‘Public Education’ Not Easy to Define

Questions raised by rally for more school funding

The Detroit Free Press reports that hundreds of demonstrators came out on Saturday, July 22, to call for more school funding. They rallied under the nondescript banner of the March for Public Education, a coordinated national effort in at least 16 different cities.

Yet the very appearance of this group raises thorny questions about what qualifies as public education and how to distinguish it from other types of learning. The group’s own definition of “public education” clearly misses the mark.

“Public schools are schools that receive federal funding towards their operation,” the March for Public Education’s founders say. “This includes the traditional neighborhood public school as well as not-for-profit charter schools.”

Yet public schools universally work with profit-making entities to advance their work, just in different degrees. About 70 percent of conventional school districts contract with private vendors for major non-instructional services, and all districts purchase books and other instructional materials from for-profit entities.

Making federal funds a litmus test produces some unusual results. Last year, Michigan’s tiny Bangor Township School District #8 received no dollars from Washington, D.C., but certainly didn’t lose its public school status. Not-for-profit charters in Ann Arbor (Washtenaw Technical Middle College) and Cedar Springs (Creative Technologies Academy) have not received any federal dollars since 2012. The Alternative Education Academies of Iosco County and Ogemaw County have never taken a dime in federal money.

Most Michigan charters, including those that contract with for-profit operators to oversee instruction, do receive federal funds. So do private schools that participate in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which gives low-income families in the nation’s capital federal dollars to choose education options outside the public system.

Not surprisingly, the March for Public Education opposes such voucher programs, describing them as “generally funded by state governments that offer parents reimbursements for their public school costs to be used toward private school tuition.” If more federal funds supported private school operations through parental choice, though, the group would have to reassess its definition.

One of the most common ways to distinguish public schools from private schools is to say that they must accept all students. While this claim is generally accurate, it is not true that any public school must accept any student. Districts may place a special-needs child in a public center-based program or a private treatment facility. And unlike public charter schools, districts may operate magnet schools with testing or other admission standards. Detroit just converted a fourth high school to a “preparatory examination school.” Not everyone can get into that school.

If a family can’t afford to live in a district with higher-performing schools, their access is further limited. Schools of Choice allows students to enroll across district lines, but individual districts may be off-limits. Like Ohio, which has a similar law, Michigan has its share of “walled districts” that refuse to let in any students from outside.

Grosse Pointe, which was represented by a former school official at the March for Public Education podium, earlier this year debated a proposal to charge non-residents up to $13,000 in tuition to attend. While the local board ultimately rejected the proposal, a handful of other Michigan districts do in fact charge tuition for outsiders. So “public school” does not always mean “tuition-free,” and a tuition charge does not by itself make a school private.

Despite a dearth of evidence that more funding is the solution for current inequities and shortcomings in public education, that’s what those involved in the Detroit rally want. The Free Press quoted the local rally’s representatives as saying that district schools are underfunded. Yet Michigan schools spend $12,000 or more per student. Michigan’s latest budget adds $525 million in state spending for K-12 education, an increase of 3.7 percent. That comes even though the number of students enrolled is expected to drop for yet another year.

“We believe that school funding should be based on school and student need,” the March for Public Education asserts.

As many dollars as possible should follow students to the place their family believes will give them the best chance at success. Public education should be about ensuring as many children as possible are educated and prepared to succeed in adult life. Whether those schools get federal funding or are managed as for-profit institutions ought to be irrelevant as long as they do the job of public education.

Related Articles:

Charter School-Prison Comparison Misses the Mark

'We’re Number 10' in School Choice

'Reckless Expansion' of Charter Schools? Not Quite

Voters’ Support for School Choice Remains Strong

Another Charter School Critic Misses the Mark

As Feds Expand Forfeiture, Michigan Looks to Restrict It

Preserving property rights is essential

The Trump administration is gearing up to expand federal forfeitures, a law enforcement tool that enables the government to confiscate people’s property before they are convicted of a crime.

Policy Analyst Jarrett Skorup writes in Forbes that this is a bad move:

Although the Department of Justice under President Obama had begun curtailing the ability of local law enforcement agencies to share forfeiture profits with federal ones, a new DOJ memo indicates a reversal of policy. The DOJ curtailed “adoptive” seizures – where law enforcement uses looser federal laws rather than more restrictive state ones – in early 2015. The recent order “plan[s] to develop polices to increase forfeitures.”

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the new policy will still require “probable cause” before the property can be forfeited by the Feds. But that standard of evidence is way too low, and it's what has led to widespread abuse across the states. That’s why many have begun making reforms.

The protection of private property is a bipartisan issue, and the passage of new laws and amendments reinforcing our bedrock Constitutional property right have been widespread. The vast majority of Americans oppose a scheme by which innocent people can lose their property without ever being convicted of a crime. It’s past time for the Trump administration to get on board.

Skorup also discussed the new federal policy with the Detroit News and talked about what Michigan is trying to do in order to better protect the rights of citizens:

The new federal policy could make it easier for state or local agencies to pursue civil asset forfeiture in Michigan, said Jarrett Skorup of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. In cases involving federal laws, those agencies could seize property “just based on probable cause rather than what our state standards require, which is clear and convincing evidence.”

The reform coalition supports [a] bill to require a criminal conviction [and] wants to see a larger package that also would limit what police agencies can do with cash or property they confiscate, Skorup said. “All the money goes back to law enforcement, and that creates an incentive,” he said.

Learn more about forfeiture and track what is happening in Michigan at www.mackinac.org/forfeiture.

Related Articles:

Senate Votes for Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

State Media Covers Push for Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Reitz Quoted on Criminal Justice Reform Efforts

Gov. Snyder Signs Forfeiture Reform Bills

Michigan Forfeiture Laws Improving, But State Transparency Still Falls Behind

The Allure of Corporate Welfare

Both parties seem to agree that handing out select subsidies and tax breaks is good politics

(Editor’s note: The following is taken from a letter written to supporters of the Mackinac Center.)

The governor who once called corporate welfare “the heroin drip of state government” now seems ready to countenance a full-scale opioid crisis of sweetheart deals for big companies.

The popular Pure Michigan advertising campaign is the lipstick on the corporate welfare pig, but the pig itself is embodied in new legislation that would supercharge the kind of deals we had been winding down.

What’s not to like? They don’t work, they aren’t fair, they’re not honest, they’re secretive, they breed corruption, they’re expensive, and they provide political cover for lawmakers to avoid substantive reforms.

What’s to like? Politicians get to say they’re “doing something” about jobs, and well-connected companies get goodies and lower tax bills while everyone else pulls their own weight — plus an extra load to make up for the favored few. Oh, and the Pure Michigan commercials win awards. So we’ve got that going for us.

The continued attraction of corporate welfare is a failure to limit the powers of government, not a partisan problem. Republicans are as hungry as Democrats to hand out favors.


Related Articles:

Return of the Mega Subsidy

Will Republicans Backtrack on Corporate Welfare Cuts?

MEGA 2 Hearing Demonstrates Desperation

‘Trough Truce’ on Display in Latest Debate on Corporate Welfare

New Corporate Welfare Proposal is Unfair

Legislative Proposals to Change the Michigan Constitution

July 21, 2017 MichiganVotes weekly roll call report

The Legislature is on a summer break with no sessions scheduled until Aug. 16. Rather than votes this report contains some interesting or noteworthy legislative proposals to amend the constitution. To become law these require a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate and approval by voters.

House Joint Resolution L: Allow private school vouchers for special needs children

Introduced by Rep. Tim Kelly (R), to place before voters in the next general election a constitutional amendment to require the state to provide financial support for children with special needs to attend the school of their choice, including a nonpublic school, up to the amount that would be provided if the child were enrolled in a regular public school. Referred to committee, no further action at this time.

House Joint Resolution M: Eliminate state board of education

Introduced by Rep. Tim Kelly (R), to place before voters in the next general election a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the current structure of an elected state board of education that selects a superintendent of public instruction who also directs the state Department of Education, and replace it with a governor-appointed department director like other state departments. Referred to committee, no further action at this time.

House Joint Resolution N: Reduce number of legislators

Introduced by Rep. Michael McCready (R), to place before voters in the next general election a constitutional amendment to change the number of state representative districts from the current 110 to 76, which is twice the number of state senate districts.

House Joint Resolution O: Place Democrat election law proposals in constitution

Introduced by Rep. Jon Hoadley (D), to place before voters in the next general election an amendment that would place in the constitution a number of election law changes that Democratic lawmakers have pursued with bills amending state statutes, including streamlined voter registration and absentee ballot procedures, automatic voter registration when getting a driver license and, early voting by means of no-reason absentee ballots and more.

House Joint Resolution P: Define legislature’s authority to rein in state university speech restrictions

Introduced by Rep. Jim Runestad (R), to place before voters in the next general election a constitutional amendment establishing that the legislature may provide by law for the protection of free speech, expression, and assembly rights at state colleges and universities, which shall supersede any inconsistent restriction prescribed by one of these institutions. Referred to committee, no further action at this time. Referred to committee, no further action at this time.

SOURCE: MichiganVotes.org, a free, non-partisan website created by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, providing concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill and vote in the Michigan House and Senate. Please visit www.MichiganVotes.org.

Related Articles:

Corporate Handouts Run Amok

Opioids, Slingshots, Switchblades, Police Sex with Prostitutes and Important 'Do Not Resuscitate' Proposal

Big Budget Bills, Jail for Bringing in too much Beer, Ban Government Charter School Discrimination, more

Pension Reform, Electronic Vehicle Registration, Decriminalize Idling in Driveway

Energy Debt for Colleges, No Special Permit to Carry

A Solution to Local Government Debt

Pension and retiree health care liabilities are in crisis and the time to act is now

Local government retiree liabilities in Michigan have grown to at least $17 billion. Retirement debt costs are the fastest-rising expense for many municipalities, crowding out spending on core government services and have led to higher taxes.

Gov. Rick Snyder created a task force early this year that produced a new report. There is agreement that local debt is a problem, but there was little consensus from the task force on how to fix it. Union representatives seem to think this problem can be solved simply by getting more revenue from the state or by raising taxes. Local government groups similarly see tax hikes as a solution to the problem and want the power to more easily raise taxes.

But the primary problem is not lack of revenue — local government revenue has been pretty robust, increasing above inflation, on average, despite a decade-long recession. And though there are some cities which have seen real declines in revenue, the skyrocketing cost of pension and retiree health care liabilities dwarfs these revenue problems.

Take the city of Lansing as an example. Over the past decade, if property tax revenue and state revenue sharing had grown to keep pace with inflation, the city would have an extra $10 million to spend. But over that same period, the city added $270 million in retiree debt, making that hypothetical extra money almost meaningless. Many other cities are facing similar scenarios.

The problem is clear: Local government leaders are promising benefits to workers and have failed to put aside enough money to pay for them. For every $1 in health care benefits promised to future retirees, cities have saved only 19 cents. Almost no city or county is prefunding retiree health care, meaning they are essentially making empty promises to workers about what they can expect to receive in retirement.

The positive side to this challenge is that local governments have the tools to deal with this problem and many have been starting to use them. The solution is to stop letting today’s elected officials make promises to future retirees that they don’t have to pay for. This means only offering workers defined contribution, 401(K)-type retirement plans and prefunding the retiree health care part of these plans.

But not all municipalities are taking this problem serious enough. Too many are still holding on to the hope that they’ll be able to ignore these costs a little longer and grow out of this problem. But as the city of Lansing example demonstrates, this is unlikely to fix the problem. To that end, lawmakers might need to step in and create incentives for local governments to deal with these issues now, before they get even worse.

Related Articles:

Why Michigan Pension Reform Matters

Detroit Was Just the Beginning: The Crisis of City Pension Systems in Michigan

Michigan Local Government Revenues Strong Despite Complaints

Understand the Emergency Manager Law Before Changing It

Local Governments Cry Poor but Act Rich

Why Michigan Pension Reform Matters

Michigan now a national leader on fixing pension problems

The passage of the 2017 public school pension reform is a transformational change for Michigan. The new reform places Michigan at the forefront of states that have gotten a grip on out-of-control government employee legacy costs.

Michigan had accidentally made school employees its largest creditors and this imposed huge costs on taxpayers. The new law limits that damage by making it much harder for lawmakers and state officials to promise pension benefits to new school employees and then push the costs onto tomorrow’s taxpayers.

All employees in Michigan’s public school districts, community colleges and a few other institutions are mandatory participants in the state’s school pension system. It covers 189,761 people, meaning roughly about one out of every 24 individuals employed in this state are earning benefits from this system.

But the pension fund is underfunded. The state owes the system’s members $29.1 billion, the difference between how much it has saved to pay for their pensions and the amount the system’s managers expect it to cost.

This is not a new problem. In 42 out of the past 43 years the pension system has not had enough money to cover the costs of the benefits it has promised.

The underfunding makes the plan more expensive, but it provides no boon to members. Michigan taxpayers are now paying 37 percent of school payroll to keep this system afloat, with 89 percent of those contributions going to catch up on unfunded liabilities, rather than being set aside to pay for the pensions being earned by current school employees each year.

The benefits pensioners receive are not especially lavish, even with these high costs. Half of school employees don’t even become eligible for pension benefits, failing to meet the eligibility requirement of logging 10 years in the public school system.

The key problem is that the politicians responsible for the pension system have weak incentives to pay for the promises they make. They make choices each year of how many scarce resources to allocate to pensions. Pension funding typically ranks low on the list of priorities, especially when competing against spending that produces more immediate political benefits. The $29.1 billion unfunded taxpayer liability demonstrates how little of a political return there is for a well-funded pension system.

The new law addresses this problem. New employees will get substantial employer contributions to a 401(k)-style, defined-contribution plan. Alternatively, new school employees can still choose to enroll in a conventional pension plan, but they will have to share the cost if managers fail to properly fund it.

Lawmakers also limited that plan from getting out of control. If the plan’s funding falls below 85 percent of the total liability for two consecutive years, it will automatically close and no new employees will be enrolled from then on.

The chances of that are reduced by another change: the new law says that pension fund investments can only be assumed to earn a more conservative 6 percent return over time. The state’s other retirement systems use more optimistic rates of 7 percent and 7.5 percent, which contributed to underfunding when pension managers don’t hit these investment targets.

The new reform leaves the benefits of people working today unaltered. So lawmakers will need to ensure that benefits are properly funded for current workers and retirees even as it contains its ability to underfund benefits for new employees.

This is unusual among the 50 states. Total state and local government pension underfunding in the U.S. is at least $1.1 trillion and perhaps as high as $4.8 trillion. There have been some reform efforts elsewhere, but politicians tend to focus on the wrong problem — tweaking systems by reducing benefits or requiring higher employee contributions. What they should address is how the persistent mismanagement of these systems allows inadequate pension fund contributions to go on for years on end.

In 1996 Michigan took a leap forward in containing the ability of managers to underfund lifetime benefit promises when it stopped granting defined-benefit pensions to new state employees. Local governments, which are not required to be part of a state-run system, have also started transitioning to 401(k)-style benefits for new hires.

One other major reform has been implemented here. Under a law passed in 2012, Michigan no longer gives post-retirement health insurance coverage to new state or school employees. Instead they get contributions to a retirement health savings account. Local governments have likewise started to move in this direction. This also prevents shifting the costs of today’s government services onto tomorrow’s taxpayers.

That last point is the purpose of all these reforms: Michigan is getting closer to paying all the costs of today’s classrooms and other government services today, rather than pushing those costs onto the next generation of Michigan residents.

This honors the intent of the statesmen who drafted Article IX, Section 24 of Michigan’s state constitution, and the voters who adopted it in 1963. It puts this state firmly on the path to solving a fiscal problem that threatens states and communities across the country. And it protects government employees and taxpayers alike.

Related Articles:

Mackinac Center: Michigan a National Innovator in Pension Reform

Mackinac Center Praises Groundbreaking Pension Reforms in Michigan

Pension Reform Legislation Benefits Students, Teachers and Taxpayers

Defined-Contribution Plans Help State Credit

As Soaring Pension Debt Eats Budgets, Teacher Says Reform ‘Makes No Sense’

Why We Can’t Build Infrastructure Like We Used To

Regulatory burdens just as much to blame as political gridlock

Hardly a week goes by when we don’t see an article or news story about America’s crumbling infrastructure and utilities. Contractors say it’s bad and getting worse; so do engineers, universities and think tanks. People experience it too, driving on bad roads, dealing with water main breaks and unreliable utilities. And it upsets nearly everyone to see America’s infrastructure falling apart.

The blame for the lack of infrastructure improvements is often laid at the feet of political gridlock, or misplaced priorities, or just plain government incompetence. But there’s more to it than that.

Since the U.S. built the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, interstate highway system and most of our water and wastewater utilities, the country has changed dramatically, and these changes profoundly affect our ability to build or improve infrastructure and utilities, especially large projects.

The number of regulations that need to be met, the time it takes to comply with these regulations, and the ability of these regulations to stymie projects have all increased over time. Environmental reviews and activism can shut down projects or delay them interminably. A litigation culture jeopardizes any project that doesn’t yield high benefits and near-zero risks. Add to this city and state pension obligations that make financing large infrastructure investments out of reach for many governments.

These developments have dramatically increased the amount of money and time it takes to build infrastructure and utility projects. So much so that today we’d be unable to build the iconic projects that once defined the American can-do spirit.

The bemoaned political gridlock is a symptom of these changes rather than the cause of our infrastructure and utilities woes. Until we recognize this, it will be hard to make meaningful progress.

Many argue that strict regulations, public pensions and legal recourse make America healthier, safer, greener and more equitable, but there are tradeoffs to these perceived benefits. These factors contribute to our inability to build infrastructure and utilities like we used to.

Related Articles:

Michigan Taxpayers Don’t Need to Spend Another $4 Billion Annually on Infrastructure

Be Wise in Deciding How to Spend Taxpayer Funds on Infrastructure

Michigan Taxpayers Don’t Need to Spend $4 Billion Annually on Infrastructure

Repressive Ride-sharing Regulations Beaten Back in the Big Apple

Infrastructure Funding Principles

How Many People Should be in Prison?

No easy answer, but here’s how to think about the question

It’s common to have a conversation about criminal justice reform that includes an anxious reference to the “mass incarceration crisis.” But as legal academic John Pfaff points out in his new book “Locked In,” the phrase might actually be meaningless because we don’t know the right number of offenders to incarcerate. For instance, there are 43,000 people occupying Michigan prisons right now. Is that “mass incarceration?” If so, what is “normal incarceration” and how do we get there? There’s no clear answer to these questions, but here’s how to approach about the issue.

First, determining the “right number of people” metric is influenced by your point of view on more fundamental criminal justice questions. If you’re a prison abolitionist who believes prisons are innately corrupting and harmful to society, your “right number” metric is practically zero. But if you’re a “tough-on-crime” proponent who sees long sentences as an effective means to deter criminal activity, your “right number” would be much larger.

Second, while reformers across the spectrum tend to agree that the incarceration rate is too high, there is no consensus on how to scale it back. And here is where the complexities of the problem of calculating the right number of offenders to incarcerate start to appear. Dozens of variables contribute to the size of the prison population, and they are all quite difficult to measure.

Take the idea of justice, for example. The state punishes offenders on behalf of their victims, but it’s not always clear what sentence will produce the appropriate amount of justice. If a store is robbed, is justice served to the store owner if the offender is given a two-year sentence or five-year sentence? Compounding the problem is the fact that plea bargaining introduces even more uncertainty about how long — or even whether — any given offender will serve time. Is justice served when pleas are bargained down?

This uncertainty persists at every level of the criminal justice system. Once the offender enters prison, it is true that incarcerating him averts any crimes he might have otherwise committed, but we should always ask: Is this the most effective way to improve public safety or are there better alternatives? We have no way of counting the averted crimes, and some research suggests that incarcerating people for too long may induce them to commit crimes later that they otherwise might not have committed.

Decisions about when and how a person can be released from prison are also fraught with complexity. Michigan’s “truth-in-sentencing” policy means that a prisoner will serve every day of the minimum sentence imposed by the judge at trial. But, after that, it’s up to the parole board to decide whether and when to release a prisoner before he has served the maximum statutory punishment for his offense. What factors should the board take into account in making the release decision? Is there some point after which keeping a prisoner incarcerated will do more long-term harm than good? Should we expect imprisonment to reform convicts or just mete out punishment?

Finally, budgetary concerns often impact all of the issues raised above. If the price tag gets too high, the question must shift from the right number of offenders to incarcerate to the right type of offender to release, which is a different question that requires a different analysis. The state only has so much money and how much to spend on the criminal justice system is up to legislators who have competing priorities to consider.

All of these factors and more influence the size of the prison population and should be accounted for in discussions about how to determine the optimal number of prisoners. Questions about how well and when prison works and weighing that against other budget constraints is difficult. But understanding these and other factors at work in the criminal justice system is crucial to resolving not only our collective concern about the size of the prison population, but also every other perceived inefficiency or idea for improvement.

Related Articles:

Pugsley Correctional Facility to Close

Individualized Solutions for Juvenile Justice Can Help Reduce Mass Incarceration

Putting Too Many People in Prison Puts Michigan at Risk

Michigan Must Seize Opportunities for Criminal Justice Reform

How ‘Good Character’ Provisions Create Bad Outcomes

On Cigarette Tax Evasion, I Told You So

Additional four million packs to be smuggled into Minnesota next year

In 2015 I was graciously invited to testify before a Minnesota state committee on taxes regarding an automatic tax inflator for cigarettes. The invitation was a result of my decade long investigation — in partnership with professor and economist Todd Nesbit — of cigarette excise taxes and their impact on illicit activity, most notably tax evasion. I told the committee what it apparently did not want to hear: that their recent tax increase and associated tax inflator would lead to rampant smuggling.

In my testimony I outlined the mountain of research showing a causal link between smuggling, high excise rates and tax differentials on cigarettes between states. At the time I could only report that the North Star State had the 16th highest smuggling rate in the nation. The data was not yet available to measure the impact of the 130 percent excise tax increase imposed in 2013. Using our statistical model we forecasted that smuggling would leap to 32.9 percent of the overall market from just 18 percent.

Most Minnesota lawmakers were completely dismissive of my concerns and perhaps even more so when I asserted that smuggling would only get worse as the state’s tax inflator raised the overall price of cigarettes. Since that February day the evidence has borne out my forecast and more. The implicit admission by the state of smuggling trouble came that same winter when the governor’s proposed budget said that 40 percent of inspections of Minnesota retailers “resulted in either a seizure or assessment related to the discovery of untaxed tobacco products.”

Using our statistical model with data from 2015, we estimate that Minnesota’s smuggling rate will increase to 37.4 percent of the total market over the next year, or almost 1.5 percent points above our last estimate.

This should surprise no one. The state currently imposes a combined excise and in lieu sales tax of $3.59 per pack. Its neighbor, North Dakota, charges just 44 cents per pack. One doesn’t need a doctorate in economics to recognize that both consumers and criminals are going to take advantage of the tax-induced price differentials to save a buck transiting state borders near and far.

Two men from Illinois recently pled guilty to charges in Minnesota for running a truckload of illegal smokes with a retail value of $78,000 over from Wisconsin last year. It was a record bust in the state but puny compared to those in other states. States with higher excise tax rates have seen arrests that discovered millions of dollars of smuggled cigarettes. On June 8, three Canadian citizens plead guilty to moving $17 million in illicit smokes from Kansas to New York, as one example.

Minnesota will probably see similar large-scale smuggling efforts in the near future, if they aren’t already. After all, the state has guaranteed smugglers a high pay out with its high excise tax rate and automatic (upward) adjustments. We estimate that four million cigarettes will be trafficked into the state by casual users and by organized crime in the next year. The sources will range from North Dakota to North Carolina and even overseas, via mail and shipping containers. Illicit smokes acquired in Virginia have been found as far away as California.

Regrettably, cigarette smuggling isn’t the only unintended consequence of the practice. Indeed, we’ve seen cigarette tax-related thefts of wholesalers and retailers, hijackings of cigarette laden trucks, counterfeiting of legitimate products (which are often adulterated like the Bath Tub Gin of the Prohibition Era), corruption of public officials and even murder-for-hire schemes. Most if not all of this behavior can be laid at the feet of high cigarette excise taxes.

The first step in addressing the problems I cite above is to repeal the automatic inflator on cigarette taxes. As I predicted years ago for Minnesota, automatic tax hikes will lead to automatic increases in tax-related lawlessness.

Related Articles:

LaFaive and Nesbit Op-ed Published in Lincoln Journal Star

California Tax Bills Asking for Trouble

West Virginia Excise Tax Hike Proposal Invites Smugglers

Cigarette Taxes Bad for Pennsylvania Businesses

Maryland Cigarette Excise Tax Hike Proposal Irresponsible

‘Trough Truce’ on Display in Latest Debate on Corporate Welfare

Latest business subsidy gets bipartisan support and some opposition

Lawmakers agreed on July 12 to deliver $200 million of taxpayer dollars to businesses selected by politicians, an idea the governor is expected to sign into law. This gift is a waste of money. Ostensibly, it is to create jobs, but it won’t work and creates an unfair playing field.

It may seem strange that government spending interests were almost entirely silent on the issue. One might reasonably expect public school officials, university leaders, local government groups, hospitals and other recipients of government funding to oppose plans to hand over taxpayer money to select companies. Their silence is evidence of the “trough truce,” in which interest groups that rely on government money agree not to complain about other groups receiving government money. These same interest groups came out in full force opposing a modest decrease in the state income tax. So it seems they are fine with handing out select subsidies to certain businesses but against letting all taxpayers keep a slightly larger sliver of more of their own money.

Some of the state’s left-leaning organizations registered their opposition. One was the Michigan League for Public Policy, which advocates for progressive policies. Another was the large government employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 25. Progress Michigan put out a negative comment in June.

But skepticism from a wide array of organizations was not enough to convince lawmakers.

Some argued that the state needed more goodies to compete with the favors offered by other states. Yet Michigan offers a great many incentives already. The latest budget contained $136 million in select subsidies. The state expects also to transfer an additional $627 million from taxpayers to businesses from old deals in the upcoming year.

The question is what Michigan residents get for all of that spending. The answer is not very much. Economists have used sophisticated tools to tease out the effects and mostly find negative results.

That means the new spending won’t deliver the “the strongest possible future” for the state, as the governor stated. Nor will it result “in a stronger economy and more robust neighborhoods and communities,” as the president of Business Leaders for Michigan, Doug Rothwell, remarked.

Spending on these business subsidies is perhaps the most wasteful thing the state government does. Prison spending, for instance, pays to incarcerate people the justice system has determined need to be removed from society. Education spending, for all its inefficiencies, ensures nearly all kids are enrolled in a school from ages six to 18. Business subsidies given for economic development purposes, however, do not develop the economy.

But there’s another reason to oppose these types of deals: They are unfair to the businesses that don’t get the special treatment. Businesses operate in a competitive environment and taxpayer cash can tip the scales in favor of one business over another. These deals create an environment where one business could be indirectly subsidizing its competitor.

Not all lawmakers bought into the program. There were 22 Republicans and 13 Democrats who opposed a giveaway bill in the House; five Republicans opposed it in the Senate. That is an improvement from the Granholm years when opposition to taking money from everyone and delivering it to select business owners received only a handful of legislative naysayers.

The support for business subsidies is narrow: The people handing out the new deals and the people receiving them obviously like them. The opposition should be broad, and it was good to see diverse groups opposing it. Perhaps if the trough truce was broken, there would have been enough weight opposing this latest waste of taxpayer money.

Related Articles:

New Corporate Welfare Proposal is Unfair

Legislature Considers Reopening a Closed Business Subsidy Program

Return of the Mega Subsidy

MEGA 2 Hearing Demonstrates Desperation

Lawmakers May Further Subsidize Millionaires and Billionaires with New Program