"Progressives" frequently lament "corporate welfare," or in more economical terms they oppose subsidies and tax exemptions granted to politically connected corporations. Amazingly, I am 100% in agreement with them.
In theory a strategic, temporary subsidy based on sound economic logic could yield a net benefit. The problem is that rarely, if ever the redistribution of tax payers money is based on sound economic logic.
In Washington DC there are over 30,000 lobbyists that disburse several billion dollars a year to a multitude of politicians. The pharmaceutical industry along disbursed over $900,000,000 between 1998 - 2005. Of course this had nothing to do with the Bush administration's passage of Bush's 2003 prescription drug plan...
The size and scope of lobbying indicates that without a doubt that the redistribution of tax payer money is based not on economic or social logic, but on political connections engendered by large campaign contributions. And we can be certain that the connected corporations receive a massive return on their political investment. In fact, the Carmen Group, a mid-sized lobbying firm claims that for every $1,000,000 that its clients spend on its services, it delivers over $100,000,000 in government benefits!
So, I find it absolutely puzzling how "progressives" can support big government when tax payer funds are redistributed not according to sound economic or social logic, but to the corporations and interests that are most politically connected. In other words money will inevitably flow towards the most wealthy and connected interests. And even "noble programs" like the prescription drug plan are inevitably organized to maximize the gain of large corporate interests, as seen by clauses that allow pharmaceutical firms to greatly increase the cost of their products.
"Progressives" should not view "corporate welfare" as an aberration, but as the inevitable outcome of a redistributive state. Until the magical day in which government is clean and organized for the benefit of the public, "progressives" should be extremely cautious about expanding the size and scope of the state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801610.html
Correct.
ReplyDeleteWhen a federal gov annually confiscates 20% of the largest economy in human history, humans will naturally lobby to try to influence where that stolen money is redistributed.
When 535 elected human beings get to redistribute 20% of the wealth of 300,000,000 human beings, you'll find a tendency to distribute those trillions (literally trillions, annually) in a way that allows those 535 to continue to be in a position to redistribute the wealth of the other 300,000,000.
There is only one anti-gov corruption program. It's called tax cuts. For everyone, anyone, and anything. It's called not putting the wealth of 300,000,000 in the hands of 535.
I would also ad that we should consider:
ReplyDelete1. Having government cut campaigning time from well over a year to a month.
2. Alloting TV time for politicians who can collect X amount of signatures.
3. The 1st two will dramatically cut the amount of money required to get elected.
4. From there we need to severely curtail lobbying.