The Lansing City Pulse reported on a federal audit that shows the mismanagement of asset forfeiture funds by the Lansing Police Department.

Asset forfeiture is used by police to seize property from citizens. In Michigan, this can be done even if someone is not charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. Government agencies have seized at least $250 million worth of money and property from state residents since 2000.

Most of the forfeiture is aimed to prevent drug crimes. Because many drug-related acts deal with state and national offenses, local law enforcement will often team up with federal officials. Money and property can then be split up between the agencies. Critics of asset forfeiture laws say the process leads to distorted incentives, as police budgets can be bolstered by these funds.

In Lansing, the Department of Justice report shows poor oversight and some misallocation of the funds. While this is relatively minor, the larger problem is having laws that allow law enforcement agencies to seize property without a criminal conviction.

There are two bipartisan bills in the Michigan House that would help deal with these issues. House Bill 5212, introduced by Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, would prevent asset forfeiture for certain drug offenses unless a person was convicted of a crime.

House Bill 5081, introduced by Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, would require substantially more transparency for asset forfeiture proceedings, including details showing if a person was convicted of a crime, the value of the assets and other information.

According to the Institute for Justice, which tracks forfeiture cases nationwide, Michigan’s current laws are among the worst in the nation at protecting people’s rights. Many are not guilty of committing any crime. These bills would put the state on a better path by protecting individual rights.

In a recent blog post and longer essay I discussed the possibility and implications of a higher Michigan minimum wage (some politicians and unions are talking more than $9.00 per hour), noting that increasing mandated minimums hurt more people than they help.

The Employment Policies Institute of Washington, D.C., has done a state-by-state analysis of the consequences of imposing a $9 minimum wage mandate. EPI has been around for 20 years and is a research institute that focuses its work on entry level employment. Among other findings, EPI reports that nearly 42 percent of all Michigan hourly workers who would be affected by a $9 minimum wage still live with their parents or other relatives

According to EPI, the average family income of these Michigan minimum wage earners is $56,935. This figure underscores how most of these workers are not a “sole breadwinner struggling to feed a family,” which is the image so often portrayed by advocates of an increase. In Michigan, just 6.4 percent of employees who would be affected by a $9 minimum wage are single parents. Nationwide, some 83 percent of minimum wage recipients live with their parents, are married to another earner, or are supporting only themselves.

EPI’s analysis looked at 2012 data from the “Outgoing Rotation Group Current Population Survey Files,” a joint publication of the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We all want to see the rewards for work rise, but forcing employers to pay more than a person’s skill set is worth is an extraordinarily clumsy and counterproductive way to pursue this goal. Minimum wages often hurt people by depriving them of their first job and the work experience needed to advance to higher earnings.

 A study published in the academic Southern Economic Journal found that between 2003 and 2007 higher minimum wages did not reduce poverty rates. The study, titled “Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor,” found that “the working poor face a disproportionate share of the job losses” after minimum wage increases. Theirs is not the only such study to come to this conclusion.

Most minimum wage proponents mean well, but the evidence is clear: minimum wages hurt more people — and particularly low-income people — than they help.