Is Crony Capitalism Alive and Well in California?

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image1661658If there’s one thing that unites Californians, it’s a disdain for crony capitalism.

What is crony capitalism, you ask? We see it all the time. Think local elected officials throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Amazon to try and lure their second global headquarters to their city. PRI’s senior fellow in business and economics Wayne Winegarden has written about lawmakers offering generous electric car subsidies that would only really benefit Tesla.

Hard-working people are annoyed when government picks winners and losers in the economy through tax giveaways, set-asides, contracting preferences, or other favored treatment.

Did you know that it also costs California taxpayers significant sums, as well?

Matthew Mitchell and Tammy Winter at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University have just released an interesting new study called, “The Opportunity Cost of Corporate Welfare.”

They argue that neither evidence nor economy theory suggests that these incentives work. In fact, taxpayers in California are footing the bill for these giveaways to favored companies and industries.

Mitchell and Winter calculated what it would mean if California eliminated all the corporate subsidies in the state tax code.

They found that with the savings, California could:

  • Reduce the corporate income tax by 36 percent,
  • Reduce the state personal income tax by 6.2 percent,
  • Reduce the state sales tax by 5.8 percent, and
  • Reduce the state’s overall tax burden by 1.4 percent.

This echoes what Wayne Winegarden has written in the “Beyond the New Normal” series. There is an opportunity cost to government spending decisions. With the right economic policies in place, we can see sustained economic growth across all sectors of the economy.

Like Winegarden, Mitchell and Winter argue that state policymakers should focus on policies that enhance the economic freedom of all citizens.

With California currently ranking 49th in economic freedom on the Cato Institute’s annual rankings, sadly it’s highly unlikely that a pro-economic freedom agenda will be embraced by the majority party in Sacramento any time soon.

Tim Anaya is communications director for Pacific Research Institute, where this article was originally published. 

Crony capitalism at the “happiest place on earth”

DisneylandEvery year, millions of families flock to the city of Anaheim to make their dreams come true at Disneyland. On the surface, this seems like a slam dunk for Anaheim. The incredible number of tourists should turn the city into an economic wellspring. However, this hasn’t been the case. In the 60 years of Disneyland’s existence, the per capita income of Anaheim residents has decreased substantially, now 10 percent below the state average. That’s because the relationship between the city government and the Walt Disney Company, ultimately, embodies crony capitalism — favoring the company’s interests at the expense of Anaheim’s residents.

It’s no surprise given Disneyland’s geographical dominance of Anaheim that they are also heavily tied to the city’s political scene. Throughout the years, Disney has continually contributed millions of dollars to local politicians to fight on their behalf. In 2014, Disney poured at least $671,000 into political action committees financing city council candidates.

Last year, Councilwoman Kris Murray, a beneficiary of this political spending, led the campaign for a gate-tax ban for Disneyland. Under this plan, Disneyland is exempt from all ticket taxes so long as they expand by $1 billion dollars over the next 30 years. However, there was nothing to indicate that Disneyland wasn’t already seeking to expand. In order to compete with Universal Hollywood and other surrounding attractions, improvements and expansion were a must. This deal, championed by Murray, was a huge win for Disney.

Other entertainment venues haven’t benefited to the extent that Disneyland has. Movie theaters, concert venues and other private entertainment spaces are not given exemptions on ticket taxes. Thus, the exemption for Disneyland is a clear example of favoritism for a company that helps fund the campaigns of the lawmakers themselves.

In addition to the massive gate-tax ban, Disney has recently requested the largest tax subsidy in Anaheim history. Under the city’s hotel incentive program enacted in 2013, all new “luxury” hotels are eligible to receive a 70 percent rebate on all transient occupancy taxes. Once again, this law seems narrowly tailored to include Disney and a few other wealthy proprietors. Disney has been in the works to build a new luxury hotel and has requested that this new property be eligible for the subsidy, which is worth well over $200 million. Clearly, Disney does not need city money for their projects, as they are more than capable of funding their projects privately. However,  the request has been honored under the current subsidy program.

Finally, Disney has also interfered with a proposed streetcar design in Anaheim by artificially raising its installation cost. Even though the original design was only about 3.2 miles long, its estimated cost sat at around $319 million (or about $100 million per mile). Disney would like the opportunity to expand their resort and attractions, which is only a possibility if cars are taken off the road. Disney wants a streetcar system that doesn’t disturb the park aesthetic and caters to their infrastructure, once again pushing the costs higher.

Not only are these extraneous costs unnecessary, but there isn’t even a market for additional public transportation in Anaheim. ARTIC ridership (the local public transit), has continually fallen well below daily projections. In fact, this proposal brings no notable improvement to the lives of Anaheim residents. Still, Disney continually pushed the streetcar costs astronomically high in order to cater to their needs.

Disney and the city of Anaheim share extremely close ties. The subsequent effect of this relationship has been an increase in subsidies and special privileges for Disneyland at the expense of Anaheim. Crony capitalism abounds in the city of Anaheim, and its residents have suffered as a result.

Matt Smith is a fellow in public policy at the California Policy Center in Tustin, California. He is a graduate of Baylor University, and is currently an M.A. candidate at Princeton Seminary with a specialization in Religion and Society. In addition, he is visiting a student in the Princeton University Politics Department doctoral program.

Covered CA blames cronyism on Obamacare scramble

In an embarrassing new black eye for Covered California, the state’s implementation of Obamacare, the health exchange, has admitted it violated accepted practice by awarding $184 million in so-called “no-bid” contracts, according to a new report by the Associated Press.

State governments routinely consider competing bids for work. It’s a process designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of impropriety.

In the past, government contracting that skirts the process has been a target of prominent Democrats. During Republican President George W. Bush’s 2004 run for re-election, Democratic rivals Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards campaigned against the energy company Halliburton’s no-bid government contracts in Iraq. Republican Vice President Dick Cheney had been the head of Halliburton.

Now officials with close ties to the Obama administration have come under scrutiny for the practice.

During the Halliburton controversy, the Bush administration’s defenders appealed to one of the few established excuses for no-bid contracts, arguing that no other company was capable of doing the necessary work in the time available. Similarly, Covered California has responded to the current revelations by invoking a state of emergency.

In a statement, executive director Peter Lee explained Covered California “needed experienced individuals who could go toe-to-toe with health plans and bring to our consumers the best possible insurance value.”

Cozy ties

Among those individuals, it turned out, were members of The Tori Group, a contractor whose founder, Leesa Tori, had worked closely with Lee in the early 2000s. Amid the scramble to get Covered California up and running, the exchange’s board approved a grant increasing The Tori Group’s contract to $4.2 million.

“Contractors like The Tori Group,” Lee continued in his statement, “possess unique and deep health care experience to help make that happen and get the job done on a tight deadline.”

Covered California’s relationship with The Tori Group, however, was not a one-time affair. Leesa Tori became Covered California’s director of plan management — one of nine Tori Group personnel with current positions at Covered California.

Lee’s close relations with Tori mirrored those he has maintained with the White House. In the Obama administration, he was a deputy director at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, after working on national policy with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

A case of emergency

Although Covered California has not necessarily broken any laws in its no-bid contracting, the impropriety of Lee’s intimate professional ties with The Tori Group underscored the risk the exchange was willing to run to succeed in their race to establish viability. Without moving quickly enough to implement the health-care system made possible under Obamacare, officials worried Covered California would befall the same fate as such failed state exchanges as neighboring Oregon’s.

In addition to the political humiliation visited on officials whose state exchanges failed, policymakers feared an excess of failures and a shortfall in enrollments would cause the state exchange system itself to collapse. That, in turn, would place a burden on the federal government which could make Obamacare implementation prohibitively costly and complex.

Through Lee’s efforts, however, Covered California survived. Those efforts, as the no-bid revelations have confirmed, blurred the line between appropriate and inappropriate action.

‘Death spiral’

To stave off a so-called “death spiral” of under-enrollment, for instance, Lee oversaw the inclusion of hundreds of thousands of Covered California applicants with missing or suspect identification. Those numbers helped give Obamacare the critical mass of enrollees it needed for political and policy purposes.

Alone, Covered California was responsible for over one-eighth of individual enrollments in Obamacare, even though California has only one-twelfth of America’s population.

In sum, the story that has emerged about Covered California’s success has captured the weakness of Obamacare implementation. While supporters of the health care law insisted it faced only a few bureaucratic bumps in the road, the reality was different.

Without a successful state exchange in California, the future of the Affordable Care Act would be in doubt. The stakes were high for Peter Lee, and he delivered — netting him a five-figure bonus this year.

This article was originally published on CalWatchdog.com