Tag Archives: stupidity

In which I propose a moratorium

… on the use of the word ‘disingenuous’ by elected officials.

In particular, by Detroit elected officials (although it has been wildly and increasingly popular among members of Congress for the past several years).

The mayor used it last week to refer to the Governor’s proposed consent agreement.

Now Councilman/former acting mayor Ken Cockrel used it in the following context:

City Councilman Ken Cockrel said the administration has not presented Council with a decertification resolution because, Cockrel said, he believes the mayor is hoping Council with move forward with a resolution on their own.

Cockrel, who believes reforming the troubled agency doesn’t require decertification, called that move “disingenuous.”

In neither case was it used in a remotely appropriate context.

Enough already.  If you use this word, you are lazy and need to re-acquaint yourself with the richness of the English language.  Find another adjective, which is probably more suited to your intended meaning (which usually is ‘something I don’t like’).

Why Michigan’s roads suck

According to a Free Press/WXYZ-TV poll last week, 58% of Michiganders would rather continue whining about their roads than fixing them.  I don’t find this terribly surprising.

It is conventional wisdom in Michigan that the condition of our roads is among the country’s worst.   I’ve read a number of different theories for why this may be.  One is that we have unusually high weight limits for trucks.  Another is the freeze-thaw cycle that results from our harsh winters.  Another is American road construction standards, which generate cheaper bills but demand more frequent repairs.  Presumably each of these factors contributes to our bumpy rides, to some extent.

What I almost never hear cited as a factor is how incredibly overbuilt Michigan is.  (Credit due to Urbanophile, who has written at length about this phenomenon elsewhere in the country, and Charles Marohn, whose theory of the “growth Ponzi scheme” I’ve praised.)  And by Michigan I primarily mean metro Detroit,  with Genesee and Saginaw counties also shouldering significant amounts of blame.  Is it any coincidence that these areas also have some of the most segregated populations, auto-centric layouts, depressed home values, and dysfunctional inner cities in the entire country? The Detroit, Flint and Saginaw metropolitan areas are the poster children for autocentric sprawl, and have reaped their just desserts for it. Among the consequences of the sprawl is that, of course, we can’t afford to pay to maintain the countless miles of asphalt laid to service it.  And MDOT, unbelievably, responds to this situation by proposing expansion projects like adding lanes to I-94 in the city of Detroit.  You can’t blame respondents to the Free Press poll for thinking that the last thing we need to do is throw more money at the imbeciles running our state’s transportation policy.

In the spirit of problem-solving, here’s my proposal to help solve two problems at once:  our threadbare roads and our decimated industrial inner cities.   Restrict all state dollars allocated toward road construction and maintenance to the oldest paved segments.  Earmark the majority of road dollars toward the core streets that serviced central cities and inner suburbs before, say, World War II, giving an edge to fiscally struggling older communities across the state like Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ypsilanti, Pontiac, and Saginaw, as well as dense and walkable older communities like Plymouth, Rochester or Brighton.

This will never happen, of course, because Michiganders continue to overwhelmingly choose exurban isolation over city life, and dependency on car travel to the exclusion of any other form of transit.  They will continue to do so, even as the roads they travel disintegrate to rubble and eventually, one by one, revert to gravel.  They will continue to lament the potholes and the flat tires because they’d rather complain than pay a nickel more in gas taxes.   Their leaders will continue to subsidize greenfield development over infill, convinced that for their particular community at least the bill will never come due.

It’s the Michigan way.

PS 2-8-12:  I also want to make it clear that I think the proposal, introduced by State Sen. Howard Walker, to scrap the state’s gas tax in favor of paying for roads with a sales tax increase is insane.  The gas tax should be increased, not scrapped, and we should not be shifting the burden of paying for roads from heavy users (people who drive a lot) to light users (people who bike, walk, carpool or ride the bus).   This bill idea deserves to die.

Requiem for Woodward rail

Wow.

A sample of early reactions:

Early reaction

I can understand Megan Owens’ reaction, since the ‘six years of work’ she refers to are, in large part, hers.  And I certainly won’t dispute her characterization of the mayor as  ‘a moron,’ since he’s proven it over and over again more or less since his first day in office (but that’s a topic for another post).

But as readers of this blog may recall, I’m not terribly surprised by this news given that Detroit as an independent political and fiscal entity will likely not exist in its current form within six months.  Nor does it necessarily entail a worse long-term outcome for metro Detroit’s transit riders, especially the vast majority that do not live or work along Woodward south of 8 Mile.  The governor has made it clear that his vision for a new regional transit system centers on bus rapid transit, and that vision, along with the loss of control over its own finances the city will shortly face, was the controlling factor here.

If light rail does eventually come to Michigan, it will makes its debut in one of three places:  1) Ann Arbor (between UM’s North & Central Campuses), 2) the Woodward corridor in southeast Oakland County, or 3) Grand Rapids.

DDA hikes parking rates in downtown Ann Arbor. Catastrophe ensues.

Today, I saw this headline and exclaimed, ‘Can you wait for the whining to start on the .Com?’

!!!!

I have pondered at some length the (f)utility of grappling with the peanut gallery in the AnnArbor.com comments sections.  I decided it was worth it to address the responses to this particular story here at the blog,  A) because they provide a representative sample of the kinds of (misguided) arguments people make in favor of free parking, B) because here I get to fully develop my case without having to post rebuttals every 5 minutes, and  C) because some of these people richly deserve to be made fun of.

One of the opening salvos concerns the ever-popular canard that charging for parking is bad for a business district:

xmo at 3:05 PM on August 31, 2011

Thanks to the ANTI-Business City Council, who appoints the members of the DDA that are trying to kill business in Downtown Ann Arbor. Business owners please remember these people when you vote in November!
Business is already hurting and now you tell the customers that its going to cost them more to shop Downtown?

Hmmm, let’s compare downtown, which charges for parking, and, say, Arborland, which has vast amounts of free parking.  Which seems to be doing better?

Xraymoo at 3:02 PM on August 31, 2011

Between the potential of getting a ticket for not yielding to a pedestrian that is “approaching” a cross walk and the increase of meter enforcement I may end up bypassing the Ann Arbor downtown area all together. In my opinion I would much rather find a resteraunt that has plenty of free parking out front in a surrounding community than worry about whether or not I have enough change for a parking meter.

If your dining at the IHOP on Ellsworth reduces the amount of time I have to wait for a table at Afternoon Delight, I think I can handle it. Win-win.

But wait: it turns out charging for parking will not only drive people out of downtown Ann Arbor — it will drive them all the way to Oakland County:

Tom at 5:30 PM on August 31, 2011
Hmmm, thanks to A2 DDA Royal Oak, Ferndale, and Clawsen are looking like great spots to visit. Rocheser should be more a value with the new DDA A2 proposals. For a closer venue how about Plymouth?

Not so fast, Tom:   Don’t Royal Oak, Ferndale or (nearby) Birmingham charge for parking til 9 or 10 at night?

A2JD at 3:15 PM on August 31, 2011
Birmingham doesn’t charge at all for the first two hours of parking in their structures. That makes a lot more sense to me if we’re trying to continue attracting people to stores and restaurants downtown. Combine the parking increases with a city income tax, and you have the perfect recipe for encouraging all non-University businesses to leave the city.

I actually might agree with this person re: the income tax, but let’s not muddle the waters.  These prodigies are having a hard enough time keeping up.

BobbyJohn at 3:18 PM on August 31, 2011
I just parked on Main Street in Royal Oak. The cost was 50 cents an hour . Yes, ~ 1/3 of Ann Arbor’s rate. That is the comparison to be made.

You can tell.  No coincidence that Ann Arbor’s downtown is ~1/3 as successful as Royal Oak’s.   True story.

Fine, we’ve established there are differences in rates & enforcement hours between municipalities. Seattle charges $2.50/hour for the top. Parking in Chicago’s Loop was $4.25/hour as of last year.  See also.

vicki honeyman at 5:03 PM on August 31, 201

where do you get the idea that birmingham and royal oak downtowns are doing “pretty well”? have you noticed the increased empty storefronts over the last 5 years in both those cities? they are NOT doing well!

I am certain the increased empty storefronts are entirely due to the cost of parking.  Nothing at all to do with the decade-long Depression southeast Michigan is emerging from.

Besides, you can’t compare us to those places:

Chip Reed at 3:26 PM on August 31, 2011
Birmingham, Royal Oak, and Ferndale are all part of a larger area than Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. It is a rather different situation.

In fact, Ann Arbor is totally unique:

Bill at 4:45 PM on August 31, 2011
@Andy you can hardly compare Seattle and Chicago to Ann Arbor. I’ve been to communities larger than Ann Arbor that are trying to build their downtown areas and offer FREE parking in city lots.

OK, I can’t compare Ann Arbor to RO/Birmingham/Ferndale because they are suburbs of a larger metro area. OK, I can’t compare Ann Arbor to Seattle or Chicago because they are bigger. But it is OK to compare it the other (unnamed) cities which offer free parking?

Meanwhile, I don’t think I’ve ever had to pay for parking in Ypsilanti.  We all know how much better Ypsi’s downtown is performing than Ann Arbor’s.

Charles Weaver at 3:55 PM on August 31, 2011:

At some point people are going to stop patronizing downtown businesses. There is elasticity in the demand.

Exactly, all those residents in Kerrytown and the OWS and Germantown, and all the UM students, and all the people who work downtown are going to stop patronizing downtown businesses and go out to Chelsea or Manchester for lunch.

This is the real kicker.  It’s not even an across-the-board increase.  No one is commenting on this, but one-third of the existing meters will actually see a DECREASE.  Read the article:

Meters that consistently have monthly earnings in the top one-third of all meters in the system would be increased to $1.80 an hour, Pollay said. Meanwhile, those meters in the middle would stay at $1.40, and those at the bottom would be reduced to $1.

“Closer in, people pay more. Further out, people pay less,” Pollay said, describing the proposal as a chance for the DDA to help activate the downtown.

The ones they are raising prices on are the ones with the most demand; if somebody isn’t willing to pay the extra 40 cents an hour (again, this is metered, not long term parking), why can’t they park in the middle range meters and (God forbid) walk an extra block or 2?

tim at 5:29 PM on August 31, 2011

Pretty soon it will be 10 cense a minute—– A2 already has a parking problem downtown, I don’t even bother to eat downtown on the weekend or when the students are back. Sure would be nice if all those great restaurants would move out to Westgate.

Ten cense a minute, just like those old Sprint ads.  You know, with the cost of parking, I just can’t figure out why all those businesses haven’t moved out to Westgate yet.  Could it be that the cost of parking is negligible for a couple who is already dropping a hundred dollars or so on dinner & drinks at Pacific Rim?  Or that Blimpie Burger does better business right next to the captive consumers of the UM student ghetto than it would on the edge of town?

Could it be that the proposed change makes no difference at all to the thousands of people who already choose to walk, bike, or take the bus downtown?

The more people who live in or near* downtown = the more people who couldn’t give 2 shits about the hourly rate going up 40 cents at a few meters.

I’ll give these people credit:  they are right to a certain extent.  There are many times I choose not to dine downtown. The cost of parking is usually less of an issue than the hassle of getting around by car downtown.  But there’s a reason for that: Downtowns are meant for walking, not driving.

You whine about paying for parking. You whine about the traffic congestion, which free parking only exacerbates. You whine about those pedestrians and stop lights and cross walks and bikes that get in the way of your car.

You don’t actually want to go downtown, that’s fine. You have plenty of other places with lots of free parking in Ann Arbor.  In fact, you have the more than 700 square miles of the rest of Washtenaw County to drive and park to your heart’s content.  Hang out on Carpenter or Maple or Eisenhower or Plymouth.  Leave us with the precious couple of square miles of central Ann Arbor where people can still live without a car without being a second-class citizen.   But if you choose to come downtown, leave the attitude of entitlement at home.

I realize I’m fighting a losing battle with the brilliant readership of AnnArbor.com, who generally want to go back to Ann Arbor circa 1950.  But if you, like me, think the DDA is making a smart move, contact them to let them know & thank them.

*On second thought, they really need to stay within the official boundaries of downtown.  Any development south of William is going to give Tom Whitaker a heart attack.

The homeownership racket

The Detroit area has the dubious distinction of having lost more home value than any other large metropolitan area in the country.  Metro Detroiters are acutely aware of the consequences:

In metro Detroit home prices… are roughly 38% below their 2000 levels.

Other cities that have home prices below their 2000 levels when the index was set at 100 are Cleveland, which has an index of 98.88, and Las Vegas, which has a 95.6 level. Metro Detroit is at 62.

While other metros are slowly beginning to recover, we are not: “Home prices in metro Detroit were down 2.8% from April, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index. The only other city to see a drop in prices over April levels was Tampa with a 0.6% decline.” And there’s no end in sight:

Detroit home prices posted sharp declines during the first 6 months of 2011, according to a new report.  And the decline is expected to continue during the next 6 months.  Clear Capital reports Detroit’s home sale prices were down 19.8% during the first half of the year compared to the first six months of 2010… Alex Villacorta with Clear Capital… says Detroit’s home prices are expected to dip another 4% between now and end of December.

L. Brooks Patterson loves to crow about how sprawl has supposedly helped Oakland County, but you won’t hear him admitting how overbuilding helped to destroy the wealth of OC homeowners after the housing bubble popped.

It is no coincidence that Detroit’s rate of homeownership was the highest of the nation’s largest metros in the mid-20th century.  Detroit’s culture of homeownership is tied hand and foot to its high levels of segregation.  It has been amply documented how realtors exacerbated white flight from Detroit neighborhoods beginning in the 1950s;  they deliberately stoked fear among white homeowners with rumours that blacks were moving in and would bring down home prices.  They profited from the resulting turnover as entire neighborhoods flipped within the course of a decade.  Other aging industrial metropoli with large black populations, like Chicago and New York City, were protected from such rapid turnover partly by their lower rates of homeownership; renters simply did not have as much at stake financially in their neighborhood, and were less overcome by panic.

Federal housing policy was the catalyzing agent that allowed Detroit’s metropolitan area to sprawl uncontrollably after World War II; it was the Kevorkian that enabled the region’s economic suicide.  And federal housing policy, under both Democrats and Republicans, continues to wreak havoc on Detroit.

But what role exactly does the government play in homeownership?  “The United States spends more than $100 billion annually to subsidize homeowners,” explain NYU business professor Viral V. Acharya and a number of his colleagues in a New York Times op-ed. These expenditures, Acharya et al continue, are a significant driver of the federal deficit: “according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, these tax breaks add up to $700 billion in lost government revenue over the five-year period through 2014.”  Joshua Green, formerly of the Atlantic, elaborates:

Even before the 2008 financial crisis, the government assumed the credit risk on most loans, which allowed banks to offer better rates, but ultimately left taxpayers footing the bill when the housing market collapsed: $138 billion and counting.

During the crisis, the government became even more involved in the mortgage market by rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and agreeing to backstop larger loans… Today, the government backs 95 percent of new loans, leaving taxpayers more exposed than ever.

Many Americans have come to regard cheap mortgages as an entitlement.

And yet it’s not clear this fire hose of money has done much to increase the total level of American homeownership, Acharya et al suggest:

According to data collected by Alex J. Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute, a comparison of homeownership among economically advanced countries shows that the United States is in the middle of the pack, which suggests that subsidizing housing with tax breaks is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a flourishing housing market. Rather, these subsidies enabled people to borrow more than they could afford so they could buy houses bigger than they needed…

Felix Salmon agrees that “there’s not even any real evidence that the deduction actually increases homeownership, rather than just artificially making houses more expensive to buy.”

Yet why is the deduction so popular?  One big problem is that a lot of Americans think they benefit from the tax treatment of mortgage interest more than they do, a belief perpetuated by misguided liberals who claim it helps low-income people attain the American dream. But  according to Adam S. Posen of  the Peterson Institute for International Economics, “This part of the tax code incentivizes speculation and borrowing, rather than investment and saving. It is very regressive.” Acharya et al write,

Renters get no breaks; homeowners get tons of them… homeownership policies and mortgage subsidies in the United States benefit the rich a lot more than the poor. For example, the economists James Poterba and Todd Sinai recently estimated that the benefits from the mortgage interest deduction for the average homeowning household that earns between $40,000 and $75,000 were about 10 times smaller than the benefits that accrue to the average household earning more than $250,000. These policies increase income inequality instead of reducing it.

Felix does a bit more of the math:

Households earning more than $200,000 a year account for less than 10% of the returns, but get 30% of all the benefits. And households earning more than $100,000 a year get 69% of all the benefit. The mortgage-interest deduction might be a middle-class tax break, but realistically it’s an upper-middle-class tax break…

He concludes, “Homeownership, especially during times of high unemployment, does more harm than good.”

If we capped federal loan limits for guaranteeing mortgages as well as the amount of interest that could be deducted, most homeowners would not be affected, only those that spend most lavishly on their homes.  As usual, the homebuilders  lobby for distortionary policy that encourages sprawl.

The banks do their bit to make a bad situation worse:

Lenders historically have treated residents of cities and rural areas as riskier than those who live in the suburbs… Poverty rates are higher in urban and rural areas. Potential borrowers tend to have lower credit scores and less money saved for down payments. In other words, lenders may charge higher rates on average because borrowers in these areas disproportionately pose greater risks.

Professor (Brent) Ambrose (of Penn State) said that determining the value of properties was also a challenge. Mortgage loans are secured by the value of the borrower’s home. The methods that lenders use to judge the value of a home, however, are best suited to the suburbs, where clusters of broadly similar houses allow easy comparisons… (I)n urban areas there can be too much noise in the data – large numbers of different kinds of homes in close proximity. The result is that lenders are less confident about the quality of their collateral…

Contrast our experience with that of Texas.  Slate’s Annie Lowrey cites one ingredient of the recipe for Texas’ economic resilience amidst the rest of the country’s recent contraction:

Texas kept its housing-finance regulations tight. As Alyssa Katz noted last year in The Big Money, Texas has had a longtime commitment to ensuring that homeowners make significant down payments and do not use their houses like piggy banks. The rules bar Texans from taking out home-equity lines of credit worth more than 80 percent of their mortgage. They also ban “cash-out refinancings,” which add to homeowners’ debt.

As a result, Texas never had a housing bubble.

Jonathan Chait echoes Lowrey’s account:

The best explanations for Texas’s success, other than its proximity to Mexico and resulting high levels of immigration, is (sic) genuinely good housing policies. Texas had tight lending requirements that prevented the inflation of a housing bubble, and it maintains loose zoning rules that allow for lots of cheap housing.

Adam Posen suggests other reforms:

Create a national tax leaning against land price swings: Local governments collect taxes already on all real estate transactions. The rates should increase when prices rise faster than population and income growth in an area (and decrease when prices rise slower). The revenue from the additional variable taxes should be transferred from booming markets to depressed communities. This would counteract large swings in housing prices and in local government spending…

Set a minimum mortgage loan-to-value ratio and have it vary over the business cycle: A simple rule that all mortgage lenders must require a minimum 20 percent down payment would restrict both speculation and exploitation of consumers. This ratio should automatically increase in boom times, but never go lower.

There’s arguably a silver lining to this catastrophe.  Kurt Metzger points out that, if nothing else, we now have some of the most affordable real estate in the nation.  What’s terrible for Metro Detroit’s homeowners is potentially enticing for those looking to buy a home here.

Full disclosure:  As I’ve previously noted on this blog, I own my home.

Michigan’s film subsidies: Why I’m glad to see them gone

‘In less than a decade, the absurd notion of welfare for movie producers has evolved… to an unshakable American tradition…’ –Michael Kinsley, ‘Lights, camera, cut on Hollywood subsidies

As I’ve written before, there’s plenty to dispute in Governor Snyder’s FY 2012 budget.  But I’m tired of all the whining about at least one of his cuts:  the elimination of Michigan’s film subsidies.

What do I have against these particular “incentives,” as their supporters often euphemistically term them?  Let me start with the Craig Fahle Show on February 25, when Amy Miller interviewed James Hohman of the Mackinac Center.  Hohman explained that state subsidies are “not expanding the market for film, we’re just transferring wealth from one place to another instead of generating it,” that we’re taking taxpayer money and bribing an industry to move their work from one state to another.  As Amy noted, the industry has, as a consequence, become highly transient.  Jim Russell posted last month on BurghDiaspora about how they think they’re going to be the next Hollywood over in Pennsylvania, too.

But Michigan is special, right? If we just plant the seed and give it a couple of years, the industry will put down roots permanently, won’t it?  Michael Kinsley, in an early March 2011 article for Politico, explains that subsidizing films

essentially is a “beggar thy neighbor” strategy. Some of the movies that have been bribed to locate in New Mexico would have been made in New Mexico anyway… (M)obility giveth and mobility taketh away. Pit the states against one another, and the subsidies will inevitably become more generous and less effective at the same time…

As yet another observer, former Merrill Lynch entertainment industry analyst Harold Vogel, quoted by the Free Press at around the same time, puts it:

“It’s a false promise,” Vogel said. “The industry is notably mercenary. Any time it gets a better deal, they’ll be out of Michigan in the blink of an eye.”

And the studies that supporters have cited turn out to be garbage.  Kinsley again:

In the definitive document on this issue, a paper published in December by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, senior fellow Robert Tannenwald notes what he tactfully calls “flaws” in various studies the states have commissioned to justify the subsidy. Even after our recent experience with gullible or mendacious accountants in financial scandals such as Enron… it’s actually shocking that reputable firms like Ernst & Young would pull some of these stunts — such as counting the allowances film crews are paid for expenses as a benefit to the state and then counting the same money again when it is spent…

The really sad part is that our states aren’t just in a bidding war over film subsidies.  Midwestern policy guru Richard Longworth has written frequently about how the states themselves are an economic relic that now undercut the competitiveness of the Midwest’s metro regions.   Last week, he argued again for why tax credits for individual businesses are stupid policy, focusing in particular on the example of the Kansas City area, so eloquently and in such detail that I hope you will forgive my quoting it so extensively:

It’s precisely these states’ inability to compete globally that causes them to declare war on the folks next door.

In a global economy, Kansas and Missouri aren’t competing with each other, any more than Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin are competing with each other. The real competition is 10,000 miles away and all Midwesterners know that we’re losing it. The region — not just the individual cities and states but the entire region — is losing companies, manufacturing, jobs, people, congressional seats and college grads, which means they’re losing the resources needed to compete in a global economy.

Clearly, what the Midwestern states are doing isn’t working. You’d think they’d do what the Europeans, Indians, Chinese and other competitors are doing, which is to form regional alliances to leverage all their strengths, to maximize their economies of scale, to merge their assets in to a single world-beating economy. On a global scale, Midwestern states are tiny: there are more than 30 Chinese cities with more people than there are in all of Kansas. But as a region, the Midwest has more than 60 million people which, even on a global scale, counts for something…

By mandate, they are geography-bound, forced to limit all thinking and action within their state lines. Any business they can steal from next door looks good to their voters, whether it makes sense or not…

One reason this doesn’t work is that poaching businesses involves giving tax breaks to the poachee. Right now, states aren’t spending on the future because they’re broke, and one reason they’re broke is that they’re giving away badly-needed tax money. The letter from the Kansas City businessmen made this point clearly:

“… The states are being pitted against each other and the only real winner is the business who is ‘incentive shopping’ to reduce costs. The losers are the taxpayers who must provide services to those who are not paying for them.”

Neither does this poaching usually create new jobs. Most of these cross-border raids, in Kansas-Missouri and in other states, involve companies just moving a few miles away across the state line — usually so close that their workforce changes not at all. People just commute in different directions. The overall impact on job totals, incomes and economic gain in the region itself is absolutely nil…

The state governments and governors, like Brownback, claim that these tax lures are necessary to draw in companies not from next door but from far-away states. If so, they aren’t working. A University of Illinois study showed that there are some 300 significant corporate relocations in the United States every year, and about 15,000 different economic development organizations — state, county and local — competing for them. In other words, the odds against success are fifty-to-one…

… State economic development officials tell me that the company, such as Honda or BMW, simply announces that it intends to set up a new assembly plant somewhere in the Midwest. Then the company just sits back and watches the states throw money at them, trying to outbid each other with tax holidays, free land, training subsidies and other lavish gifts.

All the states know this goes on. All know they could stop it in an instant by banding together and refusing to play the game…

Mark Drabenstott, in… Past Silos and Smokestacks, wrote that these recruiting incentives and other bribes account for no less than 80 percent of economic development budgets in the twelve Midwestern states. That leaves virtually no money left over for approaches that might really work.

Every economic development professional knows that this adds nothing to the Midwest’s long-term growth or its ability to compete globally with China and other rising nations. The only true solution is to create truly  new companies and industries by building them from the ground up  — by investing in local education, encouraging local entrepreneurs, setting up incubators, growing business services, increasing venture capital.

This is called economic gardening, and it works. It means working regionally. It means spending money, not giving it away in tax breaks. It means planting seeds now, knowing they won’t sprout until some other governor is in office.

Right now, Midwestern governors are competing not with China but with each other to see how much they can slash spending in the next few months while stealing jobs from the next state… And it’s useless.

Again, Longworth’s entire post is worth reading in full when you get the chance (and I encourage you to subscribe to his blog as well).

The good news is, like Michigan, the madness may be subsiding in other states as well.  According to the Detroit News:

In the last couple of years, New Jersey, Kentucky, Connecticut, Iowa, New Mexico and Kansas have all cut back film programs. Georgia, where producers of “Detroit 1-8-7″ originally planned to film, is considering ending its 20 percent rebate altogether. New Mexico lawmakers also are considering spreading out payments to more costly film productions over multiple years.

The bar for sanity has been set so low  in American public policy, I’ll take a little comfort wherever I can.  I like movies and want to see Michigan’s creative scene grow as much as anybody, but this year’s budget is a viciously zero-sum game.  I would much rather have my tax dollars plugging the massive holes in the education budget or local revenue-sharing, to cite two examples, than to some Hollywood producers who are shopping around for a handout.  Wouldn’t you?

I’ve never before heard of the Governors Highway Safety Association…

But it kind of sounds like it is run by idiots.

For more reasons than one.