Michigan
Capitol Confidential ^ | 5/15/2013 | Jarrett Skorup
It’s a popular saying for many: "Tax cuts don’t create jobs." Google it, and
there are more than 100,000 results for that specific claim.
At this point, it is a truism for liberal politicians and commentators that
tax cuts are ineffective.
In 2010, Gov. Rick Snyder ran a campaign around getting rid of the hated
Michigan Business Tax, which was one of the first things accomplished by the new
Legislature. The change overwhelmingly helped small businesses while shifting
larger corporations to a much less complicated 6 percent flat tax. The result
was a $1.7 billion business tax cut.
Here are some of the responses in the years since:
"Republicans have consistently cut taxes for big corporations and made middle
class families pick up the tab," House Minority Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn
Hills, was quoted as saying in a Detroit Free Press article. "They've shifted an
incredible tax burden from businesses to individuals and he did it promising
there'd be jobs and he can't point to a single job," Robert McCann, spokesman
for Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, told the Lansing
State Journal. "My suspicion is that the tax cuts went into pockets, rather than
into jobs," Sen. Glenn Anderson, D-Westland, was quoted as saying in a Lansing
State Journal story. "There hasn't been a wave of new job creation as a result
of the new 6 percent corporate income tax, which amounted to a $1.7-billion tax
cut for businesses," reported a Detroit Free Press editorial. Ignoring the
debate over how much those specific tax changes helped the economy, the focus of
this column is on one simple truth: Despite the rhetoric, people from all sides
of the political aisle dole out tax breaks because they know businesses respond
with jobs.
When businesses and individuals have capital, they spend it in areas that
require workers. The two main ways policymakers can ensure these groups receive
extra cash is through a tax cut, which allows them to keep more of their own
money, or a subsidy from the state, where the government takes money via taxes
and redistributes it.
So if left-leaning groups and liberal Democrats do not believe tax cuts
create jobs, why do they overwhelmingly approve of corporate welfare programs? A
lot of Republicans approve of selective subsidies as well, but at least they
tend to believe — and say — that lower taxes on businesses are good.
For example, the Michigan Economic Development Corp. gives selective tax
abatements and direct subsidies to businesses in the state. The largest program
of the MEDC is the 21st Century Jobs Fund, which passed 92-13 in the House and
35-3 in the Senate, with every Democrat voting in support. Michigan's corporate
welfare arm also administers the state's film subsidy. The original bill
creating the program passed a combined 145-1, with the only "no" vote coming
from a Republican senator who no longer is in office.
At the national level, Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the federal
"stimulus" program, which was sold as giving selective tax abatements to
individuals and companies. And there is a fierce debate in this country over
specific tax breaks and outright subsidies for "green" energy companies. For
example, electric car battery maker A123 Systems brought President Obama, Sen.
Carl Levin, D-Detroit, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and former Gov. Granholm
together at the company's plant in Livonia in 2010.
Left-leaning advocacy groups in Michigan also support these corporatist
programs. Progress Michigan praised stimulus spending on A123, Johnson Controls,
Compact Power and Dow Kokam in 2010 (before most of these companies went
bankrupt). And Michigan Liberal loved the MEDC — at least when it was
administered by a Democratic governor.
So if lower taxes and more money for businesses to spend doesn’t create jobs,
how can the left support these tax breaks and subsidies?
Because the crux of this debate is not over whether an infusion of money
creates jobs — it's over centralized planning.
The difference between the left (and far too many who call themselves
conservatives) and those who favor the free-market is that one side believes
that tax breaks and subsidies create jobs when the government gives them to
favored companies while the other side believes it is more efficient to have a
level playing field, with lower overall tax rates for everyone.
My colleague Michael LaFaive refers to these selective subsidies as "feeding
the sparrows through the horse::
Imagine that a central planner wanted to help sparrows grow and prosper. The
central planner can dump feed on the ground evenly and let sparrows partake of
it directly, or he can run the feed through a horse first, and let the sparrows
pick through the pile that the horse leaves behind. The horse in our example
represents the government bureaucracy created to maintain economic development
programs. The bottom line is that it costs money to pay bureaucrats to take your
money and redistribute it to someone else. Spending millions to support these
programs just deprives entrepreneurs of the resources they could be using to
create more jobs on their own accord. Many on the left demonstrate an
understanding of how business investment creates jobs. But they should explain
why reallocating capital through bureaucrats and politicians for the purpose of
creating jobs is superior to allowing all businesses to keep more of their own
money and produce the same effect.
DIOGENES invites you to pull up a chair on this fine day and read posts from around the world. The writing may lean to the right...but that's the way Diogenes wants it! You may leave your opinion, but Diogenes rarely changes his! WELCOME!
-
Free Government ^ | 1997 | Sraff Free government assisted cell phone programs have become more popular, in part, due to the poor economy ...
-
The Dems went down to Georgia They was looking for a seat to steal They were in a bind, 'cause they were way behind They were willing t...