Skip to main content

Corporate Welfare is not OK

Largely buried under the constant barrage of COVID-19 news and the baffling decision by the Supreme Court to declare half of Oklahoma "Indian Country," was Oklahoma’s and Tulsa’s attempt to bribe Tesla to locate a new facility in that city. Tesla chose Austin, Texas instead, a decision Tesla likely made months ago, but for the opportunity Oklahoma's bid provided for milking as much as possible in concessions (bribery) from Austin. Thus, it may well be a blessing in disguise that Tesla chose Austin over Tulsa. After all, Oklahomans aren't on the hook to pay off a big corporation that is perfectly capable of financially taking care of itself. What's more, consider what might have happened if the deal had been made and ground had been broken before the McGirt decision. Tesla likely would have had to pull out of the deal, and might well have sued the state for bad faith negotiating, which have reflected poorly on Tulsa and Oklahoma. 

One study estimates corporations receive at least $30 billion a year in tax incentives from state and local governments nationwide. Oklahoma ranks 9th in the amount of corporate welfare it gives out as a percent of GDP. This is higher than California. While we want to be a top 10 state, this is a poor measure for achieving top 10 status. Bribery money for corporations could better be used to shore up budgetary needs, such as Oklahoma’s unfunded pension obligations, or just left in the taxpayers’ pocket.

The 1889 institute defines corporate welfare as “any financial benefit purposely granted by government to a specific business or class of business and that is not generally available to all businesses and taxpayers.” This leads to distortions in the market that can oftentimes allow businesses that should rightfully be bankrupt with their doors shuttered continue to survive. They are not forced to innovate to attract new customers. Rather, they are kept afloat through government granted privilege. This only benefits the well-connected who have the ability to lobby for these benefits.

While Tulsa has signed a non-disclosure agreement with Tesla, city officials say they had offered an incentive package comparable to that of Austin, Texas. The fact that the city was able to hide the details of its crony deal behind a non-disclosure agreement is extremely concerning. Nobody would know what was being given away until the deal was finalized, at which point it would be too late for citizens to voice their concerns. Tulsa also likes to brag their tax incentives are baked into state law, rather than something the city council has to vote on. This is not a good thing. It just makes it easier for corporations to mooch off taxpayers. One of these tax incentives is the Automotive Engineer Workforce Tax Credit, which would have granted Tesla a tax credit equal to 5% of the total compensation paid to an engineer, and 10% if that engineer is a graduate of an Oklahoma university. Tesla would have also been privy to a career tech program that offers free employee training.

Corporate welfare gives companies the ability to play states off each other in a race to the bottom to see which state gives up the most. States and cities fear losing business to other states, making it hard for them to cut subsidies and corporate welfare when other states still offer it. In the case of Tesla, Texas gave up the most. Honestly, it is highly likely that Tesla kept Tulsa in the running for so long so that the company could squeeze a few more concessions out of Austin before announcing the decision they’d already made. This form of competition is bad partly because it isn’t really competition at all.

Tesla is not the only example of attempted cronyism in Oklahoma this year. The Oklahoma City Council has promised Costco $3 million in exchange for opening a call center in their city. Supposedly this will bring 1,500 jobs to Oklahoma City, but the history of corporate welfare suggests otherwise. In 2010, Washington D.C. granted a developer $46 million to create 300 construction jobs there, but by 2016 the developer had only created 90 jobs. While Oklahoma City’s offer seems downright frugal compared to what D.C. did, it is still wasteful cronyism at its worst, especially considering that Costco could easily move its call center to another country after receiving the taxpayer money. It’s likely the Tesla factory would have fallen short on the number of jobs it promised too.

The best way to end crony corporate give-away schemes is for the states to agree to an interstate compact to stop handing corporations special favors and taxpayer money in exchange for broken promises. That’s because the most common excuse for corporate welfare is that “If we don’t do it, someone else will, and we’ll miss out.”

The 1889 Institute has drafted such legislation. This interstate compact provides a concrete definition of corporate welfare that member states cannot engage in and prevents any state that signs off on it from withdrawing from the compact. The provisions of this legislation would only go into effect once enough states signed on. The benefits would be immense. Large corporations would be forced to compete fairly in a free market, with little to no power derived from how big their lobbying budget is. Instead of the source of competition between states being based on how many subsidies and tax breaks, they can hand out, states would have to compete with their regulatory environment, tax policy, and culture. Tulsa may have beaten out Austin for the Tesla expansion on this kind of level playing field, given the former's enthusiasm and the latter's hostility.  


Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at the 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org.


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...

School Choice: I Have Erred

I should point out, before the reader gets into this piece, that these are my personal thoughts. Right around last Labor Day, I suddenly had a thought. I quickly made a calculation and realized that, as of the day after Labor Day, I’ve worked full-time in public policy for 25 years – a quarter of a century. While there really is nothing fundamentally more special about a 25 th anniversary than a 24 th or 26 th one, it is a widely-recognized demarcation point. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to take time and write down reflections on my career. My work has touched on several policy areas, but I’ve been thinking a lot about public education lately. That’s the area I practically swam in when I started my career, so here are my thoughts. On the day after Labor Day in 1994 I started work for a member of the Texas House of Representatives. He was the member who always carried a voucher bill, an issue for which I was thrilled to work. By that time, my wife had homeschooled our dau...

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...

Spending It Like They Stole It

When does government have the right to spend taxpayer money? Or perhaps, more pressingly, when should the government be forbidden from spending taxpayer money?   1889 Institute has previously written on the issue - developing five questions that should be asked before any government entity spends a single dime. These questions are:   1. Is a program or agency consistent with the mission of Oklahoma’s state government? This purpose was spelled out in our state constitution : “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Secure and perpetuate liberty (notice this is the first order of business). Secure just and rightful government (not any government, not the domino of the majority over the minority - just and rightful). Promote (not provide, or...