Tag Archives: corporate welfare

US Commerce Department upholds 300% tariff on Bombardier jets to benefit corporate welfare queen Boeing


Source: CNBC

“The U.S. Commerce Department on Wednesday finalized duties of nearly 300 percent on passenger jets made by Bombardier, a win for Boeing, which lodged the complaint against its Canadian rival. The decision escalates the bitter trade dispute between the two air craft manufacturers, a battle that has ensnared one of the largest U.S. airlines and strained relations between the U.S. and Canada. The Commerce Department first recommended the duties on Bombardier’s CSeries jets, earlier this autumn after Boeing complained that the planes were dumped in the U.S. below cost and that the company received unfair government subsidies in Canada. Bombardier said the Commerce Department did not consider a common practice of airplane manufacturers in which they offer discounts to launch customers.” (12/20/17)


Corporate welfare queen Boeing begs Uncle Sugar to protect it from mean ol’ Bombardier at trade hearing

Source: Seattle Times

“Boeing and Canada’s Bombardier squared off Monday in a case that’s putting profits and diplomatic ties on the line. In a daylong hearing before the U.S. International Trade Commission, Kevin McAllister, the head of Boeing’s commercial-airplanes division, argued that Bombardier’s sale of its CSeries jets at what he said are below fair-market prices poses an existential threat to Boeing’s 737 MAX 7. ‘Our Max 7 is at extreme risk,’ McAllister told the trade panel. ‘If you don’t level the playing field now, it will be too late.’ Boeing’s push to have tariffs imposed on sales of the CSeries threatens to block Delta Air Lines from taking delivery of the 75 CSeries jets it ordered in 2016. But Greg May, Delta’s senior vice president for supply-chain management and fleet strategy, said Boeing’s filing of the complaint is ‘absurd.’ ‘Boeing did not lose this sale to Bombardier,’ May told the panel. ‘When we chose to add the CS100 aircraft to our fleet, Boeing simply did not and does not have the right-sized aircraft.'” (12/18/17)


Want to drain the swamp? Trump should start with ethanol reform

Source: The American Conservative
by Bill Wirtz

“Trump was voted into office on the promise that he would drain the swamp — meaning rid Washington of its damaging lobbying sector and create public policy in the interest of the people rather than whoever is best at peddling influence. One of the many ways to do that would be to get rid of the Renewable Fuel Standard altogether, which would see the energy market become fairer. Right now, the crony capitalism of the ethanol quota is causing small refineries to lose their ground to large companies, and is costing the United States thousands of jobs. Senators who succumb to the ethanol industry’s lobbying are also holding up key nominations; they want not only to maintain the RFS, but to expand it. The most astonishing part of their stance is how blatantly obvious it is that they’ve been bought off, as it makes no sense, either from a jobs, business, or environmental perspective, to support the current framework.” (12/06/17)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)