Politics > Politics-USA > GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Sogobia" |
| Date: |
20 Jun 2004 01:19:31 PM |
| Object: |
GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
Alaska's 'bridges to nowhere'
Key lawmakers want to start building a $2 billion bridge to boost
development, prompting battle over pork.
By Todd Wilkinson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA - Staring from metropolitan Anchorage into Cook Inlet, the
far shoreline across Knik Arm seems a world away.
Inhabiting this natural moat, beluga whales surface at high tide. Moose and
brown bears trail the willowy lowlands. Bald eagles are as common as blue
jays in the lower 48.
Today, motorists can't drive directly to the tiny hamlet of Port MacKenzie
from here, but that could change, courtesy of US taxpayers. Two Alaska
Republicans with clout in Congress, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, are
pushing for funds that could send the Anchorage suburbs leapfrogging into
those hinterlands.
The proposed $2 billion Knik Arm Bridge - one of several projects that could
make Alaska the biggest winner in this year's transportation-bill
sweepstakes - has stirred outrage from critics who see it as pork-barrel
spending that will send federal deficits spiraling up. Some call it "the Big
Dig of the Far North," a reference to Boston's overbudget tunnel project.
Now, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona and others intend to launch a
Senate-floor battle dismissing this project, and plans for a $175 million
sister bridge near Ketchikan, as "bridges to nowhere."
The fight highlights how reauthorization of the massive transportation
bill - which will set the nation's highway agenda through 2009 - has become
the subject of intense debate amid rising federal budget deficits.
President Bush has vowed to veto any federal transit spending over $256
billion. Yet the Senate proposal is $318 billion, and Rep. Young's House
proposal once stood at $375 billion.
In the political parlaying, critics claim that Alaska - large in land, small
in citizen numbers, and fifth in transportation dollars - wields
disproportionate clout. This year, it could win twice as much highway money
as New Jersey. Beyond transportation, Alaska receives seven federal dollars
for each tax dollar sent to the US Treasury.
Like many lawmakers, Young has boasted that he wouldn't be doing his job if
he wasn't bringing home the bacon to constituents. (Neither he nor Senator
Stevens responded to requests to be interviewed for this story.)
"There are 435 members of [the House] and virtually every one of them has
submitted proposals for transportation projects," says Steven Hansen, a
Capitol Hill staffer who works for Young on the house Transportation
Committee and defends his boss's zeal for bridges.
America loses $70 billion due to workers' long hours in traffic, lost
productivity, and wasted gas, Mr. Hansen says. Many of the 42,000 annual
highway fatalities, he says, are related to safety problems that road
improvements could ameliorate.
As Young sees it, the highway bill also is an investment that will trickle
down to local economies, creating thousands of new jobs nationally. It will
open his home state to more natural resource development, which could create
jobs while worrying environmentalists.
But to Keith Ashdown of the nonprofit government watchdog group Taxpayers
for Common Sense (TCS), the highway-spending logic is flawed. "What we're
seeing is that it doesn't matter how important your project is as far as
serving a legitimate public need. What's most important is whether you have
a politician with ties to the transportation committee."
A TCS analysis shows the average lawmaker wins $14 million worth of highway
projects, while members of the Senate and House Transportation Committees
pull in about $40 million each - some far more. On the House side, Jim
Oberstar (D) of Minnesota got $90 million in projects and minority leader
Nancy Pelosi of California was awarded $120 million. Speaker Dennis Hastert
(R) pulled in $160 million, and Young of Alaska, the committee chair, lined
up $590 million - surpassing many states with 20 times its population.
Unrepentant, Young has said he'd "be ashamed of himself" if he hadn't
delivered spoils to Alaska, which relies on federal subsidies for its
transportation infrastructure.
No highway spending is more controversial than bridge work. Senator McCain
points with incredulity to a $200 million earmark being sought by Young for
the Knik Arm Bridge (a down payment on a cost that could reach 10 times that
much) and to the $175 million Alaska is attempting to secure for the sister
project, a span that would connect Ketchikan with Gravina, home to only a
few hundred people.
One impetus, rarely mentioned, is that the bridge would create an easy route
for timber companies to log Pacific rain forest.
"If you look at the Big Dig tunnel project in Boston, which was considered
the poster child of embarrassment as far as federal transportation
boondoggles," says Ashdown, "it will end up appearing to be a great deal if
the Gravina and Knik Arm bridges are built."
Alaska, Ashdown continues, isn't the only haven for controversial
pork-barrel bridges. Every state has a bridge it is peddling. According to
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a half-dozen proposals to
replace historic bridges in America's heartland are unnecessary. Richard
Moe, the trust's president, noted that federal highway engineers are seeking
to replace Kansas's Amelia Earhart Bridge for $54 million - while the old
one can be rehabilitated for as little as $10 million.
As in Alaska, dozens of the proposed bridge projects would benefit only a
small number of people. In sleepy Rulo, Neb., pop. 191, the state wants to
spend $25 million to double the size of an old bridge on a rural highway.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0615/p02s01-uspo.html
--
Bush's $10 Trillion Borrowing Binge
New projections from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that
continuation of President Bush's budget policies will triple the national
debt by the end of fiscal 2013. Left unchecked, Bush's reckless approach to
fiscal policy will saddle our children with an additional $10 trillion in
debt just ten years from now.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/binge03.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 01:52:47 PM |
|
|
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7b8e302599dfae0b74e8a95a79c87664@news.teranews.com:
Alaska's 'bridges to nowhere'
You're right there, though a liberal complaining about spending
is surely the epitome of hypocrisy. And if we must have pork,
better our tax money goes to something that might improve the
economy than into a welfare state rathole of handouts.
Change your diapers.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sogobia" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 02:03:54 PM |
|
|
"Asmodeus" <asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Xns950E8D2D89612asmodeusinsightbbcom@63.240.76.16...
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7b8e302599dfae0b74e8a95a79c87664@news.teranews.com:
Alaska's 'bridges to nowhere'
You're right there, though a liberal complaining about spending
is surely the epitome of hypocrisy.
--
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative
research group, estimates that government spending climbed twice as fast
under President Bush as under President Bill Clinton, and that only about
one-third of that increase came from defense spending and homeland security.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/politics/24DEFI.html?ex=1075611600&en=f6b9835bfa252bb3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
And if we must have pork,
better our tax money goes to something that might improve the
economy than into a welfare state rathole of handouts.
Bridges to nowhere as opposed to healthcare, education and needed
infrastructure improvements. You prefer rathole handouts for the wealthy and
corporations over those who would truly benefit from assistance while
strengthening society as a whole.
Change your diapers.
LOL, that's the best you can do? Go back to your fascist spiderhole boy.
--
"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom,
would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights
secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source
of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet
been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings
of those committed to their charge."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-03.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 04:18:02 PM |
|
|
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9dcbe7ba1286735bae319a206eea1fb7@news.teranews.com:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative research group, estimates that government spending
climbed twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill
Clinton, and that only about one-third of that increase came from
defense spending and homeland security.
Yup, and your complaining about it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Bridges to nowhere as opposed to healthcare, education and needed
infrastructure improvements
Socialism, you mean. Theft. Stealing the money of the productive
to pay for the irresponsible.
Where's your beloved USSR?
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sogobia" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 04:25:24 PM |
|
|
"Asmodeus" <asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Xns950EA5CD95F8Basmodeusinsightbbcom@204.127.204.17...
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9dcbe7ba1286735bae319a206eea1fb7@news.teranews.com:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative research group, estimates that government spending
climbed twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill
Clinton, and that only about one-third of that increase came from
defense spending and homeland security.
Yup, and your complaining about it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
No, it's pointing out you're lying when you call it liberal hypocrisy.
Bridges to nowhere as opposed to healthcare, education and needed
infrastructure improvements
Socialism, you mean. Theft. Stealing the money of the productive
to pay for the irresponsible.
What makes you think that those who work for wages aren't productive?
Where's your beloved USSR?
You're all or nothing demagoguery proves nothing. I can ask a parallel
question: Where is your beloved Third Reich?
--
Although O'Neill said the Bush administration began planning an Iraqi
invasion just after taking office, Clarke said Bush's top aides immediately
sought to use the terrorist attacks to levy a war against Iraq even though
it appeared that al Qaeda, not Saddam, was responsible.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/20/clarke.cbs/
.
|
|
|
| User: "janet" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 05:38:27 PM |
|
|
ThimbleFace wrote:"Where's your beloved USSR?"
Its alive and well in the RNC.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott in Florida" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 06:14:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:38:27 -0700, "janet" <summer@time.com> wrote:
ThimbleFace wrote:"Where's your beloved USSR?"
Its alive and well in the RNC.
Janet,
In case you missed it...the Republican Party is the party that brought
the USSR down...
Now why would the USSR reside in the RNC??
LOL.
Libs are so easy...
-----
--Scott in Florida
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 07:59:31 PM |
|
|
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9dcbe7ba1286735bae319a206eea1fb7@news.teranews.com:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative research group, estimates that government spending
climbed twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill
Clinton, and that only about one-third of that increase came from
defense spending and homeland security.
Yup, and your complaining about it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Bridges to nowhere as opposed to healthcare, education and needed
infrastructure improvements
Socialism, you mean.
Theft. Stealing the money of the productive to pay for the irresponsible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........Socialism, you mean........."
The USA has had Socialism for a very long time.
It's been cleverly disguised to make it acceptable to Americans.
Members of the Republican Party have supported American Socialism.
Socialism in the United States is called Corporate Welfare.
This is taxpayers' money given by the government to a private business
because the private business is unable to survive in the free market.
So let's all start calling Corporate Welfare what it really is : American Socialism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where's your beloved USSR?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 01:29:11 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:thccd0tn3unf4auufkr2t10c5eb52arons@4ax.com:
The USA has had Socialism for a very long time
Since FDR, the worst president in US history.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowherewill damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 01:33:39 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus wrote:
grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co wrote in
news:thccd0tn3unf4auufkr2t10c5eb52arons@4ax.com:
The USA has had Socialism for a very long time
Since FDR, the worst president in US history.
It amazes me that he is considered atop the greatest US Presidents. The
man set the standard for the govt clusterphuck as we know it today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 03:01:15 PM |
|
|
On 21-Jun-2004, Geo <geo@sdf.com> wrote:
The USA has had Socialism for a very long time
Since FDR, the worst president in US history.
It amazes me that he is considered atop the greatest US Presidents. The
man set the standard for the govt clusterphuck as we know it today.
Assuming the Republicans actually do dismantle the social programs of FDR
and LBJ, what do you think is going to happen when the dampening effect they
have on business cycles is removed. Our kids and grandkids are going to see
depressions that make the Great Depression pale in comparison.
--
"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is
simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's
no longer an obnoxious drunk?" [Ron Reagan, Jr. during the 2000 GOP
convention]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowherewill damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 03:26:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 21-Jun-2004, Geo <geo@sdf.com> wrote:
The USA has had Socialism for a very long time
Since FDR, the worst president in US history.
It amazes me that he is considered atop the greatest US Presidents. The
man set the standard for the govt clusterphuck as we know it today.
Assuming the Republicans actually do dismantle the social programs of FDR
and LBJ, what do you think is going to happen when the dampening effect they
have on business cycles is removed. Our kids and grandkids are going to see
depressions that make the Great Depression pale in comparison.
These programs themselves have caused a dampening effect on the business
cycle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 08:53:57 AM |
|
|
Geo <geo@sdf.com> wrote in news:40D74470.5080208@sdf.com:
These programs themselves have caused a dampening effect on the business
cycle
They're meant to. Liberals love to penalize businesses.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 04:36:20 PM |
|
|
On 21-Jun-2004, Geo <geo@sdf.com> wrote:
It amazes me that he is considered atop the greatest US Presidents. The
man set the standard for the govt clusterphuck as we know it today.
Assuming the Republicans actually do dismantle the social programs of
FDR
and LBJ, what do you think is going to happen when the dampening effect
they
have on business cycles is removed. Our kids and grandkids are going to
see
depressions that make the Great Depression pale in comparison.
These programs themselves have caused a dampening effect on the business
cycle.
Uhhh...Geo...that's what I said. I said what would happen if the dampening
effect was removed, obviously implying that they have a dampening effect
when they are there. That's a GOOD thing. The highs aren't quite so high,
but more importantly the lows aren't quite so low. The business cycle is
damped and therefore more stable. It is one reason why we have not had a
repeat of the Great Depression and recessions are not quite as bad as they
would be. There has to be some regulating mechanism on a system as dynamic
as the business cycle. Especially since we don't completely understand how
they work. However, if Republicans insist on dismantling these dampeners
without any credible substitute, then we are in for some wild economic
rides. Some evidence that Republicans don't understand is their resurrecting
the long-ago discredited Laffer Curve, fer crissakes.
I can see you are not all that familiar with mathematics or negative
feedback systems or economics or government or America.
Eric
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowherewill damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 10:27:38 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus wrote:
"Sogobia" <windriver2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9dcbe7ba1286735bae319a206eea1fb7@news.teranews.com:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative research group, estimates that government spending
climbed twice as fast under President Bush as under President Bill
Clinton, and that only about one-third of that increase came from
defense spending and homeland security.
Yup, and your complaining about it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Bridges to nowhere as opposed to healthcare, education and needed
infrastructure improvements
Socialism, you mean. Theft. Stealing the money of the productive
to pay for the irresponsible.
Where's your beloved USSR?
A bridge to nowhere is corporate welfare.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
20 Jun 2004 11:48:03 PM |
|
|
Corporate Welfare
___________________________________________________________________________
"Corporate Welfare" is taxpayers' money given by the government to a private business
because the private business is unable to survive in the free market.
___________________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 01:45:31 PM |
|
|
It was written:
"Corporate Welfare" is taxpayers' money given by the government to a
private business because the private business is unable to survive in
the free market.
Not correct. You do have 50+ IQ points over Mr. Travsky, but you're
not correct.
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 03:27:53 PM |
|
|
"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0406211045.4433b03f@posting.google.com...
It was written:
"Corporate Welfare" is taxpayers' money given by the government to a
private business because the private business is unable to survive in
the free market.
Not correct. You do have 50+ IQ points over Mr. Travsky, but you're
not correct.
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
By definition a corporate bailout is rescuing a company that cannot survive
on its own. There is no such thing as an unnecessary bailout - those are
profit enhancements.
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
Dave Simpson
You seem to have a different vocabulary than most, Dave. Ralph Nader, f.
ex., says corporate welfare is loosely " a program is considered corporate
welfare if its public cost outweighs its public benefits. ", or more
robustly "If a program involves the government giving more to private
companies than it gets back -- that is, where it is engaging in a
transaction that cannot be justified as a fair market value exchange -- then
it should be considered corporate welfare".
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html He defines these payments as "the
enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt
revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits
conferred by government on business."
http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar01/corpwelfare020301.html
The libertarian Cato Institute defines it as "Corporate welfare should be
carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique
benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
Time magazine says "By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local,
state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a
benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real
estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax
break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than
the one others pay." http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/timecorpwelfare.html
The difference is that conservative/libertatian sources do not consider
targeted tax breaks to be corporate welfare and liberal sources do.
None consider it as making costs public while keeping profits private. In
fact, all consider corporate revenue to be revenue enhancement, not cost
socializing.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowherewill damage environment. |
23 Jun 2004 11:41:05 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0406211045.4433b03f@posting.google.com...
It was written:
"Corporate Welfare" is taxpayers' money given by the government to a
private business because the private business is unable to survive in
the free market.
Not correct. You do have 50+ IQ points over Mr. Travsky, but you're
not correct.
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
By definition a corporate bailout is rescuing a company that cannot survive
on its own. There is no such thing as an unnecessary bailout - those are
profit enhancements.
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
Dave Simpson
You seem to have a different vocabulary than most, Dave. Ralph Nader, f.
ex., says corporate welfare is loosely " a program is considered corporate
welfare if its public cost outweighs its public benefits. ", or more
robustly "If a program involves the government giving more to private
companies than it gets back -- that is, where it is engaging in a
transaction that cannot be justified as a fair market value exchange -- then
it should be considered corporate welfare".
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html He defines these payments as "the
enormous and myriad subsidies, bailouts, giveaways, tax loopholes, debt
revocations, loan guarantees, discounted insurance and other benefits
conferred by government on business."
http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar01/corpwelfare020301.html
The libertarian Cato Institute defines it as "Corporate welfare should be
carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique
benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html
Time magazine says "By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local,
state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a
benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real
estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax
break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than
the one others pay." http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/timecorpwelfare.html
The difference is that conservative/libertatian sources do not consider
targeted tax breaks to be corporate welfare and liberal sources do.
None consider it as making costs public while keeping profits private. In
fact, all consider corporate revenue to be revenue enhancement, not cost
socializing.
Ouch. Poor Mr. Simpson wishes he had at *least* 50 IQ points...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:18:33 PM |
|
|
Larry Hewitt wrote:
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
By definition a corporate bailout is rescuing a company that cannot survive
on its own. There is no such thing as an unnecessary bailout - those are
profit enhancements.
You are mistaken. Furthermore, as I have explained, the scope of
corporate welfare extends beyond bailouts. It is as I correctly have
decribed below:
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
You seem to have a different vocabulary than most, Dave.
Not different than those who insist on the truth, including
economists. The idea is that government (the public) pays the costs,
meeting or replacing a corporation's own expenditures (substituting
for revenue). It is not limited to profit enhancement (when a
business is not in trouble), nor to bailouts (when it is, and when
break-even or mere survival of the business may be the objective, not
necessarily "earning" a profit). (This shouldn't require repetition.)
Politicians', interest groups' and liberal media sources' definitions
frequently are not either imprecise or too general, but are colored by
their politics. (Extremists will describe any road improvements as
being "corporate welfare" because products are often delivered by
truck, for example.)
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 04:56:19 PM |
|
|
"Dave Simpson" <david_l_simpson@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.0406221218.6cf146de@posting.google.com...
Larry Hewitt wrote:
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
By definition a corporate bailout is rescuing a company that cannot
survive
on its own. There is no such thing as an unnecessary bailout - those are
profit enhancements.
You are mistaken. Furthermore, as I have explained, the scope of
corporate welfare extends beyond bailouts. It is as I correctly have
decribed below:
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
You seem to have a different vocabulary than most, Dave.
Not different than those who insist on the truth, including
economists. The idea is that government (the public) pays the costs,
meeting or replacing a corporation's own expenditures (substituting
for revenue). It is not limited to profit enhancement (when a
business is not in trouble), nor to bailouts (when it is, and when
break-even or mere survival of the business may be the objective, not
necessarily "earning" a profit). (This shouldn't require repetition.)
Politicians', interest groups' and liberal media sources' definitions
frequently are not either imprecise or too general, but are colored by
their politics. (Extremists will describe any road improvements as
being "corporate welfare" because products are often delivered by
truck, for example.)
Had to delete my post because it showed you were werong , huh?
Here's more.Corporate welfare usually translates into increased profits, not
an offset of costs. Look at the current bill before congress that is
supposed to rectify illegal tax breaks found by the WTO.
1. At least a $25M profit for the cruise industry allowing a one-year delay
in paying taxes on the airplane
tickets, hotels, and other excursions it sells in the United States. Note
that this is a delay in payment, not forgiveness. The profit comes from the
time value of the money that is not spent for a year.
2. Elimination of teh tax on the winnings of foreigners at American dog and
horse tracks - $25M. Note that this is on winnings of the CUSTOMERS, not the
businesses, so it does not offset costs. The teory is that if foreigners do
not have to pay taxes on winnings they will bewt - and lose - more.
3. An undefined tax break for Oldsmobile dealers. This cannot be calculated
because Oldsmobiles have not been built since 2000 and noone knows what the
benefit would apply to.
4. $64 for horse owners by allowing them to apply for capital loss credits
12 months earlier. It does not mean any new money, just that they can get it
a year earlier. The $64M is the loss of 1 yuear's taxes.
5. $252M in tax free to non-profits! to allow them to purchase wilderness
areas. But non-profits don't pay taxes.
There are more. Some reduce tax burdens. Some provide bonds at a lower rate
than banks would.
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2004/5-12jobsact.htm
Larry
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
21 Jun 2004 04:58:51 PM |
|
|
(Dave Simpson) wrote in message news:<23e7f86e.0406211045.4433b03f@posting.google.com>...
It was written:
"Corporate Welfare" is taxpayers' money given by the government to a
private business because the private business is unable to survive in
the free market.
Not correct. You do have 50+ IQ points over Mr. Travsky, but you're
not correct.
Inability to survive has nothing to do with it. Nor is it
restricted to bailouts that help but aren't essential to business
survival.
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
That's one way to look at it though it stretches the definition of
socializing. Another way is to see it is as payoffs for campaign
contributions to politicians. It's not really only money given, however,
but also tax breaks that hinder collection of money and favorable
regulations that don't affect the taxes but enable a company to make
a greater profit or avoid a risk. Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 07:03:06 AM |
|
|
(Ashland Henderson) wrote in
news:441d41d1.0406211358.19fe3ed7@posting.google.com:
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds
Unfortunately, people these days believe corporations are responsible
for their--the people's--own stupidity. About the last thing I want
to see is more breakdown of the separation of powers, but I don't see
any alternative but tort reform by legislation.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 06:40:06 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus <asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message news:<Xns951047BB0D21Dasmodeusinsightbbcom@204.127.199.17>...
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in
news:441d41d1.0406211358.19fe3ed7@posting.google.com:
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds
Unfortunately, people these days believe corporations are responsible
for their--the people's--own stupidity. About the last thing I want
to see is more breakdown of the separation of powers, but I don't see
any alternative but tort reform by legislation.
There is some of that around but there are also plenty of corporations
willing to take advantage by producing unsafe and even dangerous products
and then buy politicians to protect themselves from any liability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
23 Jun 2004 08:19:49 AM |
|
|
(Ashland Henderson) wrote in
news:441d41d1.0406221540.3e743327@posting.google.com:
There is some of that around but there are also plenty of corporations
willing to take advantage by producing unsafe and even dangerous products
and then buy politicians to protect themselves from any liability
I can prove my assertion. You cannot prove yours.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ashland Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
23 Jun 2004 06:21:13 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus <asmodeus@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message news:<Xns951154BB685D8asmodeusinsightbbcom@204.127.204.17>...
maceanruig@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote in
news:441d41d1.0406221540.3e743327@posting.google.com:
There is some of that around but there are also plenty of corporations
willing to take advantage by producing unsafe and even dangerous products
and then buy politicians to protect themselves from any liability
I can prove my assertion. You cannot prove yours.
Since you keep snipping your points I rather doubt that you can prove
anything without first improving your posting skills. If you wish to
believe that no corporation acts in any way badly or hides anything
dangerous about their products I'd suggest a little research. Start
with the gas tanks on the Pinto from Ford Motor Company. There's lots
of others around.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:29:28 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus wrote:
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds
Unfortunately, people these days believe corporations are responsible
for their--the people's--own stupidity. About the last thing I want
to see is more breakdown of the separation of powers, but I don't see
any alternative but tort reform by legislation.
It seems the only way to end the ugly LegaLottO. And of course, the
howling begins whenever damage caps or more fundamental reforms are
proposed, along with the appeals to emotion and sound bites ("right to
sue" "right to their day in court" "These things need to be heard
before a jury...").
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:41:57 PM |
|
|
Asmodeus wrote:
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds
Unfortunately, people these days believe corporations are responsible
for their--the people's--own stupidity. About the last thing I want
to see is more breakdown of the separation of powers, but I don't see
any alternative but tort reform by legislation.
California has been moving to tax 75% of punitive damages.
(Don't neglect the following Web page. It even has links to it that
include examples of lawyers who camp out near emergency rooms in order
to seize the moment when there is a lawsuit in the making. I'll post
that lawyer-story link separately.)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/05/update_on_gov_s.html
Lawyer and "mobile law office" in physician parking by emergency room
(complete with photographs that in turn can be clicked on and
enlarged)
http://www.emedconcepts.org/2004/05/mobile_lawyer_a.html
The most outrageous junk in junk lawsuits is with punitive damages,
and along with caps on the amounts, the idea of governments' taking
these may seem ugly but is likely a good remedial gesture. I have
stated before that this is one way to get rid of the greed and
corruption of morality behind the Legal Lotto phenomenon. "Punitive
damages should go to the government." It could go up to a higher
level (the state) rather than local (county or municipality) to reduce
the problems of a new perverse incentive, viewing large corporations
as milch cows for "free" taxes.
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowherewill damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:44:00 PM |
|
|
Dave Simpson wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds
Unfortunately, people these days believe corporations are responsible
for their--the people's--own stupidity. About the last thing I want
to see is more breakdown of the separation of powers, but I don't see
any alternative but tort reform by legislation.
California has been moving to tax 75% of punitive damages.
(Don't neglect the following Web page. It even has links to it that
include examples of lawyers who camp out near emergency rooms in order
to seize the moment when there is a lawsuit in the making. I'll post
that lawyer-story link separately.)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/05/update_on_gov_s.html
Lawyer and "mobile law office" in physician parking by emergency room
(complete with photographs that in turn can be clicked on and
enlarged)
http://www.emedconcepts.org/2004/05/mobile_lawyer_a.html
The most outrageous junk in junk lawsuits is with punitive damages,
and along with caps on the amounts, the idea of governments' taking
these may seem ugly but is likely a good remedial gesture. I have
stated before that this is one way to get rid of the greed and
corruption of morality behind the Legal Lotto phenomenon. "Punitive
damages should go to the government." It could go up to a higher
level (the state) rather than local (county or municipality) to reduce
the problems of a new perverse incentive, viewing large corporations
as milch cows for "free" taxes.
We need a "loser pays" system.
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:58:25 PM |
|
|
Geo <geo@sdf.com> wrote in news:40D89A10.80001@sdf.com:
We need a "loser pays" system
Yes, I agree with that.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || I believe the very heart and soul
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || of conservatism is libertarianism
/ \ AND POSTINGS || --Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: GOP = Grand Ole Porkbarrel-spenders.: Alaska's bridges to nowhere will damage environment. |
22 Jun 2004 03:27:29 PM |
|
|
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Concisely, corporate welfare is socializing (making public) the
costs while profits remain private.
That's one way to look at it though it stretches the definition of
socializing.
Not at all, because "socialized" commonly means "publicly provided"
or "publicly financed" rather than the older, non-unique definition of
"socialized" that is the equivalent of "government-owned-and-operated"
or "nationalized."
Another way is to see it is as payoffs for campaign
contributions to politicians.
That combines "what" with a frequent reason for "why."
It's not really only money given, however,
but also tax breaks that hinder collection of money and favorable
regulations that don't affect the taxes but enable a company to make
a greater profit or avoid a risk.
Once it goes beyond money given or strict revenue-replacement or
other cost-defraying measures, it becomes more general and less
connected with the concept behind that specific use of the word
"welfare." The one way in which the phrase "corporate welfare" holds
is with the intention behind these other acts (tax breaks, favorable
regulations) -- to be real corporate welfare it must be to (save or
[further]) enrich the corporations. The way to view it (which must be
at least as more-general as the "welfare" claims) is to note the scope
of those who benefit (is it only a corporation, or others as well?).
Things like the elimination of class
action suits, while possibly good in some ways, also count as corporate
welfare since they tend to make corporations less culpable for their
misdeeds.
That is even less defensible, especially when the true basis for
criticism with this example is on the other side -- class-action suits
are a racket and junk lawsuits are a particularly wrongful attack on
businesses today. Needed reform or correction of something that is
wrongful in no way can be legitimately claimed to be a welfare
measure.
Dave Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
