Forbes published an article by David Brunori centered around "corporate welfare" entitled "Where is The Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?" which raises valid concerns about corporations siphoning billions of dollars of taxpayer money. The case presented in the article is as such: there is no outrage on the left or the right concerning the welfare provided by the people to the American corporation. That doesn't make sense, because conservatives are against "welfare," and liberals are opposed to corporate handouts. Yet, the article claims, no outrage has surfaced. The final paragraph of Brunori's article sums up the problem with his perspective:
"I don’t blame the corporations. They act rationally. If someone gives you $1 billion, you take it. The blame lies with us. The sheer size of the corporate welfare system should spark outrage whether we are conservatives, liberals, or libertarians. And that outrage should be reflected in how we vote. In the meantime, kudos to Good Jobs First for continuing to highlight this problem."
I want to make some of notes: first, there is outrage, it exists on the left, and it is entrenched within the discussion about money in politics (as it should be); second, some conservatives have been outraged, but that outrage has been coopted and redirected, as with the Tea Party; third, the remainder of conservatives who were not and have never been outraged by corporate welfare because they designed it, they are its proponents, and it is supported with free market mythology.
More below the fold or at the blog (with video!)
I don't want to dissect the argument line-by-line; Brunori makes a good point overall, that the lack of outrage over corporate welfare is appalling. The final paragraph of his article, however, deserves to be picked apart, because the logic behind it is a condition of the very problem upon which the author is shining light.
I do not understand why you wouldn't blame the corporations. It's not as though lawmakers were sitting at home and thought to themselves, "Hey! I think it would be a good idea to give a particular company a large tax break"—the corporations created the problem. Read the Powell Memo. The corporations lobbied the lawmakers. They funded their campaigns. They took out millions in dollars of ad buys in the form of independent expenditures to court legislative candidates and executive officials. The blame lies with the corporation, which actively seeks to utilize the State to fulfill its own needs. As I wrote about when I worked for the National Institute on Money in State Politics (FollowTheMoney.org), the investment required of corporations such as Boeing is tiny when related to the huge rewards.
A close look at Boeing’s 2012 donations shows that the company gave the maximum amount ($900) to 24 Washington lawmakers, and it also gave the maximum ($1,800) to Jay Inslee, who ran for governor in 2012. Throughout 2013, Boeing spent $356,605 lobbying Washington lawmakers, and in November of that year, during a three-day special session of the legislature, Washington passed a bill that gave an estimated $8.7 billion in tax breaks to Boeing. Three months later, in February of 2014, the aircraft and defense company threw a party for Washington state lawmakers to thank them for their “efforts to land the 777X in Washington state.”
Who is to blame? Well, us for electing politicians who are more amenable to political bribery than the public interest. But, also the politicians for accepting the bribes. And the corporations for making the bribes.
Liberals are outraged about the issue of
corporate welfare, and that outrage is housed in the discussion surrounding money in politics, because that's where the problem's roots are found. Our government allows it to be usurped by the interests of the wealthiest few, and no matter which party we vote for in the election, we are constantly being bought out by wealthy interests.
Occupy Wall Street may have been the largest manifestation of this outrage, although it wished not to limit itself to any particular goals.
WOLF Pac is outraged about corporate welfare. But they realize the only way to attack that problem is to attack the system which allows for corporate welfare.
Conservatives who were outraged about corporate welfare started the Tea Party movement before it was coopted by the astro-turf Karl Rove crowd. Initial protest signs railed against the bailout and crony capitalism. Once major business interests got involved, many libertarians dropped out, and inevitably wound up at #OWS (at least that was the case in Idaho).
Why aren't the other conservatives outraged? Because they designed the system. Again, let's look at the
Powell memo wherein Powell languishes in paranoid fear about communists, socialists, those in the "New Left," those on college campuses, and generally speaking, "minorities." Later, Reagan began the rapid sprint towards deregulation, pushed by his business friends and other rich GOP funders. As Robert Reich points out, the stark inequality of income and wealth that resulted (which is directly related to the point on corporate welfare) from deregulation from Reagan through Clinton and George W. Bush was created, constructed by conservatives and business interests. Don't get me wrong, conservative "democrats" have lent their hands to this problem as well, because money is the dominating force in politics.
Here's a short video on the construction of income inequality, a factor of which is the corporate welfare provided by American taxpayers.
If we want to put an end to corporate welfare and billion-dollar subsidies from the hijacked legislative process, we will have to Amend the Constitution to allow the regulation of money in politics. Otherwise, we will continue to cut services for the people that need them, and let their hard-earned tax dollars trickle up to the richest few. To argue that there is no outrage is to indicate that you've ignored it. Hell, why do you think
Good Jobs First does the work it does? Because they, too, are outraged.