Michigan taxpayers will pay about $243 million over the next two years for home improvement projects for private citizens under the federal stimulus program.

The “weatherization” of tens of thousands of Michigan homes is estimated to cost about $6,500 per home and makes the units more energy efficient.

But the question looms: Why are taxpayers footing the bill for home improvements to private citizens, for which a family of four making up to $41,000 qualifies?

"Why isn't the homeowner doing weatherization on his own? Why does the government have to pay for it?" asked Andrew P. Morriss, a professor of law and business at the University of Illinois. "One response may be, 'People can't afford to pay the upfront cost.’ The easy solution to that: We can loan them the money and they can pay it back over time with the savings."

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

Green jobs are a top priority of the federal stimulus, and weatherization qualifies.

For example, Oakland County will spend $11.5 million of federal stimulus money on weatherizing 1,681 homes. By comparison, the stimulus earmarked only $1.9 million for the public safety grants for 21 communities in the county.

President Barack Obama has started a campaign to defend the $787 billion spending bill. Members of the Obama administration are spreading out all over the country to talk about the bill.

The weatherization projects in Michigan were delayed so the state could meet the prevailing wage acts required under federal law for weatherization work. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Michigan had designated nearly $200 million as of Sept. 30, with the goal of weatherizing up to 33,000 homes by 2012.

Michael LaFaive, director of the Mackinac Center's Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative, said weatherization was just another example of politicians’ fascination with “all things green.”

“Where will it stop?” LaFaive asked.

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:

Facebook
Twitter

There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites