Makes sense, but that explains why it's criticized as government spending: Because it is. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 22/08/2011 08:43:45 PM
At least, from what I can tell. Is the refund for sales tax in addition to the grant?
But you're the auditor, not I; I only copied and pasted the article and then did a few quick googles after you pointed out the sales tax deal.
Though according to the website, it still has to meet similar standards, i.e. capital investment, etc. And just like the sales tax refund, it talks about how long the jobs must be maintained (3 years, btw). So it looks like the state can recoup some grant money if jobs are not maintained (same thing for the sales tax refund).
Basically, we (and I do mean, "we"; our tax dollars at work, as they say) are paying companies to make money they would have made anyway, simply because they're operating out of TX. That's long seemed a dubious deal to me, particularly when you make tax breaks a major part of the incentive. Why? Because I remember when Austin was bidding with Portland for the privilege of a new Samsung plant 20 years ago. At the end of the process I turned on the local news (back then I still occasionally watched some local news) to see the anchors sighing wistfully as they announced Portland had just increased their previous offer to five years of 100% property tax breaks and 80% sales tax breaks. Within a day or two they announced Austin had topped their offer and won the plant, which left me wondering What did they offer to beat THAT, and is Austin charging Samsung ANY taxes on their huge new plant?
So, yeah, that explains why a die hard conservative (but never a die hard Republican... *glances down*
) might criticize it as wasteful government spending, and why a critic of corruption might criticize grants going to companies closely tied to the governor (makes you wonder if Merck or Cintra got any TEF money. 
)