Michigan's “home health care dues skim” will continue at least through Sept. 20, according to information from the governor's office.

An email from Gov. Rick Snyder's office, responding to a question on the “skim” was forwarded to Capitol Confidential from a reader. In it, the reason for continuing to take dues from the checks of so-called home health care workers was explained as follows:

The Interlocal Agreement grants the MQC3 the authority to bargain collectively and enter into agreements with labor organizations. The MQC3 entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Michigan (SEIU). The collective bargaining agreement remains in effect through September 20, 2012 unless amended by mutual written agreement.

Capitol Confidential contacted the governor's office and asked if that means the dues flow will stop on that date. The governor's office has not responded to requests for answers to that question.

If the answer is yes, it would be the first confirmation that the administration has a date in mind for ending the “skim.”

Under a scheme perpetrated in 2005, tens of thousands of so-called home health care workers were forced into joining the SEIU. As a result, dues from the taxpayer-provided checks of those who care for homebound patients has been flowing to the union. To date, more than $30 million has been taken from workers. More than $613,000 has been taken from workers' paychecks since Gov. Snyder signed a bill to stop the scheme without forcing the immediate end to the deductions.

The email forwarded from the governor's office also included the following:

Home help providers have the right under the collective bargaining agreement to decline membership in the SEIU and must then pay a uniformly assessed agency fee.

That agency fee is at least 65 percent of the amount of the dues, and since workers don't have the right to opt-out of a union in Michigan, all workers must pay at least that amount to remain employed.

Most people believe having a college degree contributes to an individual’s career, increases potential earnings and even makes the overall economy more productive. Not surprisingly, the rapidly rising cost of higher education is a perennial hot-button issue.

In recent months, the concerns have generated state and federal legislative proposals including a so-called “Michigan2020” plan that would fully subsidize college for all high school graduates, a bipartisan federal bill to arbitrarily cap college loan interest rates and a proposed bailout of existing college debt.

These and similar proposals generally assume that injecting more taxpayer dollars into the system will lower the cost for individual students. A case study shows why this may not be the case.

A recent article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review called Grove City College in Pennsylvania (my alma mater) “an exception to the rules of higher education.” The school is ranked 87 out of 87 of the Keystone State's institutions of higher education in its tuition, room and board. Yet Grove City College, like Hillsdale College in Michigan, accepts no direct or indirect government funding, and its students get no federal grants or loans.*

Given a constant stream of state university rhetoric threatening higher tuition if even a dollar of taxpayer funding is cut, one might expect that Grove City tuition costs would be stratospheric. In fact, annual tuition is $13,598 — not cheap, but less than half the national average of private schools. Hillsdale's tuition for 2011-2012 is $20,760.

According to Grove City College president Richard Jewell, there is no "secret formula” to the college’s success.

"We live within our budget. ... We run as much as possible on a cash basis. Room and board and tuition pay for 94 to 95 percent of our operating costs," Jewell said.

Apparently students aren’t being shortchanged in quality, either. Grove City freshmen have average SAT score nearly 240 points higher than the national average, demonstrating its appeal to a group of students who have many alternative opportunities, and the school is consistently ranked as one of the top colleges and universities in the nation.

According to school administrators, it’s no coincidence that costs are low and quality high despite the lack of government subsidies. Freedom from myriad government rules and regulations helps keep administration costs down, and the absence of government money keeps faculty compensation demands within reason (there is no academic “tenure” for Grove City professors, for example). The school lives within its means because there’s no taxpayer-funded safety net if it does not.

In higher education as in all human endeavors, incentives matter. Government grants and subsidized loans don’t just cause more students to enroll, they also cause colleges and universities to raise prices and provide less for more. One example of the latter is an increased number of degrees granted in marginal subjects. Tuition spikes, skyrocketing administration costs and tenured professors who teach fewer classes each year are all examples of universities following the incentives that politicians have created.

If we want lower costs and greater value in higher education, make the schools respond to consumers instead of politicians.

*The lack of federal funding is due to a 1984 Supreme Court case, Grove City v. Bell. Because it refused to submit to certain federal regulations and mandates, the court ruled the feds could cut off all funding.