Archive for the ‘Clawbacks’ Category

Virginia Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Pay-To-Play on Subsidies

May 30, 2014

This week, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed a bill that would have banned corporations seeking Governor’s Opportunity Fund (GOF) subsidies from making contributions or gifts to the elected official awarding those subsidies: in other words, the Governor himself. The bill had unanimous two-chamber support among both Republicans and Democrats, and members of both parties criticized the Governor’s action.

Governor McAuliffe’s primary objection cited in the veto to the bill was that state legislators ought to be held to the same standards. The statute and guidelines state that GOF subsidies are awarded primarily at the discretion of the Governor, though the General Assembly and the Attorney General have a modest oversight role. One co-sponsor of the bill stated that he hopes to re-introduce the bill again next session, though it’s unclear whether the bill will stay in its current form.

It’s a strange moment in Virginia politics. The bill arose out of concern related to the previous Governor’s gift scandal. Just after leaving office in January, former Governor Bob McDonnell was indicted, something that had never happened before in the state.

Is such legislation needed in Virginia?

Good Jobs First previously highlighted an apparent pay-to-play issue in Virginia when McDonnell awarded Northrop Grumman $3 million in GOF subsidies after receiving major campaign contributions from the company.

While banning contributions to politicians from companies seeking subsidies is one way to encourage stronger ethics in government, another approach could be to ban companies from receiving subsidies if they have given or subsequently give contributions to officials awarding or enforcing subsidy contracts. Both would deter pay-to-play practices. Excluding subsidies to campaign contributors would be far easier to implement by shifting implementation away from elected officials and onto agencies awarding subsidies. Just as failing to create jobs can result in recapture or rescission of subsidies, a subsidy contract can undergo a clawback if the agency finds that a company has given to key public officials.

Apparent pay-to-play subsidies are not a problem isolated to Virginia. For example:

  • Texas: As we blogged previously, several newspapers have suggested that economic development subsidies controlled by Texas Governor Rick Perry are tied to fund-raising.
  • Wisconsin: Investigative Reporter Mike Ivey reported this week that the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, a privatized economic development agency, has awarded more than 60 percent of $975 million in subsidies to companies that have contributed to Governor Scott Walker or the Republican Governor’s Association.

For decades, state and cities have taken strong stances against allowing gifts and campaign contributions to contractors. Why not ensure the same level of integrity when it comes to economic development spending?

Connecticut’s Open Data Website Leads Nation in Adopting Economic Development Transparency Best Practices

April 1, 2014
Screenshot taken from Connecticut's new Open Data website

Screenshot taken from Connecticut’s new Open Data website

Those looking for a model on how to disclose economic development deals should start their search in Connecticut. No joke: Connecticut is cutting edge when it comes to taxpayer transparency on economic development.

Yesterday, Governor Dannel Malloy launched a new website called Data.CT.gov which aggregates numerous datasets that were previously unavailable or difficult to find. Included in this portal are many economic development programs we have doggedly watched and evaluated for transparency and accountability. Our January 2014 study ranked Connecticut 14th on job subsidy transparency: the states’ new website is a clear improvement that would have boosted their ranking into the top ten nationally had it been in use when we ranked all 50 states.

The Governor’s new transparency efforts came to fruition through two executive orders: one creating the website and the other instructing the state’s economic development agency to compile a searchable electronic database of subsidy information.

What makes the Connecticut website such a great model?

  • Clean Data: Often state agencies put up data in a haphazard fashion. Misspellings, data irregularities, and so forth make the data less useable. Worse, sometimes agencies put up data in static, unsearchable PDFs, not databases which contain the same information. When Good Jobs First imports data into our 50-state Subsidy Tracker database, this sort of messy data requires a great deal of clean-up. It’s clear that Connecticut has taken the time to ensure the data isn’t messy.
  • Relevant Data: The Connecticut portal also includes extremely important data that other states frequently forget to include. These fields include things such as clawback amounts, contract date timelines, job benchmarks, the result of a jobs audit, the amount of a subsidy awarded, the amount of a subsidy disbursed in each year, and the facility address. Including these data fields meets many of Good Jobs First’s best practices recommendations. In fact, the only data that really seems to have been omitted from the database is information about the wages and benefits of subsidized jobs (see here).
  • Data Tools: Another open data best practice is to allow users to easily search through the data. The database includes built-in mapping tools, filters, and charts. As the screenshot above illustrates, taxpayers can now easily see on a map all film tax credit recipients that were issued tax credit amounts greater than $1 million.
  • Downloadable Data: Connecticut doesn’t hamstring users like it used to with a single big PDF. Now the data is available in a variety of easy to download formats including XML, CSV, and, of course, Excel spreadsheets.
  • More Data: Frequently states spend a great deal of time disclosing data about a few major programs, but forget to disclose information about other economic development programs. This database includes tax credits, grants, loans, and other economic development tools. For more discussion about tax credit disclosure, see our previous blog on the topic. Connecticut’s data also includes previously undisclosed data about programs. For instance, it includes street addresses for film tax credit recipients.
  • Potential taxpayer savings: In the long run, the database will also save Connecticut taxpayers money. Frequently, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests cost the government great resources in responding. But the new website will include frequently requested FOIA data. In addition to staff time saved, the enhanced ability for more citizens to know how their tax dollars are being spent will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and enhance accountability.

We encourage you to go on the website and give it whirl: https://data.ct.gov/Business/Tax-Credit-Portfolio-Point-Map/megq-7hbv

Arkansas Will Claw Back Hewlett-Packard Subsidies

July 11, 2013

DSC_1979 2

Photo and the caption by Arkansas.gov: “Governor Beebe today [Mar 3, 2010] helped dedicate the HP Conway facility. HP expects to employ 1,200 Arkansans at the new facility.”

After laying off 500 workers from its publicly subsidized facility in Conway, Hewlett-Packard will have to repay some of the money it has received from the state, Arkansas economic development officials announced.

When HP opened its customer support facility in 2010 (the deal was announced in 2008), it was supposed to be a game changer for the economic development reputation of Arkansas. The state was willing to pay the price and offered HP state and local subsidies.

Arkansas never disclosed the full value of the subsidy package, but it was reported that the company received at least $17 million upfront: $10 million from the state’s Quick-Action Closing Fund and $7.2 million from city of Conway, including $5 million the city spent to upgrade the industrial park where the facility was later located.

HP was also eligible for various performance-based tax refunds, rebates and credits. Although Arkansas does not publish data on its subsidies, the state made some of that information available to Good Jobs First. The data, now available through Subsidy Tracker, includes: three awards from the Existing Workforce Training Program for a total of $62,882; an income tax credit from the Advantage Arkansas program worth $53,418; and a refund of $21,801 from the Tax Back Sales and Use Tax Refunds program.

After the layoff, the state officials announced that HP no longer met the minimum requirement of 1,000 jobs at the Conway faculty and that the state would work with the company to determine how much money needs to be returned. It is unclear, however, whether the clawback will include only upfront grants or also already claimed tax and workforce training subsidies, and whether HP will have to return any local funds.

Although HP’s layoffs are not good news, it is encouraging that Arkansas is willing to implement the clawback provisions it wisely included in its deal with the company.

The Ongoing Economic Development Privatization Fiasco in Wisconsin

May 7, 2013

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker must decide what to do with the scandal-ridden Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC). Few options remain: ignore it, fix it, or declare it a failure.

The privatized economic development agency was created in 2011. Governor Walker proudly proclaimed that shuttering the state’s Department of Commerce and replacing it with a privatized entity would do wonders for job creation in Wisconsin. Good Jobs First wrote a report documenting the tainted track record of privatized economic development agencies throughout the United States. We warned that these quasi-government agencies frequently lead to unaccountable, opaque organizations spending too much taxpayer dough without jobs materializing. With the Governor’s rosy jobs pledges falling short and the WEDC embroiled in scandal, it appears that the agency is destined to be yet another case study highlighting what can go wrong when a public agency becomes privatized.

Last week another scathing audit by the non-partisan Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau found a slew of disturbing practices. This follows on the back of other issues previously reported on our blog. The issues read like a laundry list of everything agencies tasked with managing the public purse ought not to do:

  • Millions in taxpayer money went unaccounted for.
  • The law was broken.
  • Large amounts of taxpayer money were awarded to ineligible projects.
  • Questionable and inexplicable purchases appeared, including sports tickets and gift cards (a similar incident brought down disgraced Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon).
  • The agency turned a blind eye to recipients of public subsidies, even though the law required them to report publicly on their progress.
  • Staffers at the organization accepted some $55,000 in gifts during a six month period in 2011.
  • The agency failed to disclose to the public known conflicts of interest from an IT consultant awarded a no-bid contract.
  • The WEDC even went so far as to hire an auditor while that same company was negotiating a subsidy deal on behalf of a client with the agency.

These findings just scratch the surface of what was uncovered. To dig into more of the juicy details, read the Audit Bureau’s full report here (summarized here).

Members of Wisconsin legislature, from both sides of the aisle, are calling for immediate changes (a rarity in Wisconsin politics these days). Sen. Robert Cowles, R-Green Bay, has stated that, “this audit shows there is a significant disconnect between our expectations of WEDC and the reality of their performance with regard to transparency and accountability.” The Senate Minority Leader sounded like Cassandra foretelling the fall of Troy: “This is what we were saying from the beginning… there needs to be more accountability… more reporting… When you create a pseudo-government corporation, you want to make sure that you’re having the benefits of both, not the downsides of both.”

Despite the outrage by members of the legislature, the agency has embarked upon a public relations campaign to defend itself. The new CEO of the WEDC continues to claim that it has corrected its old ways and that the agency had not made “intentional violations” of state statutes. Whether the new CEO has a firm grasp on the agency is questionable: he has been on the job only a short time. All three of his predecessors have resigned amid scandal: one was found to owe back taxes to the state; another took a more lucrative job at his old company just 24 hours after accepting the WEDC position; and the first head of the agency resigned after federal investigators found mishandling of HUD money.

Governor Walker has called for an emergency meeting of the WEDC to discuss the problems at the agency. Later this week, the legislature is set to vote on the WEDC’s budget. Will Governor Walker insist that the agency take the audit seriously and implement sensible reforms like those we called for in our 2011 report? Will the Governor ignore the troubling findings altogether? Or will he disband the privatized agency and reinstate the Department of Commerce as the flagship economic development organization in Wisconsin?

Massachusetts Business Tax Breaks Evaluated in New Report

March 12, 2013

masspirg reportA new MASSPIRG study asks if Bay Staters are “Getting Our Money’s Worth?” from the Commonwealth’s corporate tax breaks.  The organization evaluates 25 different special business tax subsidies for fiscal safeguards and accountability and transparency practices.  Among other findings, MASSPIRG concludes that:

  • Less than one-third of the subsidies are subject to annual spending limits.
  • Few of the Commonwealth’s special business tax subsidies have well-articulated public policy goals.
  • Nearly half of all business tax subsidy programs fail to publicly disclose information important for transparency such as recipient names, program-wide cost to the state budget, or results generated by the program.

MASSPIRG  also finds that state spending on business tax subsidies has more than doubled since 1996; the Commonwealth spent an estimated $770 million in 2012 through programs such as the Economic Development Incentive Program and the Film Tax Credit.  MASSPIRG’s recommended policy options to help the state get the best results from its substantial spending on special business tax subsidies include:

  • Transitioning from business tax breaks to outright grants.
  • Adding mandatory public policy goals and expiration dates to new and existing subsidy programs.
  • Continuing to improve disclosure of subsidies awarded through these programs.

You can read the rest of the organization’s recommendations to help the state get the biggest bang for its buck in Getting Our Money’s Worth? here.

State Chamber of Commerce Favors Clawbacks, Job Quality Standards, Enforcement

March 11, 2013

Image_Maryland_Money

Last Friday, at the Maryland Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee hearing, representatives from the Maryland Chamber of Commerce endorsed cornerstone Good Jobs First reforms. This includes attaching strings to taxpayer-funded economic development deals such as money-back clawbacks when companies receiving taxpayer money fall short. The Maryland Chamber even implied that these reforms should apply not only to economic development subsidy deals, but also public-private partnerships (sometimes called P3’s) such as the concessions operations at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI).

In our two recent 50-state report card studies, Money for Something and Money-back Guarantees for Taxpayers, we documented the growth of these reforms across the states. It has become common practice for state economic development agencies to incorporate clawbacks and job quality standards into deals, though many states still don’t do enough or apply standards unevenly. But as the Maryland Chamber said, it’s a big problem when these agreements aren’t being adequately enforced to protect taxpayer money.

Below is a transcribed passage of the audio from the Maryland Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee hearing. We think it serves to show the strong support for reforms like job quality standards, clawbacks and enforcement of clawbacks, even from powerful business interests. This portion of the hearing occurs around 1:05 in the recording.

Senator Richard S. Madaleno, Jr. (D-18th District): While the vice chairman raised many of the issues that I wanted to raise, I just wanted to be clear that you are saying Mr. Palmer, you are saying that there are times when in a contractual relationship between the government and a business we can put strings…

Matthew Palmer, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at the Maryland Chamber of Commerce: Absolutely.

Senator Madaleno: This is how we’re going to treat your workers.

Mr. Palmer: Right.

Senator Madaleno: And in the case when they don’t and they violate that we can have clawback? You support that structure?

Mr. Palmer: Absolutely. And I think that’s important. As [the ABC representative] talked about with these P3’s, the flexibility of whether it’s [the Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED)] or other places actually putting that into contracts, you know, putting those strings as you said, with those companies and being able to, when they don’t meet those, claw that money back. Say OK, you didn’t meet your needs. I think that is absolutely appropriate and they should be held to it. I think that’s the problem. And unfortunately, it seems to me, in some of these instances [as we have heard from the testimonies of  workers at BWI airport, Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Hyatt], some of those companies were not held to those standards. So I think that’s a big problem.

ED Officials Agree with Us!

February 18, 2013

A stunning survey issued today by the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) proves that state and local economic development officials overwhelmingly agree with most accountability activists.

That is, hundreds of people who deal with site location consultants, tax-dodging lawyers, and footloose companies every day think there need to be some serious rule changes.

This is a very mainstream sample: IEDC is the nation’s largest professional association of economic development officials: it has about 4,500 members (the vast majority in the U.S., despite its name) and the survey was conducted in January, with a reported 350 respondents. (As well, IEDC has corporate members, including site location consultants; no cross-tabs of responses by type of member are provided.)

Look at what they said (words in quotes come from IEDC’s January 18 summary, which does not reproduce the survey instrument and is member-password restricted):

98.6 percent said “incentives should be structured in such a way that the community receives a tangible return on investment (e.g., employment, capital investment).”

(On that issue, see our Money for Something.)

“96 percent believe that part or all of the granted incentives should be returned if a company does not meet agreed-upon projections [i.e., clawbacks].”

(On that, see our Money-Back Guarantees for Taxpayers.)

67 percent “do not think it is ethical for location consultants to be compensated as a percentage of the incentive package they negotiate…”

(On that, see Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 9 of my 2005 book.)

61 percent “believe location consultants’ compensation in a deal should be public information…”

In an open-ended comment section, “[p]erhaps the most frequent comment was that incentives practices are ‘out of control’…”

To be sure, despite these frustrations—and even though 57 percent said the frequency of incentive use is “too many,” the development officials responding generally don’t favor getting rid of subsidies. Instead they asked for help not getting snookered:

78 percent “responded that they approve of the practice of using financial incentives to influence business location decisions.”

But more than “80 percent responded that they or their peers or colleagues would benefit from more training in analyzing incentives deals.” Their most commonly requested new skills were how to calculate Return on Investment (ROI), fiscal impact, and the value of non-cash incentives.

“83 percent responded it would be helpful to have a set of guidelines or best practices for negotiating incentives packages.”

(On that point, see this publication of ours and this one, too.)

Without seeing the survey instrument, I am struck at how the responses all seem to overlook site location business basics: labor, occupancy, logistics, proximity to suppliers and customers, etc. That is, they apparently ignore the more than 98 percent of a typical company’s cost structure that is not state or local taxes and therefore cannot be influenced by subsidies. Clearly, some respondents believe that companies bluff and others said things like (quoted comment): “public monies are needed to provide public services and we shouldn’t be coerced into subsidizing large companies that don’t need the assistance.”

The development staffers also made it clear that politicians are no help. Many said there is a “‘general need in our industry for sharper benefit/cost analysis skills.’ Yet ‘a lot of times, elected officials don’t really care about the details of these numbers.’”

The IEDC survey has a second part, on the uses of subsidies, to be released soon. Clearly, this is a raw issue for Council members, especially those in smaller localities: last April IEDC published a guide on how to deal with site location consultants.

As someone who began training public officials on these issues in the late 1980s, I have seen a sea change in attitudes. Most feel trapped in a game whose rules they would never have written, and this IEDC survey attaches numbers to my takeaways.

So when will elected officials finally heed this consensus and start fixing the rules? If two-thirds of development officials agree it is unethical for site location consultants to pull down commissions on subsidies they negotiate, which state will step up and become the first to register and regulate these secretive, powerful players as lobbyists and thereby deny them success fees, a.k.a. commissions?

Wisconsin Leaves Taxpayers in the Dark

October 18, 2012

A new report released by WISPIRG details the failure of the state of Wisconsin to properly disclose whether its lucrative corporate subsidies are providing the promised benefits. Among WISPIRG’s findings:

  • Just 2 out of 251 entries listed in the state’s subsidy database detailed the projected and actual outcomes for the 2009-2010 reporting period
  • $8.2 million of those subsidies had no reported benefits to Wisconsin taxpayers
  • The newly created public-private partnership, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), couldn’t account for how much the privatized state agency has recaptured from recipients failing to meet performance requirements. In their response to WISPIRG, the WEDC claimed that it lacked the staff resources to compile that information.

This isn’t the first time WISPIRG has weighed in on subsidy accountability. In 2007, the group successfully led an effort to improve the state’s subsidy reporting. The resulting Public Act 125 requires the state to disclose corporate subsidy data in a searchable database. Prior to the creation of WEDC, that information was published by the Department of Commerce. The WEDC has not posted Act 125 data on its new website. Instead, that site has a hard-to-find link to the now defunct Commerce agency’s website. The old database is obviously outdated compared to standard practices in other states such as Maryland.

WISPIRG recommends the state do a better job implementing reforms that would ensure taxpayers know which companies are getting a subsidy and whether the state did anything to verify job creation claims. “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to be auditors to find out if the economic development subsidies we fund are delivering bang for the buck,” said Alysha Burt, WISPIRG Program Associate and co-author of the report.  “Even state auditors couldn’t quantify the outcomes of these programs because the information isn’t there.  For all we know, millions of our tax dollars could be funding junkets to the Caribbean.” The WEDC could start by putting a better Act 125 database on its website and featuring it prominently on the main page.

All of this comes on the heels of a deeply disturbing letter sent to the WEDC by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development accusing the state of mishandling federal economic development funds. Shortly thereafter, the head of the WEDC resigned. And a June 2012 report by the state auditing agency, the Legislative Audit Bureau, found that state agencies were regularly failing to submit required compliance reports. Worse, the audit found that the newly created WEDC is required to disclose less information to the public than the old Department of Commerce did.

As our January 2011 report showed, the risks of privatizing a state economic development agency can lead to less transparency and accountability for taxpayers. In many respects, Wisconsin appears to be making the same blunders as other states that have gone down the path of privatization: resistance to accountability, questionable claims about the effectiveness of the privatized agency and misuse of taxpayer funds. Better data could ease those concerns.

And there are also conflict of interest issues. The new private-public agency has past recipients of lucrative subsidies deciding how the agency should operate. Companies represented on the board of directors include Logistics Health and FluGen. Logistics Health received at least $3.25 million in tax credits and loans, while FluGen collected at least $2.25 million. Logistics Health didn’t meet its projected job creation thresholds. According to the Act 125 database, FluGen didn’t even have job creation requirements.

We hope that WISPIRG’s report will serve as a wake-up call to taxpayers and legislators in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Without adequately disclosing subsidies, their purported benefits and outcomes, taxpayers will be left wondering why they have fewer services and/or higher taxes.

New Model Legislation from Good Jobs First

October 10, 2012

Washington, DC, October 10, 2012 — Good Jobs First today released an updated version of its model state legislation to make economic development subsidy programs more accountable and effective. It can be found at: http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/accountable-development/model-legislation

 

“This model legislation is informed by our many years of grading the states on their economic development program rules,” said Good Jobs First executive director Greg LeRoy. “At a time when states must make painful budget decisions, taxpayer subsidies in the name of jobs should be transparent, fair and effective.”

“Our model language is derived from the best state and local laws Good Jobs First has found while issuing six 50-state “report card” studies, including Show Us the Subsidies, Money for Something and Money-Back Guarantees for Taxpayers,” said Good Jobs First research director Phil Mattera. “These are proven, common-sense safeguards that every state should consider as a baseline.”

The legislation is designed to apply to every major kind of economic development subsidy that a state legally enables and which in turn is administered by either the state or by local governments. They include: corporate income tax credits (for job creation or retention, research and development, film production, etc.); property tax abatements and reductions; enterprise zones; tax increment financing districts; training grants; loans and loan guarantees; sales tax exemptions and rebates, and others.

The model legislation has four parts:

Disclosure: company-specific annual reporting on the Web of the costs and benefits of every deal, including Unified Reporting of Property Tax Abatements and Reductions to disclose online when local property taxes are lost that would otherwise fund schools and other local services;

Job Creation and Job Quality Standards: to make sure the cost per job is not excessive and that public subsidies help to raise living standards, not lower them;

Clawbacks and Rescissions: to ensure that deals are carefully monitored and that companies pay subsidies back (or lose future subsidies) if they fail to deliver on jobs or other community benefits;

Unified Economic Development Budget: to provide state legislators with a full annual accounting of every kind of expenditure the state makes for jobs to make sure that any budget cuts are fairly applied to less-visible corporate tax breaks, not just appropriations such as grants or loans.

_______________

Good Jobs First http://www.goodjobsfirst.org is a non-profit, non-partisan resource center promoting best practices in state and local economic development and smart growth for working families. Based in Washington, DC, it includes Good Jobs New York http://www.goodjobsny.org.

-30-

Diebold Pushes Ohio Down the “PIT”

April 24, 2012

The recent announcement that Diebold, Inc. would be laying off hundreds of employees from its Ohio headquarters despite having received massive job retention subsidies designed by the state specifically for its benefit came as little surprise.  (We’ve seen it before with Sears, Dell, Boeing, ad naseum.)  The same day, Good Jobs First released “Paying Taxes to the Boss” a report in which we describe the disquieting economic development practice of states allowing employees’ personal income taxes (PIT) to be leveraged as corporate job subsidies.

Among the 22 programs we analyzed in our report is Ohio’s Job Retention Tax Credit (JRTC), which underwent controversial changes last year under the Kasich administration.  At that time, both American Greetings and Diebold were considering relocating their corporate headquarters out of the state.  In response to this job blackmail, Ohio legislators tweaked the JRTC rules to make the credit refundable for companies with a written offer of subsidies from another state.

In the end, Diebold signed a $55 million subsidy agreement (including $30 million in JRTCs) with the state in exchange for a promise to retain 1,500 workers and construct a new headquarters facility.  The catch?  Diebold employed 1,900 people in Ohio at the time the subsidy agreement was finalized.  One year ago our prescient friends at Plunderbund correctly predicted what would come next – the state would be subsidizing Diebold while the company slashed its workforce.  Last Thursday the company announced its intent to move 200 jobs to India, bringing its total state employment down to approximately 1,550 workers.

Diebold’s reasoning for seeking job subsidies from other states is a perfect example of how PIT-based programs accelerate the race to the bottom.  The company claimed it was unable to compete after its chief rival, NCR Corp. relocated to Georgia with the assistance of the state’s Mega Project Tax Credit, yet another PIT subsidy spending program.  (For descriptions of Georgia’s many personal income tax diversion subsidies, see “Paying Taxes to the Boss.”)

The use of workers’ personal income taxes as corporate giveaways fuels already rampant interstate job piracy.  PIT diversions negate the benefits that economic development projects should have on diminishing state tax revenues.  At this rate, it’s not even helping retain jobs in Ohio.  The Diebold situation is proof of that.  Lawmakers should not need more evidence that this is failed economic development policy.

Unfortunately, its failure to generate real economic development hasn’t stopped more states from adopting this foolhardy practice.  Last year Oregon created the Business Retention and Expansion Program, a subsidy that will allow recipient businesses to receive the taxes of workers as forgiveable loans.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers