Naomi Saneda, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
This year’s Michigan budget contains $1 billion in pork projects that are constitutionally suspect and do not promote the general welfare in the state. Politicians earmark state tax dollars for district-specific purposes, usually very late in the budgeting process and in opaque language designed to mask the nature of the spending.
Securing money for favored groups gives a political benefit to the lawmaker, and politically connected recipients are happy to get the money. But there is another party in this deal: the Michigan taxpayer. When a representative gives favors to specific individuals or groups, all taxpayers in the state end up paying. The benefits rarely extend beyond the immediate districts of the legislators. Meanwhile, more important spending priorities, such as road maintenance, are put on the back burner.
Hundreds of pork requests bypass public comment and are passed on the floor when the final budget is being decided. In this year’s case, the votes happened well after midnight.
Examples from the budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 include:
• $4,000,000 allocated to the Jim Crow Museum in Big Rapids, categorized under a “community enhancement grant”
• $10,000,000 for a youth sports complex in Frankenmuth
• $10,000,000 for Potter Park Zoo in Lansing
• $2,000,000 to a Downtown Boxing Gym in Detroit
• $3,000,000 for a solar array project in Grand Rapids
• $5,000,000 for the Motown Museum in Detroit
• $3,000,000 for a sports complex in Kent County
• $1,000,000 for the Concert of Colors in Detroit
• $1,500,000 for Jimmy John’s Field in Utica
• $500,000 for the Bridgeport Gun Club in Saginaw County
• $4,000,000 for security for the Jewish Federation in Detroit.
The state constitution requires approval from two-thirds of legislators in both chambers when money is being spent on something that targets specific local areas or private interests.
But that doesn’t stop lawmakers from finding loopholes.
The line items in the budget intentionally avoid specifying which entities receive funds, opting instead to describe cities within counties and specific geographic ranges. On page 165, section 1008, line item 13 of Senate Bill 747, article (a) states, “To be awarded as a grant to a township with a population of between 2,900 and 3,000 in a county with a population of between 79,000 and 80,000 according to the most recent federal decennial census for a water main extension project, $1,000,000.”
This legislative language allows politicians to skirt the constitutional prohibition, and it also discourages scrutiny of earmarks. A voter who wants to figure out what this line item means must refer to the 2020 Census for information on Michigan’s 83 counties and more than 1,700 cities, townships and villages. The range of places described is found by searching the census to match the actual location. As it turns out, section 1008, line 13 is a million-dollar grant for a water main extension project given to Bingham Township in Clinton County.
It is not likely that even the most committed voter could do this research for the 500 earmarks in this year’s budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars are disbursed without clear and easily accessible documentation. Taxpayers are left without any understanding of where their money is being directed.
Most earmarks lack sense in terms of public funding. Pork spending perpetuates a massive waste of money, diverts funds from more important public priorities, and props up a patronage system wherein legislators curry favor with special interests by securing more money for their districts. The state would be better off without so much pork.
—————
Naomi Saneda was an intern for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Frank Beckmann Center for Journalism.
Securing money for favored groups gives a political benefit to the lawmaker, and politically connected recipients are happy to get the money. But there is another party in this deal: the Michigan taxpayer. When a representative gives favors to specific individuals or groups, all taxpayers in the state end up paying. The benefits rarely extend beyond the immediate districts of the legislators. Meanwhile, more important spending priorities, such as road maintenance, are put on the back burner.
Hundreds of pork requests bypass public comment and are passed on the floor when the final budget is being decided. In this year’s case, the votes happened well after midnight.
Examples from the budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 include:
• $4,000,000 allocated to the Jim Crow Museum in Big Rapids, categorized under a “community enhancement grant”
• $10,000,000 for a youth sports complex in Frankenmuth
• $10,000,000 for Potter Park Zoo in Lansing
• $2,000,000 to a Downtown Boxing Gym in Detroit
• $3,000,000 for a solar array project in Grand Rapids
• $5,000,000 for the Motown Museum in Detroit
• $3,000,000 for a sports complex in Kent County
• $1,000,000 for the Concert of Colors in Detroit
• $1,500,000 for Jimmy John’s Field in Utica
• $500,000 for the Bridgeport Gun Club in Saginaw County
• $4,000,000 for security for the Jewish Federation in Detroit.
The state constitution requires approval from two-thirds of legislators in both chambers when money is being spent on something that targets specific local areas or private interests.
But that doesn’t stop lawmakers from finding loopholes.
The line items in the budget intentionally avoid specifying which entities receive funds, opting instead to describe cities within counties and specific geographic ranges. On page 165, section 1008, line item 13 of Senate Bill 747, article (a) states, “To be awarded as a grant to a township with a population of between 2,900 and 3,000 in a county with a population of between 79,000 and 80,000 according to the most recent federal decennial census for a water main extension project, $1,000,000.”
This legislative language allows politicians to skirt the constitutional prohibition, and it also discourages scrutiny of earmarks. A voter who wants to figure out what this line item means must refer to the 2020 Census for information on Michigan’s 83 counties and more than 1,700 cities, townships and villages. The range of places described is found by searching the census to match the actual location. As it turns out, section 1008, line 13 is a million-dollar grant for a water main extension project given to Bingham Township in Clinton County.
It is not likely that even the most committed voter could do this research for the 500 earmarks in this year’s budget. Hundreds of millions of dollars are disbursed without clear and easily accessible documentation. Taxpayers are left without any understanding of where their money is being directed.
Most earmarks lack sense in terms of public funding. Pork spending perpetuates a massive waste of money, diverts funds from more important public priorities, and props up a patronage system wherein legislators curry favor with special interests by securing more money for their districts. The state would be better off without so much pork.
—————
Naomi Saneda was an intern for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s Frank Beckmann Center for Journalism.
