with the civil rights movement, the more telling lesson for this moment is how his presidential campaigns connected a concern for addressing domestic disenfranchisement with a resolute stance against U.S. military adventures — a message that built on and echoed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark 1967 speech against the Vietnam War, economic exploitation and racial injustice.
Jackson’s candidacies in 1984 and 1988 emerged at a moment when the social compacts forged by the labor, civil rights and women’s movements of the 20th century were being systematically undone. Deindustrialization was hollowing out working-class communities. Reaganism was consolidating power around tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation and attacks on unions. A new corporate consensus was hardening — one that increasingly shaped both major parties — prioritizing financial elites while disciplining labor and shrinking the public sphere.
Sound familiar?
Jackson refused to accept that such a right-wing and corporate realignment was inevitable. His Rainbow Coalition was far more ambitious than a candidate-centered campaign. It was an attempt to build an organized, multiracial, cross-class political front capable of contesting the direction of the country itself.
The Rainbow brought together constituencies that conventional political wisdom said could not unite — Black voters in the South, industrial workers in the Midwest, family farmers in crisis, Latino and Native organizers, Arab American activists, peace advocates, labor insurgents and progressive whites.
Jackson’s platform did not treat these groups as symbolic additions to a coalition; it linked their material interests. Farmers facing foreclosure were not an afterthought — the farm crisis was up front. Deindustrialized workers were not rhetorical props — trade, jobs and industrial policy were central. Civil rights were braided together with economic justice.
And crucially, Jackson insisted, as King had, that economic populism could not be separated from anti-militarism.
At the height of the Cold War, amid Reagan’s military buildup and interventionist doctrine, Jackson argued that bloated Pentagon budgets were not abstract line items. They were resources diverted from schools, healthcare, housing and jobs. He connected the violence of abandonment at home to the violence of intervention abroad — and his campaign called for redirecting military spending toward human needs and for diplomacy over escalation.
When Jackson thundered that we should “choose the human race over the nuclear race,” this was not a simple turn of phrase. It was integral to the Rainbow’s moral and economic logic. A government that prioritizes war over welfare, weapons over workers, cannot sustain democratic life.
That clarity feels especially salient today, as the United States continues to pursue military interventions and proxy conflicts whose legality and human cost are deeply contested. Once again, defense budgets swell while public goods strain. Once again, dissent against war is treated as disloyalty. Jackson rejected that false choice decades ago. He understood that militarism abroad reinforces inequality and immorality at home.
Jackson’s 1988 campaign captured millions of votes, won primaries and caucuses across the country and forced issues into the Democratic Party that party elites preferred to sideline. He demonstrated that a progressive program grounded in the lived experiences of ordinary people — rural collapse, urban disinvestment, plant closures, racial injustice and war — could assemble a national constituency.
Unfortunately, after Jackson’s last campaign, the Rainbow’s experiment in independent organizational life was folded too tightly into the mainstream Democratic Party. While that seemed a strategy to achieve a broader front, it meant that the progressive anchor was unmoored — and the effort dissolved before it could truly mature.
But the lessons of that era may be more relevant than ever.
Today, we again confront an ever-ascendant rightward turn buttressed by concentrated corporate power and normalized militarism. As in Jackson’s day, some leaders seek to deflect our attention, blaming economic challenges on the proximate “other” — in his era, Black women taking welfare, in our era, immigrants taking jobs — rather than those with power.
Jackson understood that defeating reactionary politics required isolating it — not only morally, but structurally — by assembling a coalition larger than the right’s base and rooted in shared material demands. He understood that hope had to be organized and that peace had to be part of prosperity. His campaigns showed that racial justice, labor rights, rural survival, gender equality and anti-war politics were not competing claims but interlocking ones.
Protest has surged in the United States, particularly after the excesses in Minnesota. But protest alone does not prevent consolidation. Nor do narrow electoral bargains that leave the underlying corporate and military consensus intact.
At a time when both parties remain deeply entangled with corporate and defense interests, remembering the promise of the Rainbow is not nostalgia. It is instruction.
Rishi Awatramani is a postdoctoral scholar in sociology at USC, where Manuel Pastor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Equity Research Institute.
A woman has shared how she managed to travel the world without spending a single penny – and she is sharing her favourite things about the life-changing experience
She has shared how she achieved the lifestyle (stock image)(Image: Getty Images)
Sarah, known on social media as @sarahmonaco99, explained how she achieved this lifestyle – revealing that her “entire salary is 100 per cent disposable income. No rent. No food. No bills.” She shared that she lives and works on a yacht, where “everything onboard is covered”.
She said: “Accommodation, three meals a day, toiletries, travel to and from the boat – I have not paid a single living expense in two years. My first full season, I saved enough to put a deposit on an apartment. I was 24. My friends doing 9-5s are still saving. I’m not saying this to brag – I genuinely couldn’t believe it was real.”
Explaining how she got into the industry, she added: “Most people find their first season through Yotspot, Bluewater, or Saltwater Agency. No experience needed for entry-level roles. Just show up willing to work hard.”
Commenting on her post, one user said: “If I didn’t have a cat, I would so do this.”
Others were curious about the reality of the job, asking questions about working hours and expectations onboard, with one user writing: “Are you obligated to party with guests?”
In another post, Sarah shared some of the wild experiences she’s had while working on yachts, including gifts and behaviour from ultra-wealthy guests.
She said: “Rating the most unbelievable things billionaire guests did on our yacht…”
Giving the first example an 11/10, she said: “Moved the boat at midnight because the stars weren’t ‘visible enough’. Woke the captain at 12am. We sailed for two hours. The stars were the same.”
She rated another moment 10/10, adding: “Ordered £4,000 worth of groceries for a five-day charter – Wagyu beef, fresh truffles, three types of caviar. Ate none of it. Left it all on the boat when they disembarked. We ate like royalty for a week.”
She also revealed that the crew were tipped £11,000 by one millionaire because they “seemed like they needed it”.
Finally, she recalled one guest complaining that the Mediterranean Sea was “too blue” and asking if they could find somewhere with a “more interesting” water colour.
In the comments, users shared their amazement at the lifestyles of the ultra-rich, with many wishing they could experience that level of luxury.
One user said: “Those drinks look good.” Another added: “How do I get this job?”
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, left state service with two things: a federal corruption investigation and more than $50,000 in pay for vacation time she accrued but never took.
State payroll records reviewed by The Times show Williamson used approximately $30,000 in unused vacation time to remain on California’s payroll through Jan. 31 — seven weeks after Newsom’s office indicated she had departed — before collecting an additional $22,000 lump-sum payout for the hours she had left.
Large cash-outs for departing state workers with hundreds of hours of time off on the books have been a recurring issue in California. The state’s unfunded liability for vacation and other leave owed to employees has ballooned in recent years to $5.6 billion, fueled by generous time-off provisions and a long-standing failure to enforce policies that cap most employees’ vacation balances at 640 hours.
Many state workers accumulate large balances of unused vacation after decades of being on the government payroll. The typical public employee retires with more than two decades in public service, according the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Their unused time off is paid when they leave state employment at their final rate of pay.
Williamson, however, amassed 462 hours of unused leave in less than two years on the job. She earned $19,612 a month as the governor’s chief of staff.
John Moorlach, director at the conservative think tank the Center for Public Accountability at the California Policy Center, said that a job like Williamson had probably involved incredibly long workdays but that the pace in which employees accumulate days off is a major financial burden.
“A normal blue-collar worker would say, ‘Really? Really?“” said Moorlach, a former Republican state senator from Orange County. “You don’t find this perk in the private sector.”
Williamson notified Newsom in November 2024 that she was under federal investigation and was put on paid administrative leave through Dec. 16, the governor’s office said.
Federal charges against Williamson, which were filed in November 2025, allege she siphoned $225,000 out of a dormant state campaign account belonging to gubernatorial hopeful Xavier Becerra and illegally claimed $1 million in luxury handbags and travel as business expenses on her tax returns. She pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A status conference in Williamson’s case was moved to April 16 after she recently underwent a successful liver transplant and due to the large volume of discovery — more than 280,000 pages so far — according to court records filed last month.
Williamson’s attorney, McGregor Scott, did not respond to a request for comment.
State payroll records show Williamson earned $40,000 in regular pay in 2025, which the state controller’s office said included her December 2024 and January 2025 paychecks. The governor’s office said Williamson’s December 2024 paycheck included 11 days of paid administrative leave, and the remainder of both paychecks was covered by her unused leave.
With her final cash-out of $22,000 in remaining time off, she made a total of $62,000 last year — all tied to administrative leave and unused vacation time rather than time worked.
“That’s shocking, honestly,” said Assemblyman Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), adding that stockpiled vacation time overall is something the state Legislature should look into.
The state paid $453 million in unused leave benefits to state workers in 2025. That was an average of more than $20,000 to the 21,000 employees who received a lump-sum check. The amount paid to departing or retiring state workers has steadily increased each year. In 2024, the state paid $413 million for unused time off.
“Obviously, employees are an important part of our state and they accrue vacation time,” Hoover said. “But, if this is something being used to pad people’s salaries … we need to look into that and possibly reform that.”
Last year, 80 state employees took home at least $250,000 in unused time off, and 1,081 employees were paid more than $100,000. Those numbers have been increasing each year. For example, the state paid 16 state workers more than $250,000 for unused time off in 2010, and 309 employees were paid more than $100,000.
In 2024, the state paid out a record $1.2 million to a prison supervising dentist for unused time off. Last year, the top amount paid for unused leave was about $650,000 to an assistant fire chief with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
The state owed nearly $5.6 billion to state workers for unused vacation and other leave benefits in 2024, according to the most recent financial accounting report issued by the state controller’s office. Although that unfunded liability held steady when compared with 2023, it has risen sharply from pre-pandemic amounts.
In 2019, the state owed $3.9 billion for employees’ unused time off before COVID-19 curtailed travel and work-from-home policies resulted in fewer workers taking time off. State employees have argued that under-staffing at state agencies can make it difficult to take vacations.
Nick Schroeder, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state has plans to reduce unfunded liabilities for pensions and retiree healthcare, but that isn’t the case with unused time off.
“There isn’t a plan to address it,” Schroeder said.
When an employee retires with a large leave balance, the department where that person worked last is on the hook for the amount.
“It can be a big effect on that individual department’s budget,” Schroeder said.
During budget deficits — including in the current fiscal year — the state has cut employee pay or deferred annual raises in exchange for additional days off, a strategy that helps balance budgets but also adds to workers’ growing vacation balances.
In Newsom’s January budget proposal, which estimated a $3-billion deficit, the governor recommended providing $91 million in ongoing funding to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to help the prison system pay departing employees for their unused time off. The department said that from 2020 to 2025, it paid about $130 million annually on average to employees leaving state service, according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office report.
When employees cash out banked leave, the state pays them not only for the hours they have accumulated, but also for the additional vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken that time off.
That means a person with 640 hours of vacation would also be paid for all of the vacation and holidays they would have earned had they taken those 80 days off. Each hour of leave is paid based on an employee’s final salary — not what they were earning when the time was accrued.
Most private-sector employers cap vacation accrual between 40 and 400 hours and stop employees from earning additional time once they reach those limits. Some companies have moved in the opposite direction, adopting “unlimited paid time off” policies. Under those systems, employees do not accumulate vacation days that can be banked or cashed out, but critics say the policies can lead to workers taking less time off because there is no guaranteed number of days and employees may feel pressure not to appear absent.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said there appears to be little appetite in the state Capitol to address California’s burgeoning vacation liability.
“This problem is systemic within California government and no one seems willing to take it on,” Coupal said. “At the same time, they are clamoring that there is a budget crisis. I suspect they will continue to kick the can down the road.”
SHE is an Oscar-winner married to a former James Bond, but Rachel Weisz says Hollywood made her feel so ugly she considered having plastic surgery.
When the British beauty first went there in the Nineties, she contemplated a nose job, boob job or liposuction to get noticed and boost her career.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Oscar-winner Rachel Weisz says Hollywood made her feel so ugly she considered having plastic surgeryCredit: Shutterstock EditorialRachel with Leo Woodall in new Netflix thriller VladimirCredit: PARachel in 2015’s YouthCredit: GIANNI FIORITO
Rachel, now 56 and one of the world’s most sought-after stars, said: “I went into quite a major depression.
“I was watching so many daytime TV shows. And then I would get in my car and drive to these auditions while listening to the radio.
“I feel sick now when I listen to the radio, all these commercials for different car dealers.
“I just felt like the world was so desperate and lonely and sad and people were trying to sell cars and no one wanted to buy them.
“People are very focused on their own thing. In LA unless you’ve just won an Oscar or you’re ‘Mr Studio Head’, no one talks to you. Even at parties. I was at this big Hollywood party, and no one looked.
“Everyone is blinkered and they just kind of scan the room for anyone important. LA makes you feel ugly. Because if you’re an actress, no one pays you any attention.
“And you immediately start thinking, ‘God, I must have a nose job. Or, I must get that boob job, or I must get that lipo’, whatever it is.”
For Rachel, who started her career with bit-parts on Inspector Morse and whose new thriller Vladimir was released on Netflix on March 5, real success and happiness came when she turned her back on the glitz and glamour of Los Angeles.
She decided to split her time between London, where she grew up, and New York with her then-partner, director Darren Aronofsky, and their son Henry, now 19.
Rachel, who has been married to 007 actor Daniel Craig since 2011, told Index mag: “There’s not much room for eccentricity in Hollywood, and eccentricity is what’s sexy in people.
“I think London’s sexy because it’s so full of eccentrics.”
The actress’s breakthrough came in 1999 when she landed the role of feisty librarian Evelyn Carnahan in blockbuster The Mummy.
By 2006 her A-list status was cemented when she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for The Constant Gardener.
She went on to star in 2009’s The Lovely Bones and 2015’s Youth, as well as 2021 Marvel film Black Widow.
Now Vladimir sees her as married college professor M, whose life spirals into a steamy, all-consuming obsession with her younger colleague, played by One Day and White Lotus star Leo Woodall.
The series is based on the book of the same name by Julia May Jonas, which Rachel describes as a brilliant piece of writing.
She added of the character she plays: “I deeply empathise with her and understand her. But I left her when I got home.
“She’s like a projection of what a viewer might want to live out.”
Rachel and Daniel, who officially ended his 15-year stint as James Bond with No Time To Die in 2021, were friends for years before falling for each other in 2010 while filming thriller Dream House.
Within months they secretly wed in New York and went on to have daughter Grace, now seven. They split their time between Brooklyn in New York and Primrose Hill in North London.
But the couple deliberately choose not to do films together.
Rachel said: “I think we really love our private life as a life, as a family, and then we go to work separately.
“It means we can alternate, so I can stay home with the family while he works. We can swap out. If we’re both doing something at the same time, it’s probably less ideal.”
Rachel grew up in Hampstead, North London, with dad George, a Hungarian-Jewish mechanical engineer, and mum Edith, who originated from Austria and was a teacher-turned-psychotherapist.
The star started modelling at 14 and studied English at Cambridge University, with her parents hoping she would choose a more traditional career.
Rachel told the Sunday Sitdown With Willie Geist podcast: “They were just the kind of parents who were like, ‘You’ve got to get a degree, like you have to go to college’, which in the end I did.
“They wanted me to have a fall-back, so I could be a teacher . . . that would be a really good job.
“My parents would be really happy if I was a teacher. My dad was very sceptical about my career choice. I think he wasn’t very impressed by what I was doing.
“He was my harshest critic for a very long time. I think he only, after a good 15 years, was like, ‘OK, yeah’.
“He was tough — yeah, he was tough, in a good way. He was always honest, he didn’t make it nice. He’d take things apart and say, ‘I didn’t understand what you were doing,’ or, ‘That was a bit wooden’.”
But winning her Oscar changed everything.
Actress Rachel holds her Oscar for her performance in The Constant GardnerCredit: EPA
Rachel said: “That definitely changed my life. Maybe my dad was like, ‘OK, all right, you were OK’.
“He would never be more over the top than that.”
And that Oscar meant she had the freedom to choose the roles she truly wanted, just like the one in Vladimir.
She said: “In the beginning of my career, I just did whatever job I got so I could pay the rent. I wasn’t picky.
“Now I’m in this luxurious position where I can choose things. It’s really about the character and writing, if it appeals to me or if it seems it would be interesting to pretend that story.
“I was never the kind of kid that got on the table and did a tap dance and a song. I wasn’t the star of the school plays or anything. I was actually really shy.
“I think a lot of actors, when I meet them as grown-ups, they go, ‘I was really shy too’.
“I think I’m just a daydreamer. I think storytelling is, in a way, daydreaming, but putting your daydreams into writing and getting people to embody them.
“I think my daydreaming skills have just come into it, I get paid for it.”
Despite now being praised for her stylish looks, ranging from velvet trouser suits to Valentino haute couture, walking the red carpet still makes Rachel nervous even today.
She said: “I don’t think any actress would say doing the red carpet is not terrifying. The way to get through it is to pretend.
“It’s a fantasy, like walking into a fantasy world. These people, they transform you, and that is fun.
“What you see on the red carpet is not a character that has anything to say.
“I used to be very shy, and in a way that was what was so great about the idea of acting. You can hide the real you behind that character.”
But after years of struggling with fame, Rachel says she has finally learned to be content with exactly where she is in life.
She said: “Someone once said to me when I was younger, ‘Never think the best party is somewhere else’. You know that feeling of being somewhere and thinking you should go somewhere better?
“You can’t do that. Wherever you are is the right place to be.”
JUNIOR Andre has made his acting debut alongside his father Peter and an EastEnders star, just days after revealing his secret job.
The young lad, 20, played the role of Johnny in a new coming-of-age drama called Finding My Voice.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Junior has announced he’ll be starring in a filmCredit: Instagram/findingmyvoicemovieThe news comes only a matter of days after he revealed he secretly works at the London underground to make money to support his own musicCredit: Instagram/findingmyvoicemovie
Finding My Voice is about a girl called Mel who feels like she has nowhere to go after facing a series of tragedies.
Her family breaks up due to alcoholism following the death of her baby brother, plunging her into deep struggles.
Johnny is a friend who is always there for her when she needs someone to believe in her, which is truly heartwarming.
At the end of the month Finding My Voice will host its first screening as a part of Manchester‘s Film Festival.
Another Instagram post announced who Junior would be playing, which received a roaring reception from his friends and family.
The post shows a carousel of snaps of Junior featuring in the film, the first of which includes the name “Johnny” over his head in block lettering.
The caption says: “Junior Andre. Johnny is Mel’s school friend and one of the few people who’s always there when she needs someone to believe in her.
“Finding My Voice movie is out on 28th March at Manchester Film Festival. See you there!”
Junior’s character is very supportive in the filmCredit: Instagram/findingmyvoicemovieHis girlfriend Jasmine gushed with pride online about his film debutCredit: Splash
Right at the top of the post’s comments section is Peter, gushing: “Yea my son,” followed by three flame emojis.
Junior’s girlfriend Jasmine Orr added: “Can’t wait for this,” along with three hand emojis forming hearts.
Fans felt the same level of enthusiasm, saying “Wow” and that they “can’t wait to watch” the film.
Peter plays the role of Costas, who more details are yet to be released about.
