The Trib Ed-Board Spins.

Yea, I know. B-i-i-i-i-i-g surprise!

From today's editorial page:

A study funded by a liberal foundation on the efficacy of tax breaks targeting high-tech companies finally gets it right.

Well, sort of.

The Heinz Endowments of Pittsburgh underwrote a study by the heavily union-influenced Good Jobs First of Washington, D.C. It concluded what simple record-keeping has been telling us for a long time: Such tax breaks really don't do what they're billed as doing.

They're costly, risky and appear to be ineffective in securing long-term job growth. In a word, it's corporate wealthfare. "Tax breaks are windfalls, not determinants, and are therefore wasted," the study says. That is, the tax break is not the make or break for this company or that in deciding where it might stay or move. In reality, these tax breaks underwrite capital costs that the business itself should bear.

But it's hard to imagine how the same researchers could come to such a sane conclusion and then recommend no real changes to Pennsylvania's business-unfriendly tax climate. It's a climate that's downright hostile, remind experts such as Bob Strauss at Carnegie Mellon University and the Allegheny Institute's Jake Haulk.

Let's look at that report. You can do something Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust isn't counting on you doing - you can find it here. (We'll get to Jake Haulk and the Allegheny Institute in a minute. Have patience, my friends.)

Everything you need to know about the braintrust's spin can be seen when you find in the report the sentence they quote above. Now remember, they're saying that Pennsylvania's tax climate is "business unfriendly" and "downright hostile" while quoting the report. They snag the sentence from page 14 of the executive summary. Here's the whole section:

Cumulatively, our findings—especially our theoretical-firm modeling and our long-term business-establishment analysis—mesh with a large body of national evidence that finds tax reductions, exemptions or credits to be crude tools for economic development. They can only exert a very small marginal influence on corporate investment decisions because other cost factors such as labor, occupancy and other key inputs are far larger than taxes (or tax breaks).

Given this reality, for the vast majority of companies, tax breaks are windfalls, not determinants, and are therefore wasted. As well, given that Pennsylvania’s effective tax rates (after existing incentives are included) are so very close to those of competing states, its ability to stand out could only come at enormous cost. Any new tax-based incentives must also be weighed for their very real opportunity costs: fewer resources to develop skilled labor and maintain efficient infrastructure, both of which are critical to successful high-tech development (and that of all other kinds of employers). [emphasis added.]

Wait wait wait - so PA's "effective tax rates" are already "so very close" to those of competing states? The fact that the brain trust chose one sentence while omitting the very next one tells you everything you need to know.

Then there's the fact that the circle-jerk pokes its greasy head up. Again.

Whenever we see the words "Allegheny Institute for Public Policy" on the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, we should all remember that it's almost completely funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

87% of the monies granted to it came from Foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife.

Circle jerking again at the Trib.