Michigan House subcommittee interrogates economic development deals as companies fail to deliver
Rep. Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers), chair of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Corporate Subsidies and State Investments on May 21, 2025 | Kyle Davidson
As Michigan Republicans continue to take a magnifying glass to economic development spending, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Corporate Subsidies and State Investments invited James Hohman of the free-market Mackinac Center for Public Policy to offer his analysis of the state's Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve (SOAR) Fund.
Hohman, who serves as the Mackinac Center's director of Fiscal Policy, walked committee members through a collection of several projects through the state's critical industries program, comparing the number of jobs promised with the jobs delivered.
As he broke down each agreement, Hohman repeatedly noted that these deals were structured to deliver short-term payoffs for companies, and were not tied to job creation, with many deals tying the bulk of their funding requirements to a company's capital expenditures, or money a company spends to buy, maintain or improve their assets.
Additionally, not all deals move forward, with Hohman pointing to a $100.8 million dollar deal with Ford made in 2022 as an example.
Hohman urged lawmakers and members of the public to bring more skepticism to these deals, noting they often fail to deliver on their promises.
'There's a massive difference between what gets announced and what actually happens when it comes to living up to expectations,' Hohman said.
'A lot of them wind up with no jobs at all. Some of them do meet [or] exceed expectations, but when you look at the rhetoric behind the deals, when they're getting made, there's rarely even an acknowledgement that deals might not deliver on their pledges,' Hohman said.
If companies fail to create the jobs they promised, the state has to wait years before it can ask for its money back, Hohman said. If they eliminate jobs after the deal concludes, the state has no way of getting its money back, he said.
Additionally when asked about the level of transparency offered into these deals, Hohman said they were meeting the minimum standard of transparency, publishing an annual report on how much money was offered, how much the company received and whether they created the jobs that were announced. However, the report's schedule leaves the status of most current projects unknown, while sometimes forcing people to wait 18 months to learn an agreement didn't move forward.
Overall the state has allocated $1.46 billion in taxpayer funds to create 14,779 jobs, Hohman said. While lawmakers clearly had ambitious plans for the program, those goals have not panned out, he said.
And while the companies receiving this funding will likely create jobs to fill the buildings they've built using state funding, the number of jobs they create will depend on an uncertain future, Hohman said.
'My major takeaway for you is that if you're going to continue operating the critical industry program, more of the deal needs to be based on actual job creation. When you have deals that consistently fall apart, that fail to deliver, you should not be paying them until they finally do the things they're obligated or that lawmakers expect them to do,' Hohman said.
This would not require a change to the law, Hohman said, only a change in expectations for lawmakers, asking them not to approve projects based on capital expenditures rather than job creation.
While there are a number of areas where the Mackinac Center believes these dollars could better benefit residents, Hohman offered his support for House Republicans' road funding plan, which draws the bulk of its funding by reallocating or eliminating funding set aside for economic development, including $500 million set for automatic deposits into the SOAR fund.
Despite the issues with the program, State Rep. Laurie Pohutsky (D-Livonia) raised repeated concerns about ensuring criticism of the program was accurate. While some press releases may be disingenuous in promising to deliver jobs, SOAR funding that is allocated for site readiness should not be expected to create jobs.
'You can't put 2,000 jobs in a site that is not ready for 2,000 jobs,' Pohutsky said.
While the SOAR program is not the best use of the state's money, there are enough flaws that are not based around promises made in press releases, she said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Joe Walsh says he's becoming a Democrat
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman, said on Tuesday he is becoming a Democrat, marking the end of his five-year streak as a political independent after leaving the GOP in 2020. Walsh announced his formal affiliation with the Democratic Party in a Tuesday Substack post, saying he made the decision because he views the Republican Party as a threat to democracy and the rule of law and thinks defeating the GOP requires 'a broad coalition of moderates, progressives, and, yes, even conservatives.' 'Three words I never thought I'd ever utter: I'm a Democrat. This former Republican Congressman, former Republican candidate for President, this former TEA Party champion is formally joining the Democratic Party. The stakes are simply too high to NOT become a Democrat,' Walsh wrote in his Substack post, before outlining his reasoning. 'Let's start with the obvious—a tyrant sits in the White House. The very thing our Founders feared most is here. Throw in the fact that one of our two major political parties is a real and direct threat to democracy and the rule of law. These are unprecedented, dangerous times in America. I know it. You know it. There are even Republicans who know it,' he continued. Walsh challenged Trump for the GOP nomination in the 2020 presidential race but dropped out after performing poorly in the Iowa caucuses. He quickly left the party and became a vocal critic of Trump. He endorsed former President Biden in 2020. Walsh has been unaffiliated for the last five years but said in his Substack post that Trump critics who are holding out hope for a third party are misguided. 'Without freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, America ceases to be. And currently, only the Democratic Party is on the side of all three of these core American values,' he wrote. 'There isn't a third party coming to the rescue any time soon,' he continued. 'Right now, the Democratic Party is democracy's lone defender and best hope.' Walsh acknowledged some issues with the Democratic party but said 'for democracy and the rule of law to persevere, Democrats must succeed' — which necessitates becoming a 'big tent' party and learning how to fight against Trump's GOP. 'Take it from a former Republican fighter,' he wrote. 'Republicans fight to the death to win politically, and they've always believed Democrats won't. I've been a fighter my whole life, and if there's ever been a moment when Americans are crying out for a Democratic Party with some fight, it's now.' He added: 'And look, here's the thing. We're gonna need a HUGE tent to defeat this Republican Party,' he wrote. 'We're gonna need a Democratic tent big enough to hold both a conservative like Joe Walsh and a progressive like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. I want to help build that big tent because I want to win, and…Trump's Republican Party must lose.' Walsh also reflected on his political and personal journey, saying he still is 'a border hawk, an unabashed gun rights advocate, and an unyielding defender of free speech. But I'm not the same guy as I was 15 years ago, or even eight years ago.' 'I've opened my eyes and listened to people who don't think like me,' he continued. 'And by doing so, I gained a greater understanding of and appreciation for LGBTQ issues, structural racism, the need for empathetic immigration reform, the dangers of climate change, and the role government must play to help care for the neediest and most vulnerable among us.' Walsh said he's more compassionate and sees the importance of decency, tolerance, understanding and empathy in politics, saying only the Democratic Party 'values and practices these traits.' 'Donald Trump is the worst of us, and, sadly, the rest of the Republican Party emulates his cruelty, dishonesty, and authoritarianism,' he continued. 'We're better than what we've seen every day these past four months. America is better than this. As a former Republican, I know that cruelty sells. Well, it's time for decency to sell.'
Los Angeles Times
16 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: DOGE's purported savings have nothing on what more tax cuts could add to the deficit
To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer takes a well-worn page from the right-wing playbook in his comments on the U.S. government's fiscal challenges ('DOGE was a good start. Trump needs to push further for real fiscal change,' May 30). He cherry-picks seemingly indefensible government expenditures and uses them to mischaracterize the Department of Government Efficiency cuts that already are damaging government services and federally funded scientific research. The $175 billion of purported cuts he ballyhoos amount to less than 5% of the $4 trillion (a median of the $3 trillion to $5 trillion estimates) that could be added to the national deficit if President Trump's 2017 tax cuts are extended. Why doesn't Hammer even mention the revenue side of the deficit equation? Advocates of cutting extensions claim it's necessary for economic growth. The previous cuts, which mostly targeted high-income taxpayers, failed to contribute meaningfully to growth. How many times do we need to learn that Art Laffer was wrong about tax cuts paying for themselves via economic growth? The Trump tax cuts ignored by Hammer fuel the deficits he claims to oppose. Daniel Stone, Los Angeles .. To the editor: DOGE was a good start? Did we forget when they fired hundreds of the country's nuclear experts and tried to scramble to hire them back? What about when these computer geniuses didn't know how to read data and thought that there were tens of millions of dead people collecting Social Security? Or when they 'accidentally' cut USAID's Ebola relief? If you ran a business this poorly, you'd be sacked immediately. It's funny how the people obsessed with 'efficiency' and 'fraud' are only ever concerned about programs that help citizens and never with blatant corporate corruption. Medicare? Far cheaper and more efficient than private insurance. Medicare Advantage, the massive giveaway to private insurers? Wildly wasteful but never on any so-called conservative's chopping block. Republicans always whine about 'fiscal responsibility,' but one easy way to save money would be to not give trillions away in tax cuts to billionaires. If you want a government that works efficiently, you have to fund and staff it properly, not randomly fire people and be surprised when it turns out those people did something important. Kyle Kramer, Los Angeles
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Should US government screen social media of potential immigrants? What poll found
Most Americans support authorizing the government to screen the social media content of potential immigrants — though many have doubts about whether this process would be fair, according to a new YouGov/Economist poll. The survey, released on June 3, comes as President Donald Trump's administration has ramped up online monitoring of immigrants seeking to live in the U.S. — a protocol which has been in practice for at least a decade, according to The Associated Press. In April, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it would begin considering antisemitic activity on social media as grounds for denying immigration requests. Further, the administration is considering requiring social media vetting for all international students seeking to study in the U.S., according to NBC News. At the same time, the government has ceased scheduling visa interviews for prospective foreign students. Here are the findings from the latest poll — which sampled 1,610 U.S. adults May 30-June 2 and had a margin of error of 3.2 percent. Social media monitoring A majority of respondents, 53%, said the U.S. government should be 'allowed to monitor the social media accounts of people applying to immigrate to the U.S.' Just 27% said officials should not be permitted to do this, and 19% said they were not sure. The vast majority of Republicans, 78%, favored this policy, while a plurality of Democrats, 44%, were opposed. However, more respondents than not said they had little faith in the government to fairly handle this process. A plurality, 46%, said they had no or not very much trust in the government 'to determine whether content on a person's social media account should disqualify them from immigrating to the U.S.' In contrast, 39% said they had a great deal or a fair amount of trust. Most Republicans, 62%, expressed faith in the government to handle social media screening, while most Democrats, 66%, expressed none or little. When it came to the goal of monitoring social media, Americans were divided. A plurality, 32%, said the main purpose of screening the online presence of potential immigrants is to 'improve national security,' while 23% said it is to 'suppress political dissent.' Twenty-seven percent said the goal is both of these. And, while there is widespread support for screenings, most Americans, 53%, believe that, once immigrants are in the country, they should 'have the same right to express political views online as U.S. citizens.' Thirty percent disagreed, and 18% said they were not sure. The overwhelming majority of Democrats, 75%, agreed with this statement, while a plurality of Republicans, 49%, disagreed. Respondents were also far more wary of social media monitoring when it came to U.S. citizens. More than two-thirds, 68%, said the government should be barred from surveilling the social media of citizens 'who are not being investigated for crimes.' Just 17% said the government should be allowed to do this. Here, there was agreement across the political spectrum, with most Democrats (79%), independents (66%) and Republicans (60%) saying they were opposed.
