Looking for a question to ask a candidate?
It is the election season, after all. You can't swing a cat or tune your radio without hitting a candidate on a talk show.
So here is the question: Explain exactly why a $250,000 incentive paid for with public funds was necessary for Reliant Holdings, Ltd. to move forward with their expansion or why this expansion would not have moved forward without a tax subsidy.
It is time to move past the whole "Trust-Us, We're the Chamber", feelgood-ism that has been keeping afloat the public relations image of a program that directly taxes local citizens in order that money can be turned over to private companies for doing what private companies are supposed to do anyway. Based upon our slate of council candidates, this is what passes for red-state, free market economic conservatism these days.
With this latest deal the MDC/Chamber/City/Councilman Simpson will take credit for "55 jobs" created by the fact that the MDC will write a check to Reliant Holdings, Ltd. that represents only enough funding for 4.8 jobs for 1 year (based on Texas Average Weekly Wage of $786/wk) or 2.4 jobs for 2 years.
Truly, what number do you think will end up in the MDC's Monthly report?
55? Or 2.4?
And perhaps....just perhaps...it is time to start calling companies that seek and recieve these funds what they really are: tax-sucking welfare queens of the first order.
UPDATE: In defense of these companies, they actually do pay a lot of taxes. But in defense of welfare queens, they at least need the money they end up taking from the public.
Here is what fascinates me. In language, rationalization, certainly operationally, and (of course) with that certain air of moral superiority...have you noticed how exaclty the apparatus that justifies, collects, and then spends ED tax money mirrors the apparatus that does the same for the....er...more traditional welfare recipients in this country?
5 Comments
Re: "However, he used the old fallback line about "everyone else has it, so we have to have it".
Saying the tax is bad but having one because "everyone else has it" is a self-contradicting position.
Higher taxes either hurt the local economy or they don't.
Have you noticed how, when it comes to this crop of candidates, that this tax and only this tax is immune from the principles of the effect of higher taxation that they apply to every other tax?
If they really believed that the tax is bad (otherwise, why "hate it"), would they not do away with the tax in order to increase Midland's overall competitiveness and be happy that other communities have burdened themselves with it?
They need to pick a side here because the "I hate it but we need it because everyone else has it" position is a total cop out.
Exactly!
We have in Midland today a bunch of politicians who talk a good game, until one picks apart their words.
They are copping out in regards to ED. They all know that it is a failure, and they all know that us in the know are on to their scheme. I think they are banking on the masses who don't pay attention...
I think it is more the implementation and use of the ED tax has been a failure - not the ED tax itself.
Odessa has brought in a lot of businesses with their ED tax - and have pledged $5million toward Future Gen. Midland pledged $200,000 toward Future Gen.
The Champber and City Council have failed us with the ED tax.
Well DCM, Midland always has danced to a different beat.
The ED tax is bribery, pure and simple, in my opinion. Granted, Odessa has brought a few businesses in, however who is to say that if the proper marketing and negotiation techniques were used those folks would not have located in Odessa anyway?
Wals,
Scott Dufford was on KWEL this am, and admitted that he does not like the Ed bribery tax. However, he used the old fallback line about "everyone else has it, so we have to have it". Dufford expressed a desire for the state to do away with ED bribery taxes, yet he did not go so far to say that he would actually do anything about it.
I told him that we as a city should take the initiative and drop the bribery tax. Lower the property taxes and really make Midland attractive to business, instead of paying them off in vain hopes of future promises. He had no comment of any real substance.
As an aside, another caller brought up the staduim tax, saying that it would go away when the stadium is paid for.
That tax won't go anywhere, unless we call for a vote to get rid of it.