Tag Archives: corporate welfare

Lawmakers should sideline handouts for sports stadiums

Source: Heartland Institute
by Jesse Hathaway

“This season, some National Football League (NFL) players have silently kneeled during pregame performances of the national anthem to protest what they believe to be widespread abuses of power by police and other government officials. Trump has used social media and national speeches to criticize players’ protests, and he has called on team owners to fire abstaining players and encouraged owners and coaches to say, ‘Get that son of a b**** off the field right now, he’s fired — he’s fired.’ Trump says the protests are ‘a total disrespect of our heritage.’ If anyone from the NFL should be fired, however, the cause for termination shouldn’t be for a quiet kneel or other form of expression. Instead of coaches telling players to hit the showers, city and state lawmakers should tell sports team owners seeking taxpayer handouts for a new stadium to get ‘off the field’ and leave the public trough.” (11/15/17)

http://blog.heartland.org/2017/11/lawmakers-should-sideline-handouts-for-sports-stadiums/

US House passes $692 billion corporate welfare … er, “defense” … bill

Source: The Hill

“The House on Tuesday easily passed the 2018 fiscal year’s nearly $700 billion defense policy bill. The House voted 356-70 to approve the $692 billion compromise National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) reached after negotiations between the House and Senate. The compromise version would authorize $626.4 billion for the base defense budget and $65.7 billion for a war fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account. The money would go toward a 2.4 percent pay raise for troops, an increase of 20,000 active duty and reserve troops across the services, bulked up missile defense, increased operations in Afghanistan, and more ships, planes and other equipment.” (11/14/17)

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/360362-house-passes-692b-defense-policy-bill

Does Tax Increment Financing pass the but-for test in Missouri?

Source: Show-Me Institute
by T William Lester & A Rachid El-Khattabi

“Tax increment financing (TIF) does not drive job creation, neighborhood investment, or economic development. What TIF does do is divert tax dollars from schools and libraries into the pockets of developers. These are the findings from studies conducted by the St. Louis Development Corporation, the East West Gateway Council of Governments, the Upjohn Institute of Employment Research, and the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Add one more study to that list. This week the Show-Me Institute unveils its own study of TIF in Missouri, specifically in Saint Louis and Kansas City. Authored by T. William Lester and A. Rachid El- Khattabi of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, the study focused on the but-for analyses used in TIF findings; the argument that development would not happen at a particular site without taxpayer subsidies.” (11/14/17)

https://showmeinstitute.org/publication/subsidies/does-tax-increment-financing-pass-test-missouri

The “Amazon Amendment” would effectively hand government purchasing power over to Amazon

Source: The Intercept
by David Dayen

“This week, representatives of three major internet platforms — Google, Facebook, and Twitter — are testifying before Congress about their role in facilitating Russian meddling in the 2016 election. But a fourth giant sat comfortably removed: Amazon. Instead of getting yelled at by lawmakers, Amazon is on the verge of winning a multibillion-dollar advantage over retail rivals by taking over large swaths of federal procurement.” (11/02/17)

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/amazon-amendment-online-marketplaces/

Only Amazon wins

Source: Independent Institute
by William F Shughart & Thomas A Garrett

“After Seattle-based Amazon began soliciting proposals from North American cities in early September, the business news media was abuzz with speculation about where Amazon will locate its second corporate headquarters. The site will be announced next year. … local officials predictably will top up their bids with tax breaks, taxpayer-financed infrastructure upgrades, and similar concessions known in the economic development literature as ‘selective incentives.’ A subsidy by that or any other name would smell as sweet to Amazon’s owners. If history serves as a guide, politicians will defend giveaways of taxpayer dollars to Amazon by claiming that the benefits flowing from new jobs and higher wages exceed the costs of financing a subsidy. … It turns, out, however, that the benefits of taxpayer-financed subsidies always are overstated.” (11/01/17)

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=9193

Open letter to President Trump: Avoid trade restrictions on solar panels

Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute
by various

“Dear President Trump, On behalf of the undersigned organizations, representing millions of Americans, we urge you to reject any trade restrictions in Inv. No. TA-201-075 (Safeguard). If trade restrictions are imposed, the cost of solar products in the United States could double, endangering tens of thousands of good paying domestic jobs within the solar industry.” (10/27/17)

https://cei.org/content/open-letter-president-trump-avoid-trade-restrictions-solar-panels

President Trump shouldn’t give in to the solar industry’s drama

Source: Cato Institute
by David Boaz

“Any source that supplies solar panels to American consumers and businesses is a competitor of the American industry. And any source that can deliver any product cheaper than American companies is a tough competitor. Domestic producers will no doubt gain by imposing a tariff on their Chinese competitors, but American companies that install solar power will lose, by having to pay higher prices for panels. Indeed, as is often in the case in trade matters, not all the companies in the industry are in agreement. This case was brought by two companies, but the largest solar trade group in the nation, the Solar Energy Industries Association, opposes tariffs. The association says that if the two companies get what they are asking for, prices for solar power will rise, consumer demand will fall, and the industry will lose some 88,000 jobs, about one-third of the current American solar workforce. Interestingly, the two companies that brought the complaint, Suniva and SolarWorldAmericasTwo, are based in the United States but are respectively owned by German and Chinese firms.” (10/18/17)

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-trump-shouldnt-give-solar-industrys-drama

Boeing whines: “Mean ol’ Bombardier found a way around our corporate welfare scam”

Source: NBC News

“Boeing late Monday dismissed a deal between Airbus and Bombardier to make CSeries jets in Alabama, calling it an attempt to dodge import duties recommended by the U.S. Commerce Department following the U.S. airplane maker’s trade complaint. ‘This looks like a questionable deal between two heavily state-subsidised competitors to skirt the recent findings of the U.S. government,’ a Boeing spokesman said. ‘Our position remains that everyone should play by the same rules, for free and fair trade to work.'” [editor’s note: Boeing’s definition of “free and fair trade” is “tax the hell out of the serfs to keep us loaded down with ‘defense’ contracts, and make sure no one is allowed to compete with us in the US passenger aircraft market” – TLK] (10/17/17)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/boeing-slams-questionable-airbus-deal-make-bombardier-cseries-jets-alabama-n811381

Could Trump be about to kill US solar industry jobs?

Source: CounterPunch
by Linda Pentz Gunter

“Last month, the International Trade Commission, in a 4-0 vote, sided with two American solar manufacturers who had filed a petition under Section 201 of the Trade Act seeking relief from foreign manufactured solar cells. The petition only had to show that the two companies — Suniva and SolarWorld Americas — could not compete because of the import of cheaper solar cells, mainly from China but also Mexico. They were not obliged to demonstrate malicious intent by their rivals. Ironically, the two companies in question have foreign roots. Suniva is owned by Chinese venture capitalists who simply want their money back. The parent company of SolarWorld Americas is German, although the U.S. division is fiscally independent. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), estimates the ruling could ‘more than double the cost of solar and put 88,000 jobs at risk.'” (10/13/17)

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/13/could-trump-be-about-to-kill-u-s-solar-industry-jobs/

Two solar companies got big subsidies from Obama. Now they want protective tariffs from Trump.

Source: Reason
by Tim Panzarella

“Two bankrupt green energy companies may be given new lives, thanks to the economic protectionism in the guise of ‘America First.’ Suniva and Solarworld, like many companies in the renewable energy industry, have received millions of taxpayer dollars in the form of grants and tax incentives over the past decade. Now, both are pinning their hopes on the Trump administration’s likely move to levy heavy tariffs on foreign competitors. Suniva received more than $20 million in tax credits before going bankrupt. SolarWorld was given over $100 million before filing for insolvency this April. But the subsidies weren’t enough. Suniva and SolarWorld recently filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, a federal agency that investigates trade matters and handles complaints, with the aim of getting the ITC to recommend tariff duties on the cheap Chinese imports the two companies claim are hurting their bottom lines.” (09/28/17)

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/28/green-energy-protectionism