Gov. Granholm's plan to fund the Michigan Promise is flawed
“My name is Jason Gillman Jr. I am a senior majoring in Management Information Systems and minoring in Military Science. I’m also the son of a Michigan business owner, and work on behalf of individuals and business owners statewide to end the redistribution of wealth currently going on.”
I don’t think my libertarian derivative of Brittany Mouzourakis’ Michigan Promise speech introduction would work too well. After all, tales of business owners closing shop and fleeing the state don’t seem to resonate with the college crowd.
Well, at least not to the extent it should.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm made it quite clear that funding of the Michigan Promise Scholarship wouldn’t be supported by a tax increase. Rather, she insisted it would be funded by transferring what would have been an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC).
Guess what, though? It’s still a tax increase, albeit a slightly more hidden one.
The EITC is a refundable tax credit essentially determined by earned income (not taxable — there’s a distinct difference) and number of children. Eligibility also is dependent on other factors (http://tinyurl.com/mwxle), such as not having more than $2,900 in investment income for the federal EITC or $3,100 for the state version.
One important thing to know about the EITC is that in order to get anything from it, you can only make a maximum of $48,279 a year, and that’s filing jointly with three kids. If you have less than three kids, and/or are filing single, the threshold for lost benefits is even lower.
So regardless of whether the planned EITC increase goes to funding the Michigan Promise or K-12 education, it still requires additional taxes.
Claiming that “Michigan businesses need an educated workforce” and using it as a reason to fund the Michigan Promise is only telling half the story. As you can see, the rest of the story is that the scholarship is indeed funded by increased taxes.
It’s understandable that college kids, especially undergraduates such as Mouzourakis, are naïve enough to believe that things like the Michigan Promise would be beneficial to the state. After all, you have medical students thinking the government can magically provide low-cost medical insurance without adverse outcomes (http://tinyurl.com/yc3o4r5).
However, what I don’t understand is why people such as Granholm and interim University President Kathy Wilbur do not realize that the factors allowing for the Michigan Promise are exactly what’s killing or driving out Michigan businesses. The business climate is bad enough — the state doesn’t need more things attempting to legitimize further tax increases.
Please. Think of the children — and their business-owning, job-providing parents.
