GUV JEN'S GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH, TOO

We have, of course, taken Dick DeVos to task for his slippery rhetoric and dishonesty in his campaign for governor.  Governor Jennifer Granholm hasn't been much better.  Today she ran a campaign ad on t.v. declaring that she would never take money from our public schools to give tax breaks to "rich corporations".

Oh really?  And what is her economic plan founded upon other than tax breaks to select companies?  According to the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, in April Guv Jen doled out $40 million in tax breaks to General Motors to retool a couple of its plants.  In September she gave away $28 million in tax breaks to Ford to overhaul its powertrain plant in Flint.  The month before she told Ford she is ready to "invest" $151 million in the company to retain 50,000 jobs in Michigan.  That figure would be in addition to the $315 million in tax breaks and loans that the good governor showered upon favored businesses in just August and September this year as the campaign heated up.

No doubt Guv Jen has a slick answer about how all these giveaways don't contradict her campaign ad, just don't believe it.

Comments

[Steve Goulet]

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that these tax breaks have taken money from our public schools. Spending on public schools is at an all time high in Michigan, so it would be easy for her to refute your accusation without being "slick".

The case could be made that every tax break she provides needs to be accounted for in terms of the overall budget (which includes education). But the case could also be made that these tax cuts will lead to an increase in revenue to the state, which will help the bottom line for the overall budget.

--Steve

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

Yes, that is the case to be made. And yes, tax cuts do help to expand tax revenues, but only broadly based cuts. Targeted tax breaks do not have that effect.

In any event, I don't know if you saw Granholm's ad, but she was clearly disparaging tax breaks to corporations. Moreover, she was demogogueing it by tying it to public school funding. As she has freely dispensed tax breaks to favored corporations, especially now that she is campaigning for re-election, I think it's fair to criticize her for her hypocrisy.

Regards, Bill

[Steve Goulet]

Is it this add you are refering to?

http://www.granholmforgov.com/site/PageServer?pagename=children_first

If so, your objection is probably to this sentence: "I'm standing up and fighting back against those who would take your tax dollars out of our local schools and give tax breaks to wealthy corporations".

In this case I wouldn't say that she's "clearly diparaging tax breaks to corporations". She is disparaging the potential transfer of monies away from schools in order to help pay for the elimination of the SBT.

Targeted tax breaks can certainly expand tax revenues when they help convince a business to stay in Michigan, which in some cases means that thousands of jobs are preserved or created.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

Yes, that the statement from her campaign commercial. My criticism stands. She favors tax breaks for select businesses, despite implicating that such a policy is a threat to public school funding. If Granholm did not want to leave that impression, all she had to was avoid connecting the issue of public schools with special corporate tax breaks.

As for those special tax breaks, healthy businesses don't need them. Those are the ones that produce tax revenues. Not the ones that need corporate welfare. However, broad-based tax cuts on business, like personal property tax, are good policy if you want more of the capital investment that businesses need to make to create more and higher-paying jobs.

Regards, Bill