Detroit News. March 23, 2024.
Editorial: Corporate subsidy revamp grows government, not jobs
Having failed to deliver on much of its promise, Michigan’s corporate subsidy program warrants review and reform. But rather than reshape the program to grow the economy, Lansing Democrats have again proposed to grow the government.
Legislation to overhaul of the state’s business development and corporate incentives efforts glosses over fundamental flaws that have made the program ineffective while reinventing it to expand government through a new raft of spending that has little to do with actual job attraction.
Despite some promising measures, the legislation as passed Tuesday by the Senate would dilute the state’s economic development tools and weaken its ability to compete for critical investments.
That’s not a position Michigan can afford to be in, particularly as Democrats have reversed other provisions, such as right-to-work, that help attract businesses.
The 10-bill package would divert up to $250 million of the roughly $500 million a year from the Strategic Outreach and Reserve Fund (SOAR), renamed “Make it in Michigan,” to a new fund for subsidized community investments called Michigan 360.
The new program sounds like a big pork barrel.
Instead of site preparation, job creation or other economic catalysts that would make Michigan a more competitive place to do business, the money would go toward a wide variety of expensive new initiatives, such as child care, workforce training, high-speed internet, climate-friendly infrastructure and affordable housing, that are already elsewhere in the budget.
In addition, lawmakers could pick winners and losers based on new and subjective criteria, including a business’ commitment to climate activism and support for unionization.
The diversion of funds will allow companies and communities “to successfully grow together,” said bill sponsor state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, when the legislation was introduced last year.
But community development has a nebulous link to luring the kind of advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based companies Michigan needs.
Since SOAR began in 2021, the state has spent $2 billion dollars on massive incentive packages to fund jobs that pay lower than the median average and cost far more than they pay. It is difficult to predict the reliability of promised benefits and returns on investment.
Now that federal COVID money to the state has dried up, lawmakers appear eager to get their hands on any new pots of funding.
Democrats have already essentially permanently raised the income tax rate to 4.25% from 4.05% in another attempt to pay for new government programs and giveaways.
In a noteworthy critique of policy authored by her party, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she did not agree with the main Michigan 360 measure before the Democrat-controlled chamber voted on it. She should use her influence to move it in the right direction.
The program’s sole focus should be providing reasonable economic to spur economic growth that fosters its own community growth and amenities.
Narrowing the criteria to only businesses that agree with Democrats on transit, affordable housing and other community priorities will disincentivize businesses from even considering Michigan to begin with.
___
Traverse City Record-Eagle. March 20, 2024.
Editorial: Our helping agencies need top-down compassion
Our Sunday story about the Stowe family illustrates that, while we want justice to be blind, agencies that exist to help families navigate aging shouldn’t wear blinders.
On March 17, Senior Staff Writer Mardi Link outlined the experience of Thomas and Robert Stowe, brothers who went to a probate court hearing last week not knowing whether they were going to lose their Long Lake Township home.
Thomas moved in to care for his aging parents, Joanne and Edward, in the home his dad and another brother, built. Edward died of a stroke in 2018, and Joanne was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease before her passing in 2020.
During his time as a caregiver, especially for his mom, Thomas reached out for help to the agencies that exist for that purpose, and Joanne qualified for Medicaid. Some agencies provided useful information and support, with billing that showed what Medicaid wouldn’t cover.
But others provided care that didn’t work for the Stowes, or, in the case of Agency on Aging, charged for services, whether the Stowes used them or not. It was a fact that the family didn’t realize until 2022 when a claim was made against their mom’s estate by Medicaid and probate court attorneys who sought a sale of the family’s $250,000 home to settle an $11,416.98 debt.
The federal government requires state Medicaid offices to recoup payment from the estates of Medicaid beneficiaries and, in Michigan, that’s handled by the state Department of Health and Human Services. But Medicaid policy both allows claimants to attach a lien to the house instead of selling it; and when disabled children are living in the house, like Thomas who receives Social Security benefits, can waive claims until the child dies or moves out.
Without money to hire an attorney, the brothers posted on social media, contacted MDHHS, filed complaints with the state Inspector General’s office and reached out to State Rep. Betsy Coffia, D-Traverse City.
We’re lucky they did. Coffia’s office has helped them and, through Link’s reporting, their story brings questions to bear that, no doubt, impact other Michigan families who, while grieving a death, are served up unexpected debt.
How does the federal and state government rationalize selling a $250,000 house to collect $11,416? Knowing what attorneys charge, how much has the government spent on the case already? Could this debt have been avoided in the first place with better advice and more timely and transparent billing practices in these self-same agencies? And are those who are turning the screws in Medicaid, MDHHS and local agencies serving the public, or serving the agency?
Family caregivers need advocates on the ground to unsnarl the red tape before they get tangled in it.
But the Stowes’ situation shows that some of the agencies people turn to — in vulnerable, stressful and sad times — aren’t responding with the compassion and common sense we expect from them.
___
Alpena News. March 23, 2024.
Editorial: Pay attention to Supreme Court election this year
Michigan Supreme Court Justice David Viviano’s recent announcement that he will not seek another term on the state’s highest court creates an opening on the bench from which are decided some of the most important issues facing Michigan.
Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, meanwhile, will seek reelection this fall, meaning voters will pick two seats on the seven-member court. The contest happens statewide.
We urge Northeast Michiganders to study up on the candidates, their positions, and their previous rulings, and ponder long and hard before making their selections this fall.
Supreme Court justices are the final arbiters of the constitutionality of the laws created by the Legislature and the justices’ say has far-reaching implications across Michigan.
On the ballot, the justices do not have R’s or D’s next to their names. The justices’ biographies on the Supreme Court website do not mention their partisan leanings, and rarely do their campaigns mention the parties that endorsed them. The contest is supposedly nonpartisan, but justices can only appear on the ballot after being nominated at state party conventions. Voters will have to pay attention to know which candidates come from which party, which can provide some clues to how the candidates might approach the issues before the bench.
But partisanship provides clues, only.
It’s also important to read up on the candidates’ campaign literature and pay attention to news stories about them to know their approach to the law, because justices do not always adhere to party orthodoxy.
Study well, Northeast Michigan. The Supreme Court races don’t always get much ink, but that decision is one of the most important decisions voters will make this fall.
END