Archive for the ‘Disclosure’ Category

Tesla: New Technology, Same Old Subsidy Charade

September 9, 2014

Tesla Motor’s shameful subsidy competition for its battery factory is wrapping up to a close in a state known for big gambling.  The Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) announced last week it had assembled a breathtaking package for the proposed “Gigafactory” totaling as much as $1.3 billion in tax breaks.  Governor Brian Sandoval has called the legislature into a special session starting this week to approve the deal, which is unprecedented in size in Nevada.  Included are new transferable tax credits based on the electric vehicle manufacturer’s hiring and investment, plus extensions of existing business, sales, and property tax abatement programs that would allow Tesla to operate completely tax-free in the state for ten years.  (The majority of the subsidy package lasts for twenty years.)  If approved in its current iteration, the megadeal will be among the 15 most expensive state subsidy packages in U.S. history.

powered by subsidies

 

Two weeks prior to this announcement and in anticipation of a subsidy shakedown by Tesla, Good Jobs First coordinated with groups in the five states named by Tesla to compete for the battery factory. Along with Arizona PIRG, the California Budget ProjectProgressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), New Mexico’s SouthWest Organizing Project, and Texans for Public Justice, we issued an open letter calling for transparency and cooperation between states forced into a subsidy bidding war for the battery manufacturing jobs.  Media response to this effort was strong, but state lawmakers bound by non-disclosure agreements common to secret site selection negotiations did not comply with our requests.

Aside from the subsidy terms, the only information made public about the pending Nevada deal consists of overly optimistic job-creation talking points.  During last week’s press conference Gov. Sandoval told attendees that 22,000 new jobs would be created by the project and that the total economic impact would be $100 billion over the 20-year subsidy term.  6,500 new direct permanent positions will purportedly enjoy an average wage in excess of $25 per hour, according to the Governor’s office.  A day before the special session is rumored to begin, the economic impact study informing these extravagant economic figures has not been presented for public review and the economic projections are being challenged.  Economist Richard Florida believes 3,000 permanent positions are more likely, and estimates the total job creation impact at 9,750 – less than half of the 22,000 claimed by GOED.

For anyone paying attention to the super-hyped “Gigafactory” site selection competition, the announcement that the company had selected Reno, Nevada came as no surprise.  Although Tesla has maintained over recent months that it was also negotiating terms with Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, it broke ground outside Reno early this summer.  The location is proximate to lithium mining operations, boasts freeway and class 1 rail access, and is less than a day’s drive from the Tesla assembly plant in Fremont.  Storey County, Nevada – Tesla’s future home – is famous in the state for approving industrial permits in less than a month.  In hindsight, Tesla’s unusual announcement that it intended to break ground in several sites is starting to appear disingenuous.

What exactly the company has been seeking over the past few months is more of a mystery.  Tesla has announced, at various points during this period, that it wanted laws changed to allow direct sales of its cars to consumers, as is the case in California.  It emphasized that the most important factor for launching the Gigafactory was expedited permitting, so Tuscon, Arizona issued Tesla an unsolicited blank building permit in July.  Initially mum on the topic of economic development subsidies, (and well after reports surfaced of a $800 million subsidy offered by San Antonio, Texas) CEO Elon Musk announced last month during a conference call that he expected the “winning “ state to ante up a $500 million investment for the battery factory.

In the context of all of this messaging on the company’s priorities, the size of the subsidy offered by Nevada is all the more confounding.  During last week’s press event in Carson City, Musk repeatedly stressed that incentives were not among Tesla’s most important considerations in its location decision.  What remains unanswered is why Nevada was compelled to offer more than double the $500 million subsidy originally sought by Tesla.  Until the veil is lifted from secretive corporate incentive negotiations, the public will be left out of the critical conversations that determine the who, where, and why of business subsidy decisions it is forced to fund.  In the meantime, many questions remain as the state’s lawmakers move toward a vote on the largest subsidy package in Nevada history.

Multiplying Megadeals

September 8, 2014

intel-ra-overheadjpg-4a39e7d62752a00aNevada’s $1.3 billion package for Tesla’s battery “gigafactory” is another in a seemingly endless series of giant subsidy deals that state and local governments have been made to think are the only way to attract major investments.

It comes on the heels of a $2 billion deal given to Intel in exchange for a commitment to expand its chip operations in Oregon (photo). Even California, which has tended to avoid the megadeal game, recently gave $420 million tax credits both to Lockheed Martin and to Northrop Grumman in connection with their competing bids to handle a big bomber project for the Air Force.

These are among 19 large subsidies announced in 2014 and eight from the second half of 2013 which Good Jobs First has just added to our Subsidy Tracker as part of an update to the research we did last year for our Megadeals report. We also added 27 older deals, most of them as a result of our decision to expand the definition of Megadeals to all those with a value of $60 million or more (the previous threshold was $75 million). The 54 new entries bring our total universe of Megadeals to 298, whose history — both in terms of number per year and total value per year — can be seen in the following charts.

 

Number of megadeals per year Sept 2014

Total dollar value of medageals per year Sept 2014

It’s clear that the trend toward more Megadeals we identified in our report is continuing. The spike in 2013 reflects the record-setting $8.7 billion deal Boeing got in Washington State. The number of deals during the eight months of this year is already approaching the full-year totals for recent years, and the dollar total is already ahead of 2012’s figure. A full list of our 298 Megadeals can be downloaded here.

The Megadeal additions are only part of the updates we’ve just made to Subsidy Tracker. My colleague Kasia Tarczynska collected nearly 7,000 additional basic  entries from 60 programs in 13 states, including the first disclosures made for programs such as the new California Competes tax credit and the South Carolina Film Production Incentives. See the Update Log for a list of all the additions.

We’ve also continued the process of parent-subsidiary matching announced earlier this year with the introduction of Tracker 2.0. We just uploaded matches for more than 100 additional parent companies, bringing the total to 1,415.  We have linked these parents to 35,000 individual entries whose aggregate dollar value equals 77 percent of all the entries in Tracker.

Megadeals may be marching on, but they cannot escape our scrutiny.

Ask Tesla’s Elon Musk to Open-Source His Subsidy Demands

September 3, 2014

Good Jobs First has launched a petition through MoveOn asking Tesla CEO Elon Musk to open-source his ≥$500 million subsidy demands.

Sign the petition here.

Tesla Motors is demanding at least $500 million in taxpayer subsidies, whipsawing AZ, CA, NV, NM and TX siting a huge battery factory.

If it’s really confident that such massive subsidies are justified, Tesla should release the five states from non-disclosure agreements and allow taxpayers to see the files.

Elon Musk: open-source your subsidy-application files and let taxpayers weigh costs and benefits!

 

Sign the petition here.

 

(more…)

New ProgressOhio Report: JobsOhio Unaccountable and Ineffective

May 29, 2014

ProgressOhioLogo_transp1

ProgressOhio released a report today questioning the accountability and effectiveness of JobsOhio, the privatized economic development agency created by Gov. John Kasich in 2011.  The organization found that JobsOhio “exaggerated its impact, funneled state money to companies that did not create or retain the promised jobs, and has a pattern of helping companies with ties to its politically potent governing board.”

The report was released in conjunction with a discussion hosted by the American Constitution Society.    ProgressOhio Executive Director Brian Rothenberg told the event audience that “JobsOhio is secret because it is private. But we still get glimpses of the toxic mix of public money and private gain.”

Read the full report here.

The Latest from Subsidy Tracker

May 28, 2014

detectiveEarlier this year, my colleagues and I at Good Jobs First introduced a major overhaul of our Subsidy Tracker database. The big change in Tracker 2.0 was the addition of parent company information for entries representing three-quarters of the total dollar value of the dataset. This allowed us to document for the first time the outsized share of subsidy awards received by big business.

In the past three months we have been enhancing the enhancements. We have increased from 965 to 1,294 the number of matched parent companies, which together are linked to more than 31,000 individual awards with a total value of more than $113 billion. Our parent coverage now extends to the full Fortune 1000 as well as the Fortune Global 500, the Forbes list of the largest privately held companies, the Private Equity International list of the top 50 private equity firms (and their portfolio companies) and the Uniworld list of the 300 largest foreign firms doing business in the United States.

Each parent company has its own summary page, which can be accessed through a drop-down menu at the top of the Tracker search form. These pages include cumulative totals for the subsidies received by the company and all its units and subsidiaries; the states in which it has received the most awards; and a list of all the individual awards that went into those totals. Those lists are sortable and downloadable, and they include links to pages with details on the individual entries.

Since the release of 2.0 we have added a variety of new features to the parent summary pages, including indications of the time period covered by the data and the following identifying information: the company’s ownership structure, the location of its headquarters and its primary industry group. (See below for a summary of what these identifiers show.) We have also begun to add other key info sources on the companies, beginning with links (where available) to the firms’ CTJ-ITEP Tax Dodgers pages and to our Corporate Rap Sheets.

Along with the parent pages, we’ve created summary pages for each of the states and the District of Columbia. They show cumulative totals, the parent companies with the most awards and a sortable and downloadable list of all the listings for the state. The top states in terms of cumulative disclosed subsidy awards are New York ($21 billion), Washington ($13 billion) and Michigan ($10 billion).

We have not neglected the task of gathering new data. Led by my colleague Kasia Tarczynska, our effort to find new online and unpublished data has during these past three months resulted in 13,000 new listings, bringing our total to 258,000. Kasia is getting ready to implement a plan for systematically filing FOIA requests for missing data with state and key local agencies.

NEW CUMULATIVE SUMMARY DATA FOR SUBSIDY TRACKER PARENT COMPANIES

Top Parent Companies:

  • Boeing: $13.2 billion
  • Alcoa: $5.6 billion
  • Intel: $3.9 billion
  • General Motors: $3.6 billion
  • Ford Motor: $2.5 billion

Top Industry Groups:

  • Aerospace & military contracting: $14.3 billion
  • Motor vehicles: $13.9 billion
  • Steel & other metals: $8.2 billion
  • Semiconductors: $5.7 billion
  • Oil & gas: $5.3 billion

Top States Based on the Location of Parent Company Headquarters:

  • Illinois: $16.2 billion
  • New York: $13.6 billion
  • Michigan: $8.4 billion
  • California: $8.0 billion
  • Texas: $4.5 billion

Foreign Countries Whose Companies have Received the Most Subsidies for their U.S. Affiliates:

  • Japan: $5.3 billion
  • Germany: $2.4 billion
  • Netherlands: $2.2 billion
  • Italy: $2.1 billion
  • Canada: $1.8 billion

Subsidy Tracker 2.0 has a wealth of new information. Check it out today.

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

Accountability Updates in Oregon

March 20, 2014

intel sign

Two new reports released this week by watchdog groups in Oregon show mixed results for accountability of the state’s economic development subsidies.

OSPIRG released Revealing Tax Subsidies 2014, an update to its previous evaluation of how well the state is complying with its three year old transparency law.  While the state has improved its disclosure since OSPIRG’s last assessment, especially for large controversial programs, the group found that the state is still failing to report key information for 14 of the 19 subsidies covered by the law.  In particular, many of these under-disclosed programs are missing information about the economic outcomes (e.g. jobs, wages, or investment) ostensibly generated by these subsidies.

Lacking such information, it is impossible to know whether the colossal corporate tax subsidies documented this week by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and Citizens for Tax Justice are actually doing the state any good.  The Oregon Center for Public Policy announced yesterday that at least 24 (and probably many more) of the state’s most profitable corporations included in that report have paid no state income tax in recent years.  Oregon has a minimum corporate tax, but companies are able to dodge their tax responsibility with economic development subsidy tax credits.

Read the full OSPIRG report here and see OCPP’s reporting on corporate tax dodging here.  The ITEP/CTJ national study is available here.

Kansas’s PEAK Subsidy Fails Performance Audit

October 3, 2013

bummer for the sunflower stateA Kansas state legislative audit of the controversial Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) subsidy program found that it is inadequately managed and that previously approved deals exceed the program’s spending cap.

Clawback readers may recall that PEAK is no stranger to controversy – it is Kansas’s most used subsidy in the bitter jobs war with Missouri that continues to ravage the Kansas City metropolitan economy. PEAK diverts the state personal income tax withholdings of employees as a subsidy to those workers’ employers.  It was enacted in 2009 to compete with Missouri’s similarly structured Quality Jobs tax credit, and has unfortunately inspired copycat programs in other states.  (For more information, see Good Jobs First’s 2012 report on personal income tax diversion subsidies, Paying Taxes to the Boss.)

Despite its poor program disclosure, in 2012 the Kansas City Business Journal was able to determine that PEAK was subsidizing short border-hopping company moves primarily in the counties around Kansas City.  At that time, 44 of 55 participating businesses were located in either Johnson or Wyandotte Counties. The list of subsidized businesses included the headquarters of movie theater company AMC Entertainment, which was sold by Bain Capital to a Chinese company shortly after its PEAK award was approved.

The audit provides clear confirmation of PEAK fueling the border war.  Legislative auditors found that all but a handful of PEAK awards were given to companies relocating into JohnsonCounty.  Of the 1,550 jobs represented by companies in JohnsonCounty, all but 110 came directly from Missouri.

More disturbingly, the audit revealed that in general, “officials have prioritized getting companies into the program rather than monitoring and measuring program results.”  Specifically, auditors found that:

  • Assessing the benefits of the PEAK program is difficult because the Department of Commerce has not compiled meaningful information on the program.
  • The department’s data were incomplete because many companies had not submitted the required quarterly and annual reports.
  • The data were also incomplete because the department had not processed companies’ quarterly reports that were filed.
  • The department had not sufficiently verified the self-reported data it compiled in its information system.

The state revenue loss due to the PEAK program has grown from $2.7 million in 2010 to an estimated $12.5 million in 2012.  Among the most damning findings of the audit is the fact that the Department of Commerce has exceeded the statutory financial cap that limits awards made through the program to $6 million annually.  Commerce authorized $7.5 million in PEAK credits for fiscal year 2013.  This has ignited an embarrassingly amateur debate between the department and the legislative audit office over whether the cap is cumulative or annual.

Although disappointing, these findings shouldn’t come as a surprise to those who beat the jobs war drums in Kansas.  Their rush to engage with Missouri’s equally irresponsible fiscal behavior has produced an all too familiar result.

California Enterprise Zones Tax Credit Overhaul Enacted

July 1, 2013

CA EZ 2Last week brought a satisfying conclusion to Governor Jerry Brown’s two year effort to bring an end to California’s controversial Enterprise Zones (EZ).  Assembly Bill 93 passed the Senate with a required two-thirds vote and awaits the governor’s signature.  While falling short of Gov. Brown’s original intent to completely eliminate the $700 million per year program, the bill will implement critical reforms to EZ hiring tax credits and de-fund the most wasteful aspects of the subsidy.

The EZ program has been criticized in the past for failing to actually create jobs, its spiraling out-of-control costs to the state, directing the vast majority of its financial benefits to extremely wealthy companies, subsidizing low wage employers and job sprawl, and assisting a company that replaced its entire unionized work force with new workers.  Last month it was discovered that two strip clubs were receiving hiring tax credits for their employees.  Throughout its 27 year history, the program has never been transparent to taxpayers and recent revelations about which companies are getting tax breaks have unleashed a wave of opposition from interest groups and the public alike.

Among the reforms to EZ hiring tax credits enacted by AB 93 are:

  • A requirement that a business actually grow new positions to qualify for tax credits
  • A wage standard of 1.5 times the minimum wage for new jobs
  • Targeted hiring of ex-offenders, unemployed, veterans, and people receiving income assistance (credits are limited to these employees)
  • Public transparency requirements

In order to secure reforms to the hiring tax credits, the bill’s proponents enacted two new business tax credits, both of which would be funded with the state’s savings resulting from reduction of hiring credit activity.  A new credit against the state sales and use tax could be claimed by biotech and manufacturing companies for the purchase of business equipment.  Unfortunately, this credit will have no statewide or annual cap, although business purchases that exceed $200 million annually per company are ineligible.  The state estimates its cost at $400 million a year.

The second subsidy program enacted with AB 93 would take the form of a competitive discretionary fund.  Tax credits would be awarded to major job creation-focused projects approved by a newly established California Competes Tax Credit Committee, which would control $200 million worth of tax credits per year.

Only time will tell if California has traded one boondoggle subsidy for another, but it is encouraging that the new programs will be held to higher standards of accountability and transparency.  Almost anything will be an improvement over the EZs, and for the time being at least, California appears to have learned its lesson.

Giant Job Subsidy Packages Grow More Common and Costly

June 19, 2013

moneybagsWashington, DC, June 19, 2013 — In recent years, state and local governments have been awarding giant economic development subsidy packages to corporations more frequently than ever before. The packages frequently reach nine and even ten figures, and the cost per job averages $456,000 and often exceeds $1 million.

These are the findings of Megadeals, a report released today by Good Jobs First, a non-profit resource center based in Washington, DC.

“These subsidy awards are getting out of control,” said Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First and principal author of the report. “Huge packages that used to be reserved for ‘trophy’ projects creating large numbers of jobs are now being given away more routinely.”

In a painstaking review using hundreds of sources, Good Jobs First identifies 240 “megadeals,” or subsidy awards with a total state and local cost of $75 million or more each. The cumulative cost of these deals is more than $64 billion.

The number of such deals and their costs are rising: since 2008, the average frequency of megadeals per year has doubled (compared to the previous decade) and their aggregate annual cost has roughly doubled as well, averaging around $5 billion. For those deals where job projections were available, the average cost per job is $456,000.

Michigan has the most megadeals, with 29, followed by New York with 23; Ohio and Texas with a dozen each; Louisiana and Tennessee with 11 each; and Alabama, Kentucky and New Jersey with 10 each. Forty states plus the District of Columbia have done at least one megadeal.

In dollar terms, New York is spending the most, with megadeals totaling $11.4 billion. Next is Michigan with $7.1 billion, followed by five states in the $3 billion range: Oregon, New Mexico, Washington, Louisiana, and Texas.

“Despite their high costs, some of the deals involve little if any new-job creation,” said Good Jobs First executive director Greg LeRoy. “Some are instances of job blackmail, in which a company threatens to move and gets paid to stay put. Others involve interstate job piracy, in which a company gets subsidies to move existing jobs across a state border, sometimes within the same metropolitan area.”

Megadeals have been awarded to many of the largest and best known companies based in the United States as well as foreign ones doing business here, including: every large domestic automaker and all of the foreign auto producers with appreciable U.S. sales; oil giants such as Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell; aerospace leaders Boeing and Airbus; banks such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs; media companies such as Walt Disney and its subsidiary ESPN; retailers such as Sears and Cabela’s; old-line industrials such as General Electric and Dow Chemical; and tech leaders such as Amazon.com, Apple, Intel and Samsung.

The most expensive single listing is a 30-year discounted-electricity deal worth an estimated $5.6 billion given to aluminum producer Alcoa by the New York Power Authority. Taking all of a company’s megadeals into account, Alcoa is at the top with its single $5.6 billion deal, followed by Boeing (four deals worth a total of $4.4 billion), Intel (six deals worth $3.6 billion), General Motors (11 deals worth $2.7 billion), Ford Motor (9 deals worth $2.1 billion), Nike (1 deal worth $2 billion) and Nissan (four deals worth $1.8 billion).

Fifty-six megadeals went to corporations with parents based outside the United States and seven more went to joint ventures of domestic and foreign companies.

The megadeals list is a new enhancement of Good Jobs First’s Subsidy Tracker database, the first online compilation of company-specific data on economic development deals from around the country.

Until now, the content of Subsidy Tracker has consisted exclusively of official disclosure data provided by state and local governments. However, many large deals pre-dated disclosure and many recent ones are missing from the official lists because of gaps in state and local transparency practices. To overcome those constraints, Good Jobs First went back and assembled information on large deals using a wider variety of sources. The resulting list of megadeals has been incorporated into Subsidy Tracker.

In a policy sidebar, the study points out that the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has been long-negligent in failing to promulgate regulations for how state and local governments should account for tax-based economic development expenditures.  If GASB were to finally promulgate such regulations—covering both programs and deals—taxpayers would have standardized, comparable statistics about megadeals and could better weigh their costs and benefits.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers