The Michigan House overwhelmingly passed a bill allowing the state’s film subsidy program to continue, with handouts to movie and television companies of up to 32 percent of the cost of a production’s payroll expenses (Who Voted 'Yes' and Who Voted 'No').

SB 569 was originally passed by the Senate on Nov. 3. The bill’s sponsor is Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, who previously said he would like to budget as much as $100 million for the film subsidy program.

The bill passed by a wide margin in both the Republican-led House and the Republican-led Senate. The House passed the bill 92-15, with 46 Republicans joining all 46 Democrats. The Senate passed the bill 34-4, with 22 Republicans joining all 12 Democrats.

According to the description of the bill on www.MichiganVotes.org, “For 2012, $25 million was appropriated for these subsidies, but nothing in the bill limits how much the Michigan Film Office can authorize, and once it does the state is obligated to pay.” The bill converts the previous film incentive program into a direct handout to producers, rather than indirect payouts through the expiring Michigan Business Tax.

“Sometimes it seems like Republicans only favor limited government when they are not in charge of it,” said Michael LaFaive, director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “When will they accept that robbing Peter to pay Paul creates more job announcements than real jobs? That this failed 'Big Hollywood' program remains a creature of Michigan law is deeply disappointing.”

An amendment offered to the bill by Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, would have required assessments of the film subsidy program to include the "negative impact of the tax monies taken from businesses and citizens" to pay for the subsidies to film producers. That means the state would have to consider what the money taken for the program would have done if left in the private sector rather than given to the state-selected filmmakers. The amendment failed.

Tea Party activists were unhappy, to say the least.

“I guess I’m not surprised that [bill sponsor] Sen. Richardville has continued his support of programs picking winners and losers in the economy,” said Wendy Day of Common Sense in Government.

Day was a bit stunned by the support for the bill in the House. “What is their motivation for engaging in this? A lot of House Republicans campaigned against this as wasting taxpayer money, and then turned around and voted for it?”

Wes Nakagiri is a member of RetakeOurGov based out of Hartland. He is “disappointed” that a majority of Republicans in both houses voted to continue the film subsidy.

“[The subsidies] are unnecessary and unfair,” he said. “You put the power in the hands of bureaucrats to decide how to dole out the money.”

This year alone, the film subsidy program has handed out millions of dollars to "A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas," "Iron Man 3," "Transformers 3" and "Real Steel." For "Real Steel," Michigan taxpayers paid $4.26 each for the movie.

The Michigan House of Representatives voted 58-49 Wednesday night to expand and then eliminate the cap on the number of public charter schools that can be chartered by public universities. The vote and debate was largely partisan, although five Republicans voted against the bill and one Democrat, Rep. Shanelle Jackson, D-Detroit, supported it. The Senate sent the bill to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk Thursday by a 22-16 margin.

Charter school advocates claim the passage of Senate Bill 618 marks a historic moment in the public education for Michigan.

“This vote was the most significant event in education reform since passage of Proposal A and the creation of school choice in Michigan,” said Billie Kops Wimmer, executive director of the Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers.

Seventy percent of charter schools have waiting lists, representing about 20,000 families

Critics of the bill claimed that it lacked quality controls and transparency requirements for charter schools. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, said in a statement following the vote: “There is nothing in this bill to enhance the much needed quality and performance of charter schools.”

Supporters, however, point to language in the bill that requires authorizers to revoke the authorization of charter schools that consistent perform in the lowest 5 percent of schools statewide, if notified by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

House Education Committee Chair Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, pointed to other quality control mechanisms built into the bill. He cited a provision that charters that fail to meet their educational goals may not open additional schools.

He added that charter schools have always had an extra level of accountability compared to conventional school districts, since both the state superintendent and their public authorizer may decide to shut them down.

“And, obviously, parents decide with their feet as well,” he added, alluding to the fact that parents who choose charter schools for their children can opt to leave at any time.

Rep. McMillin also argues that the bill adds new transparency requirements for charter schools that meet or exceed those of conventional school districts.

For instance, according to the bill, charter school boards must make certain information publicly available, including quarterly financial statements, a list of teachers and administrators and their individual salaries, certificates and permits and service contracts.