The MC: The Mackinac Center Blog

Putting School Funding Inequity in Perspective

Proposal A put a solid funding floor under even the poorest school districts

For years, and especially in the wake of the state’s school funding “adequacy study,” people have called for more “equity” in how Michigan funds its public schools. Unfortunately, many of the appeals for more funding equity fail to consider the progress that has been made over the years. Instead, they treat each and every funding disparity as evidence of an entirely rigged, broken funding system.

For example, the Traverse City Record-Eagle recently declared that the distribution of funds to different school districts is “as off-kilter as it was when Proposal A passed in 1994,” asserting Michigan’s 22-year-old systemic change was a “dismal failure.”

That bold assertion falls apart under close scrutiny.

The northern Michigan newspaper’s editors build their case on a shaky foundation, selectively comparing the financing of their largest local school district, Traverse City Area Public Schools, with one of the highest-funded districts in the state: Oakland County’s Birmingham Public Schools. The $4,400 gap in foundation allowances between the two districts should be considered in context.

The foundation allowance represents the state’s minimum per-pupil funding guarantee for both conventional districts and charter schools. On average, it represents about two-thirds of the total revenues districts receive. Even so, a large gap among districts within the primary funding formula can drive a significant disparity in overall funding levels.

In 1994, four out of every five school operating dollars came from local property taxes. Wealthy suburbs and upscale tourist towns thrived under the system. Districts with lower assessed business and residential properties lagged far behind. Proposal A capped local millage rates and mixed these limited local revenues with state revenues to create a minimum per-pupil allotment for each district.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

So, districts are still funded by local property taxes — on “nonhomestead property” — but the state uses its own resources to ensure that every district gets at least a certain level of funding per pupil. This amount is a district’s foundation allowance.

As part of the deal made to advance Proposal A, lawmakers agreed that the higher funded districts at the time would not have their funding cut — the state would hold them harmless. The plan instead was to increase funding for relatively lower funded districts at a faster rate, so these districts would eventually (but very slowly) catch up to their higher funded counterparts.

At the time, the gap between the richest and poorest districts was $7,532 per pupil. That chasm has been closed by almost $3,000. And the share of conventional districts and charter schools funded at the minimum foundation allowance rate (currently $7,511 per pupil) has grown from less than half to 84 percent. The graph below from the Senate Fiscal Agency displays these changes over time, through the 2014-15 school year.

Proposal A’s plan has mostly worked. Foundation allowances are more equitable today than they used to be. Four out of every five school districts and charter schools receive the same sum through Proposal A’s foundation allowance. And 95 percent of school districts get between the minimum of $7,511 and $8,229. This convergence shows what an outlier the highly funded districts are: Only 43 districts, or 5 percent, get more than an $8,229 foundation allowance.

In no way is the funding distribution as off-kilter as it was more than 20 years ago. Whether the gap has been closing quickly enough is a fair point for discussion. But one needs to keep in mind the costs associated with a more dramatic approach to equalizing all foundation allowances.

Using the latest available data from the state, from the 2015-16 school year, we can estimate how much districts and charter schools would gain if funding for the rich districts were reduced to the minimum level. If all the money spent on foundation allowances were divided equally among every district, the minimum per-pupil rate of $7,391 would grow by roughly $300, or about 4 percent. If the state used this method to equalize foundation allowances, there’d be a few dozen school districts much worse off (those whose funding was cut back significantly). Most other districts would be only a little better off financially.

Alternately, the state could equalize funding by bringing all the lower funded districts up to the level of the Birminghams of the world. But this plan is untenable: To fund Traverse City, 400 other conventional districts, and more than 300 charter schools at Birmingham’s foundation allowance of roughly $12,000 would require an additional $6.42 billion in tax dollars. The state would need to double the revenue it receives from the state’s sales tax. A 100 percent sales tax hike isn’t likely to fly with the Legislature or voters.

There are other approaches that lie between these two extremes. For instance, bringing up all districts to the “hold harmless” level of $8,169 per pupil would cost nearly $900 million more and leave only 43 districts funded above the norm. Those 43 districts serve one-ninth of Michigan public school students.

It’s important to remember too that, even by the admission of the recently released education adequacy study, any such funding increases would have at most a small effect on student achievement. Sure, school officials’ jobs would get a little easier; they’d have fewer difficult budgetary decisions to make. But based on their track record, there’s no guarantee that schools would spend this extra cash on things that would boost student learning.

These are the kinds of considerations that have to be made when thinking about altering Michigan’s school funding system. It’s easy to highlight lingering gaps between a select few wealthy outliers and the average school district. It’s a greater challenge to accelerate Proposal A’s equalizing effect with an acceptable approach that will make a meaningful difference.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

State Board of Education Not Immune To School Funding Myths

More School Spending is Still Unlikely to Boost Achievement

Mr. Dem House Leader, You're Still Not Entitled to Your Own Facts

Not in a Box, Not With a Fox; GOP Didn't Cut School Funding

Michigan Adequacy Study Shows the State Already Spends Plenty on Education

Worker’s Choice Popular in Michigan, Nationwide

National Employee Freedom Week poll finds overwhelming support of idea

As groups and individuals across the country work to educate workers about their rights during National Employee Freedom Week, right-to-work states like Michigan should consider another reform that would make workplaces more fair and free.

Mackinac Center Policy Analyst Jarrett Skorup wrote in an op-ed published by The Detroit News this week that even workers who opt-out of union membership can be forced to accept union representation even if they don’t want it. Worker’s Choice would free workers from forced representation and unions would no longer be required to negotiate on behalf of non-members.

But both sides of the political divide should support the concept of “worker’s choice,” championed by my colleague Vinnie Vernuccio. This would fix the “rider” problem, allowing workers who opt out of union membership to represent themselves and free unions from having to provide services to the workers they complain of free riding. This concept is also popular: more than 70 percent of Michigan union members agree with the concept.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

The Washington Examiner wrote about the popularity of Worker’s Choice in an article this week, explaining that nationwide, 67 percent of union members agree with the concept. "These survey results show that many workers believe they're better stewards of their hard-earned wages," Vernuccio told the Examiner.

Politico noted that Worker’s Choice has even, “intrigued a few pro-union commentators” because it solves the “free rider” problem.

The same survey that explored the favorability of Worker’s Choice found that more than one-quarter of union members nationwide would drop membership if they could do so without penalty. Currently, Michigan is one of 26 states that prevents workers from being fired for not belonging to a union.

Though Michigan is right to work, employees still face challenges trying to exercise their freedom, as explained by The Washington Free Beacon. In many cases, workers simply don’t know they are free to drop membership.

Vernuccio said that employee education is key. The 2013 implementation of right to work in his native Michigan was accompanied by union legal challenges and obstruction. Unions only allowed members to withdraw from the organizations during short windows of time and reported former union members to collection agencies in order to maintain the flow of union dues.

Vernuccio said the NEFW hopes to empower workers in order to combat intimidation tactics.

“Time and again we’ve heard union leaders say that it’s not their job to inform their membership on how to exercise their rights, so we’ve made it our job,” he said.

Read the full op-ed in The Detroit News here.

Read the full Washington Examiner article here.

Read the full Politico article here.

Read the full article in The Washington Free Beacon here.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Employees Need a Choice

‘Worker's Choice’ or ‘Free Riders’? Union Reform Bill Opts for Former

Michigan Lawmaker Introduces Worker’s Choice Bill

Article on Worker's Choice in Forbes

Worker's Choice Study Featured in National and State Media

This piece was originally published in the Orange County Register.

It seems there is a never-ending war on “sin” and a desire by some to try and tax it away. This includes higher taxes on snacks and cigarettes, among other items. As to the latter item, California voters will weigh in with a November ballot proposal to hike California’s cigarette excise tax by $2 per pack – a 229 percent increase.

This initiative, if adopted, will lead to rampant tax evasion and avoidance, among other unintended consequences. It would also levy a new tax on “vaping,” a demonstrably safer alternative to smoking tobacco, thereby discouraging a legitimate harm-reduction strategy.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Scholars at the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy and others have examined in detail the interaction of cigarette taxes and illicit behavior. They report that in 2014, more than 30 percent of all cigarettes consumed in California were not properly taxed. Not all tax avoidance is illegal, but nearly one-third of California’s smokes are smuggled into the state, and this happens with taxes at the relatively low rate of 87 cents per pack.

If excise taxes on cigarettes leap to $2.87 per pack, California will saddle buyers with the ninth-highest cigarette tax in the country, just higher than New Jersey ($2.70). It will also likely incur a number of problems related to smuggling. These include, but are not limited to: theft of cigarettes, violence and public corruption.

The Mackinac Center used its statistical model to “what if” the proposed tax hike, and the results are stunning. The model reports that if the increase is adopted, the smuggling rate in California may leap to 64 percent of the total market. That is, for every 100 cigarettes consumed in the state, 64 of them would be smuggled in from somewhere else.

That would be by far the highest smuggling rate the Mackinac Center has ever seen in its research, even besting estimates of New York state, with its significant cigarette-tax rates. One reason California is susceptible to a large amount of cigarette smuggling is its geography. Cigarettes could be easily purchased in its three neighboring states (Oregon, Nevada and Arizona), but international smuggling from Mexico and elsewhere would likely be a factor too. California’s 11 commercial ports are open doors through which illicit smokes from around the world could likely pass.

The Mackinac Center’s model is designed to capture the percentage of consumption attributed to smuggling. It breaks down that number into two types, casual and commercial. Casual smuggling involves buying cigarettes from lower-taxed states or on the internet but only for personal consumption. Commercial smuggling involves long-haul, large shipments of cigarettes and done to make a profit.

In 2013, a Monterey Park man pleaded guilty to trying to smuggle cigarettes from Port Newark, N.J., to California. The cigarettes originated in China. If smuggling is profitable at those distances, imagine how profitable it would be for organized crime should the Golden State raise its excise tax by 229 percent.

Smuggling is not the only unintended consequence of high excise taxes on cigarettes, though. Illicit trafficking of cigarettes has led to violence against people and police, brazen thefts from retail and wholesale shops, public corruption, murder-for-hire plots and the distribution of counterfeit (and often adulterated) products. A higher tax in California will only encourage more of this criminal activity.

All of this for likely little improvement to public health. Research published in 2005 by economist Mark Stehr found that up to 85 percent of changes in consumption made after cigarette tax hikes can be attributed to tax evasion and avoidance – not kicking the habit. In other words, most smokers keep on puffing; they just acquire their cigarettes from other sources.

In addition to the $2 cigarette excise tax increase, the initiative would institute an ad valorem tax on certain vaping products of about 67 percent. This is supposed to represent a tax equivalent to the one placed on cigarettes. Research shows that vaping, a noncombustible alternative to smoking, is much safer than traditional cigarette consumption. If anything, vaping products should be viewed as part of a harm-reduction strategy for smokers instead of another sinful goose waiting to be plucked.

The real problem here is that raising excise taxes on cigarettes by $2 per pack and extending that tax to vaping products might do more harm than good.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

This Week in Fiscal Policy News

Republican AG Rebuffs GOP Governor On Failed Detroit Schools: OK To Close Them

Michigan's Pension Crisis Means Tax Hikes and Cutting Cops

Legacy Society

Progress Michigan Hits Road With False School 'Cuts' Claims

Feds Claim Power Over Every Mud Puddle Under 'Migratory Molecule' Theory

Lessons from Muskegon Heights School Overhaul

Detroit can benefit from similar reforms

On July 1, a new Detroit school district was created as part of a major legislative reform package — the old district will remain but serve only as a tax collecting entity. Another new organization will be responsible for educating students. This dual-district model, however, is not a new concept.

Just four years ago, Muskegon Heights Public Schools used a similar method to deal with its financial struggles. Lessons from its experience could provide valuable insight as Detroit starts a similar journey.

Muskegon Heights seems to have successfully reduced its spending and stayed on stable fiscal ground. The old district was spending over $15,000 per pupil in 2010-2011, creating a budget deficit of over $2 million. Under new management, the district receives $11,789.59 per pupil and has so far prevented expenditures from outpacing revenues.

A financially failed school district must get its finances in balance to move on, which Muskegon Heights accomplished while under emergency management. There are certainly lessons here for Detroit.

While the district needed to overcome its financial distress, the ultimate goal of any school should be increasing student achievement. Unfortunately, state data shows that academic performance in Muskegon Heights is declining in areas such as scores on the ACT and the graduation rate. On the other hand, the district's elementary grades are a bright point. In the 2014-15 school year, 3rd and 4th graders' proficiency rates on the state math test broke into double digits — a step up from 0 percent before the change in management.

There is no doubt these test results are affected by the several challenges the district continues to battle. Data collected from MI School Data shows the share of economically disadvantaged students attending Muskegon Heights grew to 86 percent, up from 79 percent in 2010-11. And although enrollment briefly stabilized for a period, overall, the student population is down considerably since the district broke into two separate entities. What’s more, chronic absenteeism is up: MI School Data shows that in 2011-12, 34.25 percent of students were chronically absent, in 2014-15, the rate was 74.46 percent.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Muskegon Heights has placed an emphasis on parental involvement to tackle these academic problems. In the 2013-14 school year, the district strived to reach 100 percent attendance at parent-teacher conferences. The effort to increased parent involvement is still evident today as the district tries to make it easier for parents to stay involved with newsletters and online surveys. For example, the January 2016 newsletter lays out what families can expect with the new M-STEP testing regime. It also advertises parent-teacher conferences.

The takeaway on academic performance from Muskegon Heights is that increasing achievement will certainly require more effort and a longer horizon than getting the fiscal house in order. It may take some time to adjust to new student demographics, and immediate academic excellence cannot be expected when a district needs to rebuild itself nearly from scratch.

The record of emergency management in Muskegon Heights seems to have gotten lost in Michigan’s discussions about education reform. The lack of information available might be the reason. However, it doesn’t mean that the district’s successes and weaknesses can’t provide lessons. There must be a continued effort to examine Muskegon Heights, and other schools in similar situations, to strive for more sound education policy solutions for other districts in distress.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Detroit Children Need Choice, Not Bureaucracy

Lawmakers Must Preserve Choice in DPS Bailout

House Refuses to Ration School Choice for Detroit Parents, Children

A Hopeful Vision for Education in Detroit

February Viewpoints

Recycling Pop Cans Shouldn’t Make You a Felon

The many faces of overcriminalization

Most Michiganders are familiar with the state’s bottle deposit law, which was enacted in 1976. At 10 cents a bottle or can, Michigan has one of the nation’s highest deposit rates — most of the other states that use these deposits require only five cents. But what may not be as well known is that Michigan also enforces this law with an iron fist. A recent case from Livingston County resulted in felony charges and raises the question of whether this punishment fits the crime. It also highlights Michigan’s tendency to overcriminalize undesirable behavior.

On April 27, Brian Everidge, a resident of Michigan, was pulled over for speeding while driving a rental truck in Tyrone Township. The police officer discovered that the truck was packed to the brim with empty aluminum cans — over 10,000 in all. After questioning, Everidge admitted that the cans were from Lexington, Kentucky and that he was aiming to return them for a deposit. He did not state whether he was trying to return them for Michigan’s higher deposit rate or that he knew that this was illegal. (If this storyline sounds familiar, that’s probably because it’s the basis of a famous Seinfeld episode).

Everidge was eventually charged with a felony under Michigan’s Beverage Containers Act, which prohibits individuals from returning, or attempting to return, beverage containers that they know (or should know) are from out of state. Trying to deposit more than 10,000 containers is a felony and can lead to five years in jail and a fine of $5,000. (Misdemeanor charges and civil fines are used for smaller quantities of out-of-state returns.) Grocery stores and recycling centers can also be prosecuted under this law, as it forbids any retailer from knowingly providing 10-cent deposits for out-of-state containers.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Given Michigan’s relatively high deposit rate, it should be no surprise that people might smuggle out-of-state containers into Michigan for recycling. And, sure enough, Michigan has a fair amount of fraudulent redemptions from out-of-state returns. These out-of-state returns are difficult to prevent since most people simply walk into a grocery store, return their bottles, and leave, without any indication of where their returns came from.

While the Beverage Container Act’s criminal provisions are meant to deter out-of-state smugglers, they also demonstrate the drawbacks of using criminal law to punish behavior that most people would not consider morally objectionable and that does not threaten public safety. For example, “mens rea” (Latin for a “guilty mind”) is considered a core component of criminal law. It means that the government needs to prove that an individual at least acted with a culpable state of mind and was generally aware of his or her misconduct. Robust mens rea requirements are especially important for laws like Michigan’s Beverage Container Act, which are what legal theorists call “malum prohibitum” crimes. Such crimes involve conduct that is not inherently wrongful and is only deemed illegal because the government has passed a law saying so. Given that these types of laws do not involve inherently immoral conduct, citizens are more likely to break these laws without even knowing they exist.

Michigan’s bottle return law states that individuals must know that the containers they are attempting to return are from out of state. But the problem is that nothing in the statute explicitly requires that the person returning the containers knows that out-of-state returns are illegal. A better mens rea provision would clarify that the bottle return law’s criminal provisions only apply to those who willfully intend to break the law. In other words, harsh penalties may be appropriate for people who know they are attempting to violate the law, but there should be protections for people who are unaware that returning out-of-state bottles is a crime.

The Michigan Legislature recently passed meaningful mens rea reform. It makes it clear that when a statute is silent on this standard, an individual must at least act with “recklessness” to be found guilty of a crime. While this is a clear step in the right direction, the Beverage Container Act could still benefit from greater clarity. Although courts have not yet construed the law’s mens rea requirements in light of Michigan’s recent reforms, the Legislature could clarify that the bottle return law is only meant to target those individuals who know the law exists and are specifically trying to break it.

It can also be debated whether it’s proper at all for Michigan’s bottle return law to use harsh criminal penalties to deter conduct that most people wouldn’t view as threatening to public safety. For instance, Everidge was probably only going to net a few hundred dollars from his redemption scheme, and punishing him as a felon with jail time and a penalty as high as $5,000 may be overly punitive. One possible reform would be to enforce the bottle return law exclusively through civil penalties, as The Heritage Foundation’s John-Michael Seibler suggests. This would prevent anyone from having to serve jail time for returning out-of-state bottles.

Protecting Michigan’s environment from litter and encouraging recycling are noble goals to which Michigan’s bottle deposit law contributes. One can support these goals, but also acknowledge that criminal enforcement of bottle return laws may need reforming. The Legislature has put some focus on dealing with overcriminalization, and this law might be a good candidate for more reforms to that end.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Criminal Intent Reform Bill Clears Senate Committee

Criminal Intent Reform: Lessons from Ohio

How People Are Prosecuted For Breaking Laws They Don’t Know Exist

Guilty! Of Something No One Knows Is Illegal

Ohio Leads the Way on Criminal Intent Reform

Couple Could Lose Their Home Through Civil Forfeiture

Government confiscates thousands of dollars without filing charges

In Traverse City, a couple could lose thousands of dollars in cash as well as their home because of the state’s loose civil forfeiture laws. Their case shows the perspective of both sides of this issue, but the solution is fairly simple – governments should not be able to take ownership of people’s assets unless they are convicted of a crime.

The Traverse City Record-Eagle does a great job laying out the situation. The Traverse Narcotics Team believes Kenneth and Mary Murray profited from what it calls “ill-gotten gains.” The law enforcement agency accuses the couple of violating the state’s medical marijuana law by selling to people who did not have a physician-granted prescription. It also says the couple has made and sold edible medical marijuana, which is illegal. 

While no charges are currently filed against the couple, Kenneth has been charged with drug crimes in the past. He pleaded guilty to two counts of delivering or manufacturing an imitation controlled substance in 2015.

The Traverse Narcotics Team and county prosecutor are accusing the Murrays of using the sale of illegal substances to gain $3,863 in cash as well as a $262,657 home. So, as is legal under current Michigan law, they’ve seized the cash and home and are attempting to forfeit (transfer) the assets to the state. As the Record Eagle reports:

Detective Sgt. Randy Graham argued the couple's home and money are "ill-gotten gains," earned through medical marijuana sales that violated Michigan's medical marijuana law.

"(Criminal forfeiture is used) so that the criminals involved in the drug trade don't benefit from their crimes financially," Graham said.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

The Murray’s attorney argues in a court filing that “there is no evidence that any of the proceeds that were in the bank are the product of any illegal activity.”

While there are many examples of major abuse of civil forfeiture laws (see here for a good list in Michigan), this situation is more typical. Law enforcement suspects someone has gained assets through illegal activity, seizes it, and then places a high burden on the person to get it back. All this can be done before the person is convicted, or, in some cases, even charged with a crime.

But the ideal system would work in the opposite direction: Law enforcement should bring charges against a person for illegal activity, obtain a conviction in court, and prove the assets were gained through proceeds from the crime. Then, and only then, could the state take possession of the property.

Forfeiture is a necessary part of the criminal justice system. People who gain money, cars, homes and other property through illegal activity should not get to keep ill-gotten gains. But law enforcement should have to convict someone of a crime before taking possession of that person’s property. The Michigan Legislature should end civil forfeiture and only allow the state to take ownership of property after going convicting someone in the criminal justice system, just as the states of New Mexico and Nebraska have recently done.

To see specifics on how Michigan can improve its forfeiture system and read our study on this issue, please visit www.mackinac.org/forfeiture.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws Need Reform

State Media Covers Push for Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Mackinac Expert Debates Civil Asset Forfeiture

Skorup Discusses Civil Asset Forfeiture on WPHM

Key Part of Civil Asset Forfeiture Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Survey: Most Union Members Support Worker’s Choice

Wall Street Journal features Mackinac Center concept

A new survey finds an overwhelming majority of rank-and-file union members across the country believe employees should have the freedom to represent themselves in negotiations with their employer if they choose not to be part of a union.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Director of Labor Policy Vinnie Vernuccio wrote about his idea to make workplaces more fair and free environments in an op-ed published by The Hill. Along with his co-author and Mackinac Center Adjunct Scholar Jeremy Lott, Vernuccio explains that Worker’s Choice benefits individual workers, unions and employers.

Being able to bargain directly with their employer will allow these workers to get out of a one-size-fits-all contract and negotiate for wages and working conditions tailored to their individual needs. The seniority system most union contracts mandate only allows workers to receive a raise by logging another year on the job. But if a worker wants to be rewarded for how hard she works, she could use Worker’s Choice to negotiate for merit pay.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

The National Employee Freedom Week campaign — running this week to inform employees of their rights — polled union members on this concept and found that nearly 70 percent of union members think workers should be able to represent themselves if they opt out of paying union dues. When Vernuccio explained the concept to Mary Kissel on the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, she called the concept “common sense.”

Read the full op-ed at The Hill here.

Watch the full interview with the Wall Street Journal here.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Detroit Should Lessen Licensing Requirements

Mackinac Research Cited by Wall Street Journal

DeGrow Letter Published in Wall Street Journal

‘Worker's Choice’ or ‘Free Riders’? Union Reform Bill Opts for Former

Michigan Lawmaker Introduces Worker’s Choice Bill

Michigan’s Highest Taxpayers Could Soon Pay More

New op-ed questions value of proposed RTA and Wayne RESA millages

Property owners in Wayne County may pay the highest effective tax rates in the state, but they will be asked to pay more this November.

On the ballot will be a proposed new property tax aimed at raising money for regional transit and public schools. Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Vice President for Marketing and Communications John Mozena explained in an op-ed published in The Detroit News that, “For potential homebuyers or commercial property owners, it’s hard to make the argument that what we get in Wayne County is worth the additional cost.”

All told, Wayne County and municipalities for which it collects taxes brought in more than $2 billion in property taxes in 2015. This is the burden to which the RTA and Wayne RESA proposals would add, raising a 55.11 mill average property tax rate to something in the vicinity of 58.3 mills and making Wayne County even less affordable when compared to the rest of the state.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Mozena owns a home in Wayne County, where his son also attends public school, and noted moving slightly northeast or northwest would lower his cost of living without lowering his quality of life.

Read the full op-ed in The Detroit News.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Michigan's Underfunded Pensions: A Tale of Two Counties

This Week in Fiscal Policy News

Proposed Beer Tax Hike Would Hurt Brewers

Plastic Bag Tax Hurts Consumers, Businesses and Does Little for the Environment

Michigan Income Taxes Already Progressive

If Michigan wants to attract high-quality, job-creating businesses to the state, it should consider removing some of the hurdles companies must face to operate.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Assistant Director of Fiscal Policy James Hohman wrote about the state’s failed attempts to grow the economy through crony capitalism. Rather than offer handouts to a few favored companies that often fail to deliver on their promises, the state should look at its business climate.

Although targeted programs fail to nudge the economy in one direction or another, broad-based policies can encourage or discourage certain types of activities throughout the economy. These policies set the rules that all companies must abide by. They do things like require firms to register with the state, tax them, regulate what types of buildings they can use, and loads more. And these policies can be made more or less burdensome.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

There are plenty of policies that can make the state more attractive to start and expand a business. The state needs to continue to remove occupational barriers to entry. Around 21 percent of all jobs require workers to get a license from the state. There are other ways to protect people from harmful practitioners without licensure regimes and ways to do it without blocking people from the market.

Read the full op-ed in The Detroit News.

~~~~~

Related Articles:

Corporate Welfare Isn't 'Essential' to a Vibrant Economy

Cut Corporate Welfare to Help Balance State Budget

The Problem of Corporate Welfare

Michigan House Wise to Shift Corporate Welfare Spending to Roads

Reasons to be Optimistic Abound in Michigan Economy

August 12, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

Key votes on guns, same-sex adoptions, pensions, nanny-statism

While the Legislature is on a summer break with no voting, the Roll Call Report begins a series that reviews key votes of the 2015-2016 session.

Senate Bill 34, Revise concealed pistol license procedures: Passed 28 to 9 in the Senate on February 3, 2015 and passed 76 to 34 in the House on Feb. 25, 2015.
To eliminate county concealed pistol licensing boards and transfer their duties to the State Police and county clerks.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the Senate
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the House

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!


Senate Bill 69, Extend job training subsidies to some employers: Passed 35 to 1 in the Senate on February 25, 2015
To eliminate the 2018 sunset on a 2008 law that authorized state job training subsidies for particular employers provided through community colleges.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”


Senate Bill 69, Extend business job training subsidy program: Passed 104 to 5 in the House on June 18, 2015
The House vote on the bill described above. The House amended the bill to extend the program through 2023 rather than forever.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No”


Senate Bill 86, Authorize more local pension obligation bonds: Passed 36 to 0 in the Senate on March 4, 2015 and passed 109 to 1 in the House on May 20, 2015.
To extend for one year a 2012 law that allows local governments to incur long term debt to cover unfunded pension liabilities, but only if they close their traditional “defined benefit” pension system to new employees. The 2012 law also allows new debt to pay for retiree health insurance, which unlike pensions is not a legal obligation.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the Senate
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the House


Senate Bill 139, Push-back against school bake sale restrictions: Passed 36 to 1 in the Senate on March 19, 2015 and passed 66 to 43 in the House on May 13, 2015.
To require the Michigan Department of Education (MDOE) to “take all steps necessary to ensure maximum state and local control over” school lunch nutrition mandates. Also, to limit to three per week the number of fundraising sales of food or beverages during school hours that do not meet mandated school lunch nutritional standards. The bill was introduced in response to federal and MDOE restrictions and bans on the sales.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the Senate
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the House


House Bill 4189, Let adoption agencies refuse adoptions that violate moral convictions: Passed 26 to 12 in the Senate on June 10, 2015 and passed 65 to 44 in the House on March 18, 2015
To specify in statute that a “child placing agency” (private adoption or foster care agency) is not required to assist or participate in an adoption or placement that violates its written religious or moral convictions, including adoptions of a child by a same sex couple. Also, to prohibit a state agency from discriminating or taking an “adverse action” against an agency for this reason.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the Senate
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the House


House Bill 4041, Ban welfare for persistent truancy: Passed 26 to 12 in the Senate on May 26, 2015 and passed 74 to 36 in the House on March 26, 2015.
To withhold welfare benefits from a household with children who are persistently truant from school. A truant child age 16 and above could be removed from the household for this.

Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the Senate
Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” in the House

~~~~~

Related Articles:

September 23, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

September 19, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

September 9, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

September 2, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

August 26, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

August 19, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report