Archive for the ‘Jobs’ Category

Wisconsin’s Privatized Jobs Agency Criticized Again

May 13, 2015

Audit_Bureau_Logo

The evidence continues to mount against the notion that privatized economic development agencies are a responsible means to promote state  economic development  A new audit of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) echoes previous findings in outlining missteps at the agency. For example, the non-partisan Legislative Audit Bureau finds that:

  • “WEDC did not report clear, accurate, and complete information on the numbers of jobs created and retained as a result of its programs.”
  • Subsidy recipients were not required to submit critical informational about job creation outcomes.
  • Subsidies were awarded to a company for jobs that had been created prior to the awarding of a tax break agreement.
  • The agency has lax implementation on wage standards.
  • A provision to steer state economic development dollars toward small businesses and rural areas was quietly eliminated in July 2014.

The audit was so embarrassing that Gov. Scott Walker dropped a plan to expand the WEDC’s authority by merging the state’s housing finance agency into it.

Despite the poor track record of agencies such as WEDC, other states including Wisconsin’s neighbor Illinois, continue to consider privatizing their state commerce agencies. They should instead heed  the lessons of Wisconsin (and Indiana, Florida, and Ohio to name a few) and acknowledge that privatization is no policy panacea.

Good Jobs First: Open for Business!

April 1, 2015

cash-flowIn our quest for revenue diversification, Good Jobs First is pleased to announce that we are Open for Business! Advertisers: don’t be misled by our wonky, ethical façade: we’re ready to go head-to-head with associations and public media bulking up on pay to play!

Naming Rights: Subsidy Tracker 3.0, the hottest spot on our website, is available for the right price! Reach tens of thousands of unique visitors a year: non-profit, for-profit, public sector, tons of journalists. A super nameplate for a technology company in the government IT space. Our Smart Growth for Working Families page is just waiting for the right transit-vehicle or construction/engineering sponsor—even a law firm. And our email list, with its incredible open rates: great visibility—no monkeying around!

YourLogo

Individual States/Megadeals: Is your company one of those pulling down nine or ten figures and hobbling a state’s budget for decades?  Show your pride and sponsor that state’s page at Accountable USA! We’re thinking of a certain aerospace company in a rainy place… A microchip company next door… A metals company near a famous hydro-power source… A medical lab close to orange groves… A failing retailer that left a very tall building… C’mon folks, you know who you are! We’ll also accept clever historical references (Con Agra: Nebraska is still available! Fidelity Investments: we have Massachusetts for you! Sorry, Rhode Island: 38 Studios struck out.) Who’s in your wallet?

State and Local Agencies: Your economic development agency can sponsor an Accountable USA page—featuring your “report card” accountability grades. Or perhaps you’d prefer to sponsor a pop-up that covers up that grade—let’s talk! We can’t promise anything of course, but who knows what our next report will find? Hey, maybe we’ll divide the country up so there can be six winners! Just think about it.

War Among States Special: Planning to relocate closer to the boss’s exurban home or his favorite golf course? Realize you can get paid for creating “new” jobs by just jumping a state line and merely changing people’s commuting patterns? Why not sponsor the losing state’s page in a show of tough love, to show you really do care about its future without you—even link to a prospectus about your abandoned facility to help the state market it! Show me America’s bread basket!

Association Specials: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) issued a paper on “The Unseen Costs of Tax Cronyism” even though some of its corporate leaders are with big subsidy recipients. Of course, we have no favorites in this association space: we’d love to hear from the governors (hey, it’s only been 22 years since they last debated the economic war among the states), state legislatures, counties, cities, development officials, development financeers, and their sponsors! Ah, the power of ideas!

Invisible Sponsorships: For site location consultants wishing to remain in the shadows, we’re offering fingerprint-free sponsorships of [recruitment records exempt from FOIA]. You can’t bash whatcha can’t see.

Happy April Fools’ Day!

Chicago Mayor’s Proposed Tax-Free Zones No Policy Panacea

March 26, 2015

As early voting begins in the Chicago mayoral runoff election, incumbent Rahm Emanuel has proposed tax-free zones allowing businesses exemptions on property, income, and sales taxes in impoverished neighborhoods. The idea is neither new nor promising. In fact, Illinois already has six Enterprise Zones in Chicago and they have very mixed track records.

For example, Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, Inc. received Enterprise Zone subsidies, but automated its business processes and shed 14 positions after applying for the subsidies. The Sherwin Williams Company’s Chicago facility had 12 fewer jobs than when it applied for Enterprise Zone subsidies. And although the Solo Cup Operating Corporation has gained 24 jobs since applying, according to public documents, the company did not make use of Enterprise Zone State Utility Tax Exemptions for which it was eligible. In other words, they hired without needing subsidies.

Research on the effectiveness of enterprise zones makes it clear these anecdotes are not atypical. As the Minnesota State Legislature found in a review, “the economic effects of enterprise zones remain unclear. Most studies find no significant increase in employment, while a few do.” Moreover, it concluded that enterprise zones are most likely to be successful in already thriving areas, not blighted ones. Most importantly, the review suggested that subsidies should never let the quality of public services drop as it would easily wipe any positive effects of the policy. However, many of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods have been made less desirable by Emanuel’s closure of 50 public schools. Emanuel has proposed shifting dollars from other subsidies, including the heavily criticized TIF program, to pay for his rendition of enterprise zones.

For the average company, state and local taxes amount to less than two percent of their overall cost structure. The business basics—the 98 percent of corporate cost structures that are not state and local taxes—almost always dictate why companies expand or relocate where they do, factors such as access to a qualified workforce, proximity to suppliers and customers, energy costs, availability of high-quality infrastructure and logistics.

Tax Breaks Don't Move the Needle

Tax Breaks Don’t Move the Needle

But while tax breaks can do little to move the needle on corporate location decisions, the opportunity costs can be enormous. Indeed, as we documented last year, subsidies in Chicago appear to have significantly harmed public budgets. Since 1985, some $5.5 billion in property tax revenues have been diverted into TIF accounts and one out of every ten property tax dollars now ends up in TIF districts instead of funding schools and other public goods that benefit all of Chicago’s employers by investing in the labor force and infrastructure as well as keeping up with the city’s bills.

It’s also important to consider that enterprise zones may do little to target job creation to communities of need. Without adequate community benefits like local hiring policies included in enterprise zone policies, companies may not hire from within a neighborhood hungry for jobs enabling inclusive revitalization and a pathway to the middle class.

Astonishing Failure Rate Found in Major North Carolina Subsidy Program

February 19, 2015

Every time a company is approved by the North Carolina Commerce Department for a Job Development Investment GrantPICKING LOSERS Cover (JDIG), there is 60 percent of chance that the company will fail short on its jobs, investment or wage promises. This astonishing statistic is contained in a new report by the North Carolina Justice Center that evaluates performance of this key subsidy program in the Tarheel State.  The study comes at a time when the North Carolina legislature is about to debate Gov. Pat McCrory’s request to expand the faulty program.

JDIG provides performance-based grants to companies that create certain number of jobs in the state.  If a company fails to deliver on the promised jobs within five to seven years, the subsidy is cancelled and in some situations money is recouped through clawback provisions (for example, the 2004 failed Dell deal). The Justice Center found that 62 out of 102 projects approved for JDIG grants between 2002 (the year the program was created) and 2013 did not deliver on their jobs, investment or wage obligations and thus were canceled. This 60 percent rate would give you an F in school!

The report also found that out of only nine percent of JDIG grants that went to rural counties, 77 percent were canceled (90 percent of JDIG projects went to urban counties). However, “the most troubling trend in the state’s targeting mismatch,” as Allan Freyer, the author of the study, puts it, is the fact that 60 percent of all approved grants went to three counties with the fastest job growth: Durham, Wake and Mecklenburg. Freyer adds: “the state is investing the majority of its incentives resources in the counties that need it least.”

In recent months Gov. McCrory has been arguing that money in the JDIG program has dried up and is asking the legislature to allocate more resources.  The report, however, shows that JDIG money did not suddenly run out. Rather, more than a half of the money earmarked for the program was granted to one “megadeal” for MetLife. In 2013, the insurance company was awarded $110 million over ten years, or $11 million a year. The yearly payments to MetLife constitute half of the money in the program, leaving only $11.5 million for all other projects.

Instead of expanding the JDIG program as requested by the Governor, the report urges lawmakers to strengthen performance measures and evaluation processes. It also recommends focusing on companies in growing industries and taking steps to bring about a more equal distribution of grants between urban and rural counties.

Report: District of Columbia Job Subsidy Practices In Need of Improvement; Lag Behind Nearby Jurisdictions

February 11, 2015

 

Washington, DC—Despite the District of Columbia embracing four leading best practices, other basic economic development standards and safeguards remain absent.

WebBox_ABetterDealfortheDistrict_FINAL_Feb6Broadly, the District has four major shortfalls:

  • failure to set job creation and job quality standards,
  • lax reporting on project outcomes,
  • failure to enforce existing standards, and
  • the need for an online transparency database.

The report is available at:

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/ABetterDealForTheDistrict

Despite such shortcomings, experience shows that the District can rapidly change course. For example, recent enhancements raised D.C.’s ranking on job subsidy transparency from dead last to 26th among the states in a 2014 Good Jobs First national report card study.

(more…)

GASB Finally Prepares to Step Up! And Who is GASB, You Ask?

October 7, 2014

For many years, we at Good Jobs First have criticized GASB—the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, or “GAZ-bee”— for failing to require state and local governments to disclose economic development subsidy spending in a uniform way.

It appears that’s finally about to change, and if it does, it will be hard to overstate the significance of the news.

As the group that has been successfully shaming states and cities to disclose on subsidies all these years, with our 50-state and 50-locality “report card” studies, and as the group that has been collecting all the public data—and also lots of previously unpublished data—in our Subsidy Tracker database, we are intimately familiar with the irregularities and gaps that exist in these vital public records. And we have long shown how to fix them in our model legislation.

First, a quick primer on GASB: it is the public-sector counterpart to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, which issues private-sector accounting rules. Each body oversees its respective set of rules, which are constantly under review and improvement, known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP.

Adhering to GASB, cities, counties, states (and other government bodies such as school boards and sewer districts) must account for their finances in conformity to GAAP if they want to receive ratings from the major credit ratings agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch), which they must earn if they wish to sell bonds.

The same is true for corporations of all kinds if they wish to satisfy shareholders, sell debt, or even get foundation grants. Indeed, Good Jobs First’s auditors have to certify us as GAAP compliant in our annual financial statement. All of which is to say: the influence of GASB and FASB is enormous and ubiquitous; they are the arbiters of sound United States bookkeeping standards that protect investors, taxpayers, and consumers every day. (Both are part of the non-profit Financial Accounting Foundation.)

Now, GASB is preparing rules that say: to meet GAAP, governments will have to publish an annual accounting of the revenue lost to economic development subsidies. The proposed wording of these rules has not been issued; all we have are board-meeting minutes of a low-profile process spanning more than two years, as GASB gathers information and debates how best to achieve this new standard.

GASB is using the term “tax abatement” as an umbrella term (not just specific to local property tax exemptions) but “a reduction in taxes… in which (a) one or more governmental entities forgo tax revenues that [an individual] taxpayer otherwise would have been obligated to pay and (b) the taxpayer promises to take a specific action that contributes to economic development or otherwise benefits the government(s) or its citizens.” This would appear to also cover state corporate income tax credits and state or local sales tax exemptions, but apparently not tax increment financing.

As part of that process, GASB even commissioned a survey that included citizens groups, county board members and bond analysts. Tellingly, the bond analysts said they are most keen to see both current and future-year costs. For cities like Memphis, where we recently found that Payments in Lieu of Taxes (or PILOTs) cost the city almost one-seventh of its property tax revenue, such losses are apparently becoming bigger concerns for bond investors.

GASB will have a three-month comment period on its proposed rules starting next month (November).

For all the cost-benefit debates featuring inflated ripple-effect claims that beg the more fundamental issue of cause and effect, we have always said: the only thing that can be said for sure is that development subsidies are very expensive, so costly that they undermine funding for public goods that benefit all employers. Therefore, at the very least, taxpayers have the right to know the exact price of every deal and every program (and the outcome of every company-specific deal). GASB now appears to be moving to make some form of standardized disclosure of tax-break costs a reality for reporting periods after December 15, 2015 (and sooner on a voluntary basis).

Some important details remain to be clarified. Based on the board minutes, it appears that GASB will propose giving governments the option of disclosing individual deals or only programs costs in the aggregate (the latter option would be far inferior). We’ll know for sure when the draft standards are published sometime this month. Good Jobs First will publish a detailed analysis of the draft when it comes out.

But for now, the big picture is simply huge: the body that effectively controls how taxpayer dollars are accounted for is finally catching up to the Wild West of record-keeping known as economic development incentives.

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.

Tesla, We Have Questions

September 4, 2014

For Immediate Release September 4, 2014

Contacts: Bob Fulkerson bfulkerson@planevada.org 775-348-7557

Greg LeRoy goodjobs@goodjobsfirst.org 202-232-1616 x 211

Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs First issued the following statement regarding reports that Tesla plans to announce it has chosen Nevada for its “gigafactory,” or massive electric-car battery factory.

This is a huge event in Nevada history. If the taxpayer subsidy package for the facility is $500 million or more, as Tesla has demanded, it would be the biggest subsidy package in Nevada history by a factor of more than five. (There is only one recorded eight-figure deal in Nevada history and none over $89 million.)

The announcement only raises more questions:

  1. Was the five-state auction all just a charade to extract bigger subsidies from the state Tesla had already chosen? (Tesla broke ground in an industrial park in Reno, Nevada in July.)
  2. If it was a charade, does that mean Tesla doesn’t need any Nevada subsidies because the business basics drove the project to Reno (which has good access to key material inputs and is also close to Tesla’s assembly facility in Fremont, California)?
  3. When will the full details of the proposed Nevada subsidy package be released to the public? How many days will Nevada taxpayers have to weigh the costs versus the benefits before the legislature votes on the deal?
  4. Will Tesla agree to the Good Jobs First/MoveOn petition demand and allow all five states’ commerce agencies to immediately release their Tesla project files so that taxpayers can see how seriously Tesla considered the other states and how much in subsidies each state offered?
  5. Exactly how does Tesla’s claim of 6,500 new jobs break down? How many would be temporary construction jobs? How many would be permanently directly employed by Tesla? How many would be associated with unnamed suppliers? (Tesla and Panasonic’s joint July 31 press release says half the space will be occupied by suppliers.) Are any of the 6,500 projected jobs indirect or so-called “ripple effect” jobs?
  6. How good will the Tesla jobs be? What will be the median wage for non-managerial production workers? What will the benefit package consist of?
  7. Will Nevada taxpayers be protected by “clawback” language that would require Tesla to refund some or all of the subsidies (and/or lose future subsidies) if the deal fails to deliver all of the promised jobs?
  8. How many of the engineering and other highly-paid jobs at the plant will be filled by people who will move to the Reno area from out of state?

Until these questions are answered, Nevada taxpayers will remain in the dark. Without answers, no one will be able to judge if Nevada elected officials are overspending for a trophy deal.

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…)

Tesla Open Letter Electrifies Gigafactory Debate

August 29, 2014

Early this week Good Jobs First joined its voice with those of progressive organizations in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas to express concerns about the pending subsidy bidding war over Tesla’s proposed Gigafactory.  In case you missed it, an open letter signed by Arizona PIRG, the California Budget Project, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), New Mexico’s SouthWest Organizing Project, Texans for Public Justice  and Good Jobs First regarding the multi-state competition has been generating growing media attention.  The letter calls for state leaders to seize the opportunity presented by Tesla’s subsidy demands, communicate with each other, and reject the harmful Race to the Bottom.

Much of our daily work at Good Jobs First consists of monitoring massive subsidy packages that often don’t receive much attention in the media.  But events like the Gigafactory bidding war provide an opportunity to break down these complicated issues into smaller pieces that allow a practical public dialogue about job creation, competition, and fairness.

(more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers