Earlier this week Gov. Jim Doyle reiterated his support for a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee public schools.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which continues to blur the line between reporting and editorializing began its initial coverage: “Jim Doyle said Monday the state must give control of Milwaukee schools to the mayor to put in a 'good faith' application for federal economic stimulus funds.”
Wispolitics was more measured when it wrote: “Doyle hedged on whether mayoral control of the MPS will be part of the application, though he continued to voice support from the governance change.”
Doyle's position contradicts that of the Obama administration.
In a letter to Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan acknowledged that dismantling elected school boards was not a Race to the Top requirement. He wrote: Although we have not yet released the final priorities and criteria for Race to the Top, mayoral control was not a criteria included in the proposed priorities...."
According to the Journal Sentinel: “Doyle said the education reforms he and Evers are advocating would require the steady push only a mayor can provide. Otherwise, school policy could "vacillate from year to year" with changes on the School Board…”
That’s a particularly interesting observation since Mayor Barrett is actively considering a run for Governor, hardly a recipe for continuity.
It also contradicts the argument that mayoral run school districts are more accountable to the public than elected school boards because of higher voter turn-out. By acknowledging that the mayor of Milwaukee is as close to a life-time position (continuity is assured) as one can find, Doyle undermines the electoral accountability argument.
Today in a letter to the editor Congresswoman Gwen Moore challenged the Governor’s position. She wrote:
“… Doyle's contention that mayoral control of the Milwaukee schools is critical to receiving these Recovery Act funds is inconsistent with multiple assurances I have received from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan that mayoral control of MPS is not a prerequisite to Wisconsin receiving Race to the Top funds (Page 1A, Oct. 20).
In a letter dated Oct. 7, Secretary Duncan wrote, 'Mayoral control of the public schools was not a criterion included in the proposed priorities (for Race to the Top funding) that were released for public comment in July.'
I agree that the Milwaukee schools face serious challenges - the achievement gap and 69% graduation rate among them. But I have yet to see evidence that placing the School Board under any mayor's control will magically erase the problems that have long plagued our public schools.
To wrongly suggest that the badly needed Race to the Top funds will not be awarded to Wisconsin unless Milwaukee wrests control away from a democratically elected School Board and hands it over to the mayor is unfair. And wrong on the facts.
To advocate for mayoral control of the Milwaukee schools is one thing; to suggest that not making the switch will restrict Wisconsin's access to a pot of money is simply untrue."
Showing posts with label Governor Doyle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Doyle. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Governor is right-film industry tax credits are costly and ineffective
When Universal Pictures reached an agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce to produce "Public Enemies," the Johnny Depp film about 1930s gangster John Dillinger, the film makers and their supporters were ecstatic. They projected the production would spend up to $20 million in the state while receiving tax breaks worth only $3.9 million. Quite a deal.
But when the "Public Enemies" production packed its bags last year, state taxpayers gave the movie company back almost every penny it had invested in Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Department of Commerce reports that film makers spent only $5 million, 25% of the promised investment, but were paid $4.6 million in incentives, $700,000 more than projected.
$2.7 million was spent on the salaries of non-Wisconsin residents who worked on the film - almost twice what was paid in salaries to Wisconsin residents employed by the production.
At a time when tens of thousands of Wisconsin workers are losing their jobs and the state is struggling with a $5.7 billion deficit, taxpayers covered $450,000 of director Michael Mann's $1.8 million salary. They weren't on the hook for the stars' salaries only because they are not eligible for the tax credit program. But those who provide services including hair and makeup to the stars were included. And all of those working for Depp were brought in from out of state.
This program is a boondoggle. It creates few jobs, doesn't generate revenue and has a very small multiplier effect.
Governor Doyle who says the credits cost too much and don't create permanent jobs has proposed eliminating the program.
Wisconsin's budget is riddled with tax expenditures like this one that fail to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, but contribute to the state's $5.7 billion budget deficit.
Legislators should support Governor Doyle effort to eliminate this program.
Wisconsin's experience is not unique.
Forty states now offer to pay 25 percent to 40 percent of film production costs. Taxpayers around the country are reimbursing producers for everything from crewmember meals to movie-star salaries. But there is little evidence that such handouts are fiscally sound.
One of the best studies on film industry tax breaks comes from Louisiana's Legislative Fiscal Office. Louisiana experienced an explosion of film production after enacting a tax credit in 2002—from around $20 million a year to the present $350 million. But Louisiana recovered just 18 percent of $121 million in film credits awarded in 2006.
As for the jobs, the report projected that Louisiana's tax credit would generate, at most, around 3,000 jobs and said the economic impact outside the film industry was "likely to be modest." For every dollar of revenue lost to the tax credit, only 15 to 20 cents was recovered in associated business.
With its 25 percent subsidy on in-state production expenses, Massachusetts experienced significant leakage as much of the money it paid went for the salaries of out-of-state movie stars, who spent very little in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center recently reported that the film subsidy rate is five times higher than what the state offers for developments in blighted areas.
Even more troubling, a report by the New Haven-based think tank Connecticut Voices for Children projects that Connecticut's tax credits would reduce the state's revenues by $118 million in fiscal year 2009.
Rhode Island, Michigan and Louisiana have all made moves to rein in overly generous subsidies, concluding they have not delivered all the promised jobs and revenues.
Competition between states to attract film companies generates a race to the bottom as states offer larger and larger incentives to lure film producers. The United States has become in the words of the Incentives Office, a consulting firm in Santa Monica, Calif., the New Bulgaria, a reference to what was once the film industry’s favorite low-cost production site. The movie houses make out like John Dellinger, but taxpayers are left holding the bag.
The Tax Foundation summed up the problems with subsidizing the film industry:
...many legislators see these tax give-aways as a way to attract business to the state, taking credit for creating new jobs but ignoring the tax policy implications. Tax breaks for any industry make the tax base smaller and the tax code less neutral...
Ultimately, the main beneficiaries are not taxpayers but lawmakers. Every incentive package ...allows lawmakers to make public announcements taking credit for "new jobs." Location-based incentives can therefore be thought of as a market transaction between lawmakers and film companies. Lawmakers purchase favorable media coverage for themselves, film companies accept payment for filming in economically unprofitable places, and taxpayers finance the deal. It's hard to see how that's good policy.
The glamour of movie-making may be hard for policymakers to resist, but they could better serve their constituents by simply watching a movie at the local movie theater and leaving Hollywood in California.
But when the "Public Enemies" production packed its bags last year, state taxpayers gave the movie company back almost every penny it had invested in Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Department of Commerce reports that film makers spent only $5 million, 25% of the promised investment, but were paid $4.6 million in incentives, $700,000 more than projected.
$2.7 million was spent on the salaries of non-Wisconsin residents who worked on the film - almost twice what was paid in salaries to Wisconsin residents employed by the production.
At a time when tens of thousands of Wisconsin workers are losing their jobs and the state is struggling with a $5.7 billion deficit, taxpayers covered $450,000 of director Michael Mann's $1.8 million salary. They weren't on the hook for the stars' salaries only because they are not eligible for the tax credit program. But those who provide services including hair and makeup to the stars were included. And all of those working for Depp were brought in from out of state.
This program is a boondoggle. It creates few jobs, doesn't generate revenue and has a very small multiplier effect.
Governor Doyle who says the credits cost too much and don't create permanent jobs has proposed eliminating the program.
Wisconsin's budget is riddled with tax expenditures like this one that fail to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, but contribute to the state's $5.7 billion budget deficit.
Legislators should support Governor Doyle effort to eliminate this program.
Wisconsin's experience is not unique.
Forty states now offer to pay 25 percent to 40 percent of film production costs. Taxpayers around the country are reimbursing producers for everything from crewmember meals to movie-star salaries. But there is little evidence that such handouts are fiscally sound.
One of the best studies on film industry tax breaks comes from Louisiana's Legislative Fiscal Office. Louisiana experienced an explosion of film production after enacting a tax credit in 2002—from around $20 million a year to the present $350 million. But Louisiana recovered just 18 percent of $121 million in film credits awarded in 2006.
As for the jobs, the report projected that Louisiana's tax credit would generate, at most, around 3,000 jobs and said the economic impact outside the film industry was "likely to be modest." For every dollar of revenue lost to the tax credit, only 15 to 20 cents was recovered in associated business.
With its 25 percent subsidy on in-state production expenses, Massachusetts experienced significant leakage as much of the money it paid went for the salaries of out-of-state movie stars, who spent very little in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center recently reported that the film subsidy rate is five times higher than what the state offers for developments in blighted areas.
Even more troubling, a report by the New Haven-based think tank Connecticut Voices for Children projects that Connecticut's tax credits would reduce the state's revenues by $118 million in fiscal year 2009.
Rhode Island, Michigan and Louisiana have all made moves to rein in overly generous subsidies, concluding they have not delivered all the promised jobs and revenues.
Competition between states to attract film companies generates a race to the bottom as states offer larger and larger incentives to lure film producers. The United States has become in the words of the Incentives Office, a consulting firm in Santa Monica, Calif., the New Bulgaria, a reference to what was once the film industry’s favorite low-cost production site. The movie houses make out like John Dellinger, but taxpayers are left holding the bag.
The Tax Foundation summed up the problems with subsidizing the film industry:
...many legislators see these tax give-aways as a way to attract business to the state, taking credit for creating new jobs but ignoring the tax policy implications. Tax breaks for any industry make the tax base smaller and the tax code less neutral...
Ultimately, the main beneficiaries are not taxpayers but lawmakers. Every incentive package ...allows lawmakers to make public announcements taking credit for "new jobs." Location-based incentives can therefore be thought of as a market transaction between lawmakers and film companies. Lawmakers purchase favorable media coverage for themselves, film companies accept payment for filming in economically unprofitable places, and taxpayers finance the deal. It's hard to see how that's good policy.
The glamour of movie-making may be hard for policymakers to resist, but they could better serve their constituents by simply watching a movie at the local movie theater and leaving Hollywood in California.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Doyle says federal aid needed to avoid tech college and UW cuts
Wisconsin's Governor, Jim Doyle, told the House Appropriations Committee yesterday that unless they pass a stimulus package that includes support for state and local governments he will be forced to cut technical college and state university funding:
"...state budgets ...allow kids to get a good education, and a chance at a good university or technical college education that their families can afford..." Doyle said." So that's what is threatened: our schools, our universities, our technical colleges...These are the areas that determine our budgets...And these cuts could undermine years of careful progress."
Doyle's entire testimony is linked.
"...state budgets ...allow kids to get a good education, and a chance at a good university or technical college education that their families can afford..." Doyle said." So that's what is threatened: our schools, our universities, our technical colleges...These are the areas that determine our budgets...And these cuts could undermine years of careful progress."
Doyle's entire testimony is linked.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Questions about Georgia Thompson's prosecution remain unanswered!
Attorney General Gonzalez may have resigned, but the scandals left in his wake remain.
Adam Cohen of the New York Times reminds us today that "when the power of the state to imprison people is put in the wrong hands, lives can be ruined and democracy can be threatened."
He notes that there are still unanswered questions about the Justice Department's prosecution of Wisconsin's Georgia Thompson who was wrongly convicted of awarding a state contract to a Democratic Party contributor.
Prosecutors tried to get Ms Thompson who was jailed for four months to testify against Governor Jim Doyle. And Republicans used this case to paint the Governor as corrupt in the Wisconsin's gubernatorial election which was ultimately won by Doyle.
Questions about the case remain unanswered.
Since the Justice Department refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to examine whether this and other cases were politicized, Congress needs to intervene.
Cohen's article is worth the read and is linked.
Adam Cohen of the New York Times reminds us today that "when the power of the state to imprison people is put in the wrong hands, lives can be ruined and democracy can be threatened."
He notes that there are still unanswered questions about the Justice Department's prosecution of Wisconsin's Georgia Thompson who was wrongly convicted of awarding a state contract to a Democratic Party contributor.
Prosecutors tried to get Ms Thompson who was jailed for four months to testify against Governor Jim Doyle. And Republicans used this case to paint the Governor as corrupt in the Wisconsin's gubernatorial election which was ultimately won by Doyle.
Questions about the case remain unanswered.
Since the Justice Department refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to examine whether this and other cases were politicized, Congress needs to intervene.
Cohen's article is worth the read and is linked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)