Others who agree with him take that argument a step further. The “Ban the Box” campaign that began this month supports legislation to prevent employers from asking job seekers whether they have a criminal past. The “box” in question is the one you check on a job application if you have ever been convicted of a felony.

Our view is that “Ban the Box” goes too far. Employers should have the ability to choose people based on their past actions. A criminal record — unlike age, religion or gender, as examples — is within a person’s control. Those who do the hiring have a right to information they deem relevant.

However, this campaign should have real value, to raise public awareness of the difficulty that felons face in finding work, and the fact they can be productive workers.

The state Department of Corrections and Michigan Works already encourage businesses to hire those who have served their time. To look at Whitehead’s example, he committed crimes years ago and has since gotten an education and stayed out of trouble.

He also has not worked in years. That is troubling on an individual level, but also for a society that prides itself on providing opportunity to all. There should not be a law that “bans the box,” but we hope employers in this community do not close their eyes to the possibility of hiring felons when they still can do the job.

— THE JACKSON CITIZEN PATRIOT

He angrily dismissed her account as false, even though the balance of evidence suggests it’s true. He summoned dubious evidence in his defense, saying all their mutual friends knew Marianne’s charge was untrue, although there could have been no witnesses to a private conversation. But his outraged forcefulness carried the day.

Only one other politician in America could have played the victim card so expertly when confronted by the story of a wronged woman. Only one other politician would have thrown out so many obfuscating “facts.” If he was watching the debate somewhere, Bill Clinton must have chuckled in admiration and thought, “Well played, my friend. Well played.”

Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.

Steven Gillon, author of “The Pact,” a book about the Gingrich-Clinton interplay in the 1990s, was struck by their “unique personal chemistry, which traced back to their childhoods.” Both were raised by distant or abusive stepfathers and surrounded by strong women.

Yet their personalities are different. Growing up in an alcoholic household, Gillon notes, Clinton was a natural conciliator. Gingrich was given to defiance. Clinton was gregarious, a people-pleaser. Gingrich was bookish, a lecturer at heart. Clinton made his way in politics in the unfriendly territory of Arkansas; he had to dodge and weave and seduce. Gingrich climbed through the ranks of the House Republican conference; he stood out as a partisan provocateur.

And so he remains today. He utterly lacks the Clinton soft touch. Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator says he’s the “Bill Clinton of the Right With Half the Charm and Twice the Abrasiveness.” Republican voters lit up by his debate performances believe he’s the most electable candidate, even though the three recent national polls show him with a favorable rating in the 20s.

Could he turn it around with smashing debate performances against President Barack Obama in the fall? Doubtful. In a presidential debate, a candidate’s bearing matters. Al Gore may have beaten George W. Bush on points in their first debate in 2000, but he audibly sighed. That small indicator of an arrogant impatience sank him. If Gingrich shows the slightest bombast or ill temper, if he hectors or gives off a sense of intellectual superiority — in short, if he conducts himself in a typical Gingrichian manner — he will lose the debates in a rout even if he bests President Obama on the merits.

It’s another reason why wily old Bill Clinton has to be pulling for his Republican alter ego.

(Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review.)
© 2012 by King Features Synd., Inc.

Michael LaFaive

Any reforms to Michigan liquor control code must include the elimination of territorial monopolies that are now granted to beer and wine distributors.

By MICHAEL LaFAIVE
As this commentary went to print, Gov. Rick Snyder’s 21-member Liquor Control Advisory Rules Committee had met for the last time to discuss ideas for alcohol control reform in Michigan. They would be wise to think and reform boldly.

Michigan’s laws and rules governing alcohol control have been the playthings of politicians and powerful special interests for decades. They are not as protective of public safety as many believe, and are actually protectionist in many ways. They may also hike the price of consumption 3.0 to 7.8 percent depending on the product.

To better measure the relative degree to which Michigan regulates alcohol consumption, the Mackinac Center collected state control codes from all 50 and counted their word lengths. Code verbosity may reflect the degree to which government “controls” alcohol and ultimately affects prices and safety. Michigan’s code is second longest in the Midwest at 74,000 words.

We then constructed a statistical model that took into account the prices of five liquors and a representative six pack of beer in 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas scattered throughout 18 states plus the District of Columbia, code lengths in those states and whether or not a state was a “control” state.

A control state — like Michigan — is one that buys nearly every drop of hard liquor legally consumed in the state. The model also controlled for other variables that may influence prices, such as a state’s proportion of population that are moderate or heavy drinkers.

First, and with regard to hard liquor, we found that prices of the liquor in our model were 3 percent higher in control states. We also found that a 10 percent increase in the length of a liquor control code was associated with a 10.4 percent increase in price. Second, we found that beer prices in control states are 7.8 percent higher than in non-control states. A 10 percent increase in code length was associated with a 3.2 percent increase in price.

Our data set for spirituous liquor included two popular vodkas, two popular rum products and Jack Daniels whiskey. Our beer data included a representative six-pack of 12-ounce Heineken. The data was provided by quarter from 1995 through 2009 by the American Chamber of Commerce Research Association and the Beverage Information Group.

Our statistical output likely shows understated price differentials because law length may be a crude proxy for control. Indiana’s code is almost 24 percent longer by words than Michigan’s, but unlike Michigan it does not impose minimum selling prices, allowing for greater competition. There are key differences between Michigan and Wisconsin, too.

The Badger state doesn’t play liquor wholesaler and its alcohol code does not mandate that suppliers of wine grant territorial monopolies to wholesalers, as does Michigan. Including such nuanced variables in our model might better distinguish the degree to which Michigan regulations needlessly hike the cost of alcohol.

If the higher prices for alcohol in control states actually bought greater public safety, then perhaps neo-prohibitionists would have an argument for keeping the status quo. Research suggests otherwise.

In a working paper titled, “Does State Monopolization of Alcohol Markets Save Lives?” economists John Pulito and Anthony Davies examine control states and license states from 1982 to 2002. They found that states with a lighter regulatory touch — license states, for instance — “generally experience lower alcohol-related traffic fatalities.” Theirs is not the only work to show that greater regulation does not necessarily equal more and better public safety.

The Mackinac Center recently provided the advisory committee a list of 15 substantial reform ideas. Arguably, the most important of these is our recommendation to strip from lucky state beer and wine wholesalers the privilege of being granted territorial monopolies on the sale of their products by beer and wine producers.

Alcohol reforms advanced by the Snyder administration should remove regulatory privileges emblazoned in state law. Many of them advance the interests of narrow special interests while hiking the cost of products to consumers.

(Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative and Todd Nesbit, Ph.D., an assistant professor of economics at the College of Charleston, is an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute based in Midland.)

Other states should follow Michigan and State of the Union proposal to hike school drop-out age
What the president said: “We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.”

What it means: The president offered a few education ideas, including raising teacher pay and standards. He offered his clearest proposal here, challenging states to increase the drop-out age. Today, in many states, students can leave school at age 16.

Michigan actually is ahead of the curve on this issue, having raised the drop-out age two years ago, starting with the Class of 2016. This state’s lawmakers recognized that professional achievement depends on education, and that most young people are not prepared for life at age 16.

Michigan has raised the drop-out age. We look forward to seeing other states follow our lead.

State of the Union speech correctly holds colleges accountable for rising tuition
What the president said: “So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury — it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.”

What it means: Obama hit on an age-old realty when it comes to higher education. While many public colleges use slack state aid as an excuse to hike tuition, there’s little evidence they show much restraint when taxpayer money is flowing their way, either.

Gov. Rick Snyder tried to limit tuition increases at Michigan’s 15 public colleges last year, and yet most still pushed the limit of a nearly 7 percent cap that was the cutoff to lose state money. Maybe it will take a nudge from the federal government, too, to finally get colleges to show the same financial restraint that most of their customers already use as they save their dollars for school.

Obama has good idea in State of the Union to cut manufacturers’ taxes
What the president said: “… if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.”

What it means: The rebound in manufacturing has been a bright spot for the economy, particularly in Michigan. Obama suggests building on that strength, cutting tax incentives that he says encourage companies to send work out of the country and imposing a minimum tax on multinational manufacturers that do business in the U.S. Notably, he suggests tax cuts for American manufacturers.

Already, those companies have been hiring. It stands to reason they will put more people to work if they are paying less to Uncle Sam.

— THE JACKSON CITIZEN PATRIOT

As you may be aware, Gov. Rick Snyder delivered his State of the State address earlier this month. During his address, the governor spent time going over what he saw as his accomplishments from last year and then discussed a few new initiatives. I may not agree with the governor all of the time, but I do look forward to working with him on a few new proposals like providing insurance coverage for autism treatment and continuing work on building a second bridge to our largest trading partner, Canada.

Last year we saw historic changes to our tax structure. At a time when many are struggling, we saw taxes increased on our seniors and those on fixed incomes. We also saw the elimination of a number of tax credits, including credits for charitable donations to community food banks and foundations. We also saw a drastic reduction to the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor, all to pay for an over one billion dollar reduction in taxes paid by businesses.

This year, the governor is working on a proposal to reduce or restructure the personal property taxes that businesses pay. Personal property taxes are taxes on things like machines and equipment, as well as computers and office furniture. These taxes that businesses pay are collected by the state and then sent to local communities in the form of revenue sharing payments. This money is used by local municipalities to help pay for vital services like police and fire protection, as well as other important services like those provided by our libraries.

While revenue sharing payments have been decreasing throughout the past several years, the need for these services has increased. Revenue sharing was originally designed to reduce the need for local communities to levy income taxes at the local level. Payments come in two forms, one is guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution and the other portion is statutory, or written into the law. A reduction in statutory revenue sharing payments means that communities are doing more with less. In fact, the state has been encouraging municipalities to use cost saving measures by coordinating and sharing services with other local units of government.

In an effort to reduce costs, communities are now able to capture a portion of their statutory revenue sharing payments through performance-based actions in the form of Economic Vitality Incentive Program grants. I applaud the city of Dearborn for being recognized by the state for looking at such measures. The city has entered into discussions with Melvindale, Allen Park and Dearborn Heights to combine property tax administration functions to achieve greater operational and cost efficiencies. I encourage this cooperation and will continue to work to make sure that our communities are getting the resources they need to serve their citizens.

One of my main priorities for the coming year is to provide adequate funding for our schools and to make sure that our teachers and administrators have the resources and tools they need to educate our children. Last year, teachers and administrators in Dearborn came together to reduce the impact of school aid cuts in our classrooms. This cooperation illustrates the positive things that can be achieved when we work together.

In any relationship, our successes come when we work together and focus on what we have in common, rather than dwelling on our differences. Our citizens want and deserve bipartisan cooperation to solve the challenges we face. In today’s debate, too much time is spent on political posturing rather than on solving the challenges we face. Last year, the leadership in Lansing was very partisan and aggressive in their approach to government. As we debate the issues and legislation in this upcoming year, you have my commitment that I will continue to focus on what is best for Dearborn and its citizens.

If my office can ever be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

(State Rep. George Darany represents the 15th House District. To contact him, call (855) 775-1515 or email him at georgetdarany@house.mi.gov. To sign up for his e-newsletter, go to his website, house.mi.gov/gdarany.)

In the wake of this recession, the livelihoods and dreams of many in the Midwest have been impacted by high levels of joblessness and persistent unemployment. Unemployment peaked in Indiana at 10.8 percent, but rose to 14.9 percent in Michigan. Any economic model would predict either state would have had unemployment rates in the 13 to 15 percent range. Our study tries to explain this difference in outcomes between the two states.

First, it is pretty clear that the unemployment rate differences cannot be wholly explained by the structure of manufacturing. Indiana is more manufacturing intensive than Michigan, and the sharp drops in auto sales such as those seen in 2008 and 2009 are not correlated with increased volatility in Michigan’s unemployment rate. Of course, the auto industry matters. Indiana saw just one Big Three plant closing during the recession, while Michigan lost seven GM plants over the same time period. Indiana is also home to Honda, Toyota and Subaru plants. In 2010, Indiana was site of a large announced investment by GM. Granted, the life cycle of a particular plant will impact closing and opening dates, so plant closings can be affected by such things as a discontinued product line or aging equipment. In the end, plant closings are heavily influenced by underlying economic factors, both local and national.

Unsurprisingly for anyone who has lived through the past five years in Indiana or Michigan, tax policy plays a role. At the beginning of the recession, Indiana was debating property tax reform. The legislation passed before the deepest economic declines, beginning a three-year tax cut in the state.

The same time frame saw Michigan pass a new business tax and then slap on a surcharge before the new Michigan business tax had a chance to become law. This action did not improve Michigan’s reputation for poor fiscal management.

At the same time, the foreclosure rate in Michigan was about five times that of Indiana. Average weekly wages in Indiana rose by $3.51 from 2007 to 2009, but dropped by $22.93 in Michigan.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act apparently didn’t help. While Michigan received a significantly higher share of the so-called stimulus money, it took some $559,457 to create a job in Michigan, compared to $489,274 in Indiana (according to White House estimates). These estimates suggest a frighteningly ineffective stimulus, but if it required some $70,000 extra to create a job in Michigan than Indiana when the unemployment rate in Michigan was almost 40 percent higher, deeper problems plague Michigan.

Most worrisome is our finding on debt between the two states. Indiana’s bond debt is about one-third that of Michigan on a per capita basis. Michigan also has a significantly higher public-sector unfunded pension liability than Indiana. This raises the specter of much higher future taxes and is a big signal to business that without better political leadership in Michigan, taxes will necessarily rise.

Such a policy decision would not help matters. According to the Tax Foundation, Indiana ranked 21st in the nation in 2011 on the Index for Corporate Taxes, while Michigan was 48th. Indiana also ranked 10th nationally for favorable business climate, while Michigan was 17th.

Moving forward, Michigan should continue to decrease the burden public-sector wages and benefits place on taxpayers, pass right-to-work legislation and reform the state’s regulatory regime.

(Kevin Kuhlman is an adjunct research associate at the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. Michael Hicks is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and an associate professor at Ball State University and an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland.)