It’s competition that makes products better and less expensive, creating value in the meantime. And a recent judicial ruling has held that Michigan liquor stores aren’t exempt from it.

For 40 years, the state’s Liquor Control Commission has imposed a “half-mile rule” that required liquor stores to be at least that far from each other. Last year, the commission evaluated the rule and found it did nothing to promote health and safety and was simply there to limit competition. Members of the commission voted to get rid of it.

In response, liquor stores pushed legislation to reinstate the rule and filed a lawsuit to stop its repeal. The stores argued that they put money into their stores with the expectation that competition would be limited. Michigan Court of Claims Judge Stephen Borrello dismissed the lawsuit, writing, “There is no property right to be free from increased competition.”

The state Senate passed a bill last year reinstating the previous rule and limiting competition. The bill has not had a vote in the House.

It should be noted that this issue has nothing to do with more or fewer liquor stores overall — the number of licenses the state hands out is determined by an entirely different set of rules and procedures. But the promoters of limiting competition argue that current liquor stores should be protected and that eliminating the rule will result in alcohol stores popping up all over the place. In fact, though, studies suggest that higher concentration of alcohol stores is linked to lower overall consumption and less drunk driving.

So far, the Michigan House and specifically the Regulatory Reform Committee have refused to artificially limit competition for liquor stores. They should continue to do so.

In the fall of 2007, faced with a massive shortfall between proposed state spending and expected state revenue, a Democratic House and Republican Senate passed what was called a “temporary” state income tax increase, raising the rate from 3.9% to 4.35%. Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed the tax hike bill on Oct. 1, 2007.

Plausibly or not, tax-hiking politicians frequently claim the increased burdens they impose are “temporary,” but the law authorizing this one actually had the roll-back written right into its provisions. It promised, “Beginning on October 1, 2011 and each October 1 after 2011, the maximum rate under this subsection shall be reduced by 0.1 each year,” reverting to 3.9% “on and after October 1, 2015.”

In 2012, a Republican House, Senate and Governor agreed to let the rate fall to 4.25% on Oct. 1 of that year and “call it good,” canceling the rest of the alleged roll-back.

Had Republicans left Granholm's promised income tax roll-back proceed, Michigan workers and investors would today be paying around $1 billion less each year according to the Senate Fiscal Agency.

Tha would have the effect of reducing state revenue by the same billion-dollar amount, but the “hit” would come to an annual state budget that is already spending $3.6 billion more than the previous year. Much of that is from federal epidemic relief and “stimulus” payments, but the state itself is also collecting and spending substantially more on its own. State of Michigan tax collections are projected to rise from $34.4 billion in the year before the pandemic to $38.0 billion in current 2021-22 fiscal year.

James Hohman, a fiscal analyst at the Midland based Mackinac Center for Public Policy (which publishes Michigan Capitol Confidential) thinks this is the time to revisit that broken promise. Even though state revenue is up, he observes there are still 241,333 fewer residents who have jobs since the pandemic began, a 5.1 percent decline. A pre-pandemic 2018 State Tax Analysis Modeling Program analysis indicated that cutting the income tax income rate would create 15k jobs in its first year.

“Lawmakers can afford to lower the tax burdens on a public that’s struggled through the pandemic,” Hohman said in an email.