While All Is Not About ONE MAN, This Example Of Pay For Play Is Clear
There is an explanation I have always used for my sincerest dislike of the MEDC, its mission, and how it takes advantage of the taxpayer for political payoff.
“If a business owner finds it necessary to take taxpayer dollars to start, maintain, or expand their enterprise, then that business model is already in trouble. If there is no NEED for the money to survive, then it is simply a matter of theft.”
Its hard to be any clearer than that.
Any politico who uses the term “Jobs created” when discussing the MEDC grants, is trying to justify the stealingthat must happen first, and is central to the MEDC program. In the history of subsidizing business, one would think that the predictions of ‘job growth’ with accomplished results would speak for itself. In fact, one might think such mechanisms insofar as they are touted, would make the news at least once a month if not weekly as a raging human interest success worthy of celebration.
Illinois Study Clarifies Free Markets Provide Better Value
Mike Shirkey says a new report shows electric monopolies cost families and job providers billions, and cripples local economies.
We knew that.
Apparently an Illinois study offers overwhelming Support for reforms Similar to Michigan House Bill 5184. State Rep. Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) highlighted the report today showing a dramatic $37 billion in consumer savings in nearby Illinois since that state replaced its monopoly-style electric system with competition and customer choice. The report cites an $18 billion in savings for residential customers and $19 billion for companies and job providers. Chicken feed. Yes?
Too often, your local government will have advocates of money-spending that holds out the promise of jobs, or some tangible benefit that can be presented in dollars gained back for the community.
The authors of such fiction typically seek to justify their own positions of employment within that community, and possibly within the government entity itself. Axiomatically however, all of them have a stake in the outcome of the requested spending. They will be asked for, and then will present metrics, or a presumed study of return on investment (ROI) and typically the elected leadership falls for it hook, line and sinker.
A perfect example was during a consideration of funding for the MSU extension office in Grand Traverse County when I was an elected commissioner. County commissioners were given plenty of reading materials by the MSU advocates to show us that for every dollar spent we would see a result of $17 in benefit to the county. The calculations as it turned out were premised on a ‘guess,’ that was then multiplied by a compounding analysis program that is used by MSU intellectuals, that relies on ‘guesses’ for the input variables.