Activism Discussion: The Corporate Welfare State

The Corporate Welfare State
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2007-05-15 00:09:51 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://tinyurl.com/2s4qp7
May 14, 2007
Policy Analysis no. 592
The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S.
Businesses
by Stephen Slivinski

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute
and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became
the Party of Big Government (2006).

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect
subsidies to businesses and private-sector corporate entities --
expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" -- in fiscal
year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is
broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business
subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study,
"corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that
provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific
companies or industries.

Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying
some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the
programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the
federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies
in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General
Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits
through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the
Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs
continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.

Because the corporate welfare state transcends any specific agency --
and therefore any specific congressional committee -- one way to reform
or terminate those programs would be through a corporate welfare reform
commission (CWRC). That commission could function like the successful
military base closure commission. The CWRC would compose a list of
corporate welfare programs to eliminate and then present that list to
Congress, which would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the
commission's proposal.

Full Text of Policy Analysis no. 592 (PDF, 160 KB)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra






















Facts
2007-05-15 02:52:42 EST
"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:4649328F.2080604@columbia-center.org...
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

Anyone who has studied this subject will see the corporations are not only
the real anarchists, they are promoting anarchy. and profiting from it.

Anarchy means "do whatever you want with no laws" as in steal, pillage,
take.


> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2s4qp7
> May 14, 2007
> Policy Analysis no. 592
> The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S.
> Businesses
> by Stephen Slivinski
>
> Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute and
> author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the
> Party of Big Government (2006).
>
> The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies
> to businesses and private-sector corporate entities --
> expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" -- in fiscal year
> 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader
> than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic
> Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57
> billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is
> defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique
> benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries.
>
> Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying
> some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the
> programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the
> federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in
> America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and
> others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs
> like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In
> addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the
> wealthiest farmers.
>
> Because the corporate welfare state transcends any specific agency --
> and therefore any specific congressional committee -- one way to reform or
> terminate those programs would be through a corporate welfare reform
> commission (CWRC). That commission could function like the successful
> military base closure commission. The CWRC would compose a list of
> corporate welfare programs to eliminate and then present that list to
> Congress, which would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the
> commission's proposal.
>
> Full Text of Policy Analysis no. 592 (PDF, 160 KB)
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
> http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We\ufffdrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
> http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> "Don't just question authority,
> Don't forget to question me."
> -- Jello Biafra
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Alex Russell
2007-05-15 23:23:22 EST
Facts wrote:
> "Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:4649328F.2080604@columbia-center.org...
>> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>
> Anyone who has studied this subject will see the corporations are not only
> the real anarchists, they are promoting anarchy. and profiting from it.
>
> Anarchy means "do whatever you want with no laws" as in steal, pillage,
> take.

Actually, that is not the usual definition of anarchy. Generally anarchy
means "No government". Depending on what kind of society you live in
under anarchy there very likely would be laws - they just would not be
enforced by the non-existent government.

Government is: an organization with a monopoly on using force to enforce
it's decisions.

Alex Russell

>
>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2s4qp7
>> May 14, 2007
>> Policy Analysis no. 592
>> The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S.
>> Businesses
>> by Stephen Slivinski
[snip - corportate welfare]

>>
>> "Don't just question authority,
>> Don't forget to question me."
>> -- Jello Biafra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

James A. Donald
2007-05-16 22:40:40 EST
Facts wrote:
> > Anarchy means "do whatever you want with no laws" as in steal, pillage,
> > take.

Alex Russell
> Actually, that is not the usual definition of anarchy. Generally anarchy
> means "No government". Depending on what kind of society you live in
> under anarchy there very likely would be laws - they just would not be
> enforced by the non-existent government.

As say in http://jim.com/anarchy/law_in_anarchy.htm

What kind of laws would exist in an anarchic society?

In an anarchic society public good laws would be under provided, and
private good laws would be adequately provided.

A private good law is a law where it is in the interests of a
particular person to have the law enforced against a particular
offender, for example the laws against robbery, rape and so forth. A
public good law is a law where it is arguably in everyone's interest
that it be enforced in general, but it is not in the particular
interest of any particular person that it be enforced against any
other particular person.

Most private good laws are uncontroversial, universally accepted, and
almost universally enforced. Public good laws tend to be somewhat
controversial, selectively enforced, and far from universally
accepted, and the many infamous governmental crimes, for example the
Jim Crow laws, were enforcement of public good laws. Laws prohibiting
racism are also public good laws as much as laws commanding racism,
but prohibiting racism tends to have effects curiously similar to
commanding it.

One example of a fairly uncontroversial public good law is the law
requiring cars to limit their pollution. A particularly offensive car
would offend particular people enough for them to harass the owner,
but many mildly polluting cars would not, even if their combined
effect was intolerable. So in an anarcho capitalist society, cars
might well be more polluting than they are at present. On the other
hand, rivers and the like would be owned by particular small groups of
people, who would likely be willing to defend their condition, whereas
governments have been notoriously unwilling to protect a river against
a concentrated interest, so rivers would probably be less polluted.
Most communist countries had far more severe levels of pollution than
most capitalist countries, because it was not in the interests of any
particular person to defend any particular property against any
particular pollution. Even when the state is present, private good
laws tend to be enforced, and public good laws not enforced, thus the
absence of the state is unlikely to make as large a difference in
practice as it does in theory.

If a crime has a specific identifiable victim, who is the victim of a
specific identifiable act, then that law is a private good, because
each particular individual will have reason to enter into arrangements
to ensure that such crimes are punished or avenged when committed
against himself.

In order to suppress drugs, or exterminate Jews, you have to appeal to
people's altruism and self sacrifice. People are very willing to be
altruistic when they are voting, because they are mostly voting
someone else's money. They are a lot more selfish when they are paying
with their own money.

I will be willing to do what is necessary to obtain a defense contract
that says that if I am robbed or murdered, I will be avenged. I will
not be willing to do the same for a defense contract that says some
stranger far away will be avenged, still less a defense contract that
says some stranger far away will be punished for taking unapproved
drugs.

In anarcho capitalism, private goods get supplied, because it is in
the interest of particular people or small groups to supply them. For
example there is usually someone who wants particular vengeance
against a particular mugger. Public goods are under supplied, because
although it might supposedly be in the interests of "everyone" that
they be supplied it is not in the interest of any particular person or
small group that they be supplied.

The under supply of public goods is often argued as a defect of
anarcho capitalism, but during the twentieth century, the most
important public goods provided were aggressive war, genocide,
artificial famine, and mass murder, so if we lack those, I will not
much miss the others.

Even if ninety percent of the population support a public good law, it
will not be effectually enforced because it will not be in the
interest of any one person to enforce it, but if a substantial
minority support a private good law, it will be enforced, because it
is in the interest of each particular person to enforce it as it
affects himself.

A public good is something that is supposedly good for everyone,
perhaps really is good for everyone, but does not directly benefit
particular individuals, so there is no one individual who has a direct
personal interest in doing something about this public good in any one
particular case. A private good is something where in each particular
case, much of the benefit goes to a particular person or quite small
group, so that in each particular case, there is a particular person
or small group who has good reason to make this good thing happen,
good reason to themselves bear the costs of making this good thing
happen.

If someone buys or snorts cocaine, there is no pissed off victim,
there is no one pushing hard to make enforcement happen in any one
particular case, so enforcement against liquor or cocaine generally
would not happen, and so in an anarchist society such laws, by custom
and precedent, would cease to be socially acceptable grounds for using
force against someone, and thus cease to be laws.

Those offenses that would make any man use force in response will be
illegal. Those offenses that would not make most people use force in
response will be legal.

Doubtless some public good laws really are good, but the vast majority
have been either bad or very bad. For example in an anti semitic
society a law against Jews would be a public good law.

Collecting money and manpower to enforce a law against burglary would
be like selling insurance. "If you contribute, you can put a sticker
on your house that says protected by XYZ". Collecting money and
manpower to enforce a law against prostitution or abortion would be
like collecting money for charity, or manpower for a neighborhood
clean up. It could be done, it often would be done, but the amount of
money available would be considerably less, and the willingness to
engage in violent confrontation, the willingness to hurt, upset, and
anger people, would be vastly less. Observe how no one wants to
enforce the law against pedophilia, if the pedophile is someone they
recognize, and the child is the child of a stranger.

The average person is willing to bring out his gun and look for
trouble if his next door neighbor is being burgled. A similar
enthusiasm for trouble about a dirty book store seems unlikely,
because the dirty book shop does not threaten any particular
individual the way a burglar next door threatens someone. If you are a
long way from the dirty bookshop, you probably do not care very much.
If you are right next door to the dirty bookshop, then you still do
not care the way you care about robbery, murder, and rape, and in
addition the proprietor and some of the regular customers are real
people to you, and you would not want to make them unhappy.

Burglary would be illegal in anarchist society, and dirty bookstores
legal, because lots of people are willing to shoot burglars, whereas
only a dangerous nut would be willing to shoot a proprietor of a dirty
book store.

If John caused violence to be done against someone who was proven to
have burgled him, this would not make people fear John, this would not
make people wish to protect themselves against John. Thus John's
action would be treated as legal, and thus burglary treated as
illegal. Because John gets away with treating the burglar as a
criminal, the burglar is a criminal. (I assume that John or his
insurance company goes to the trouble of arranging a trial that is
likely to persuade the burglar's friends, relations, and militia
association that John has good cause to believe the burglar guilty.)

If Peter caused violence to be done against a dirty book store
proprietor, this would make people fear Peter, this would make people
wish to protect themselves from Peter, perhaps by causing him to be
imprisoned, or forbidden to bear arms. Thus attacking owners of dirty
books stores would tend to be regarded as illegal, and so selling
dirty books would tend to be regarded as legal.

A person who attacks the owner of a dirty book store might attack me.
A person who sells dirty books is unlikely to attack me. Thus I would
be motivated to support using force against someone who used force
against the proprietor of a dirty bookstore, and would not be
motivated to use force or support the use of force against someone
selling dirty books.

That use of force that most ordinary peaceable individuals are
inclined to employ will be legal, and thus the activities they use it
against illegal. That use of force that only weird, scary, dangerous,
aggressive people are inclined to employ will be illegal.

The age of consent would become a matter of parental discretion, which
does not much resemble today's written law, but does resemble today's
practice.

If there were important issues of law where the answer is unclear, and
also large numbers of people were likely to care passionately about
these issues and be willing to kill and die over issues, then anarcho
capitalist law would not converge. I do not see this. All issues of
law that are genuinely open to question are either obscure and complex
things that most people are unlikely to get very excited about, or
even comprehend, or they are public good laws that just will not get
enforced very effectively anyway.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

Ivan Hubichkakov
2007-05-22 12:46:59 EST
On May 15, 12:09 am, Dan Clore <c...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2s4qp7
> May 14, 2007
> Policy Analysis no. 592
> The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S.
> Businesses
> by Stephen Slivinski
>
> Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute
> and author of Buck Wild: How the Republicans Broke the Bank and Became
> the Party of Big Government (2006).
>
> The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect
> subsidies to businesses and private-sector corporate entities --
> expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" -- in fiscal
> year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is
> broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
> Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business
> subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study,
> "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that
> provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific
> companies or industries.
>
> Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying
> some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the
> programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the
> federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies
> in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General
> Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits
> through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the
> Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs
> continue to fund the wealthiest farmers.
>
> Because the corporate welfare state transcends any specific agency --
> and therefore any specific congressional committee -- one way to reform
> or terminate those programs would be through a corporate welfare reform
> commission (CWRC). That commission could function like the successful
> military base closure commission. The CWRC would compose a list of
> corporate welfare programs to eliminate and then present that list to
> Congress, which would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the
> commission's proposal.
>
> Full Text of Policy Analysis no. 592 (PDF, 160 KB)http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We├┐rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> "Don't just question authority,
> Don't forget to question me."
> -- Jello Biafra

------------------
The corporates avoid the uncorporates.

That's a story coming to your neighborhood theatres soon.

A smash hit at the Cannes Film Festival, Michael Moore's next
documentary "Sicko" will open in the U.S. in June. It asks the
nagging question: WHY, in a nation of vast wealth, does the U.S. have
50 million of its human being citizens denied MEDICAL INSURANCE?

The answers of course are:

1) Fair-play in medicine scares the hell out of religious
conservatives who believe that poverty and bad luck are sent from
"god" or jesus, or god, jesus, joseph, and mary! Kind of an
intelligent design system.

2) The vast and rich U.S. health community -- medicine-makers,
hospital conglomerates, doctors, "health plans," politicians supported
by the pharmaceutical giants (including your White House war
criminal), and, naturally, lawyers -- want to protect their gaudy turf
from having to serve low- and non-paying poor people. (Our infamous
"little people.")

3) Fully ninety-percent of "the vast wealth" of the U.S. is
controlled by less than eight percent of its people, most of whom
belong in the categories mentioned in #2 above.

But Moore's film is described as a "comedy" that pokes both fun and
fingers at a national me-too conscience that prefers to hear, see, and
speak no evil.

Like YOU, maybe?

Can't wait until the bigoted, childish and immature "followers" of
Rush and his ilk start fuming about "Sicko." There's nothing that
entertains more than seeing and hearing millions of intolerant and
selfish racists crying "foul!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101770.html?sub=AR
------------------



TorresdD
2007-06-04 14:24:47 EST
http://www.brechtforum.org/harvey/goldberg-on-brecht/Lectures/Lectures.html



Werner
2007-06-04 14:45:01 EST
On May 22, 12:46 pm, Ivan Hubichkakov <jismqu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...>
> Can't wait until the bigoted, childish and immature "followers" of
> Rush and his ilk start fuming about "Sicko." There's nothing that
> entertains more than seeing and hearing millions of intolerant and
> selfish racists crying "foul!"
>

Perhaps some day enough people will understand that governing has
become about
money and privilege - taking it from some and giving it to
themselves.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Wasn't America supposed to be about voluntary agreement instead of
forced obedience?
http://www.ny.lp.org/choice


TorresdD
2007-06-05 04:27:41 EST
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm

Bush Pre-senile Dementia Video

The big story -

"a striking decline in his
sentence-by-sentence speaking skills."

The reason?

One doctor says "pre-senile dementia"
a catch-all term for earlier-than-normal
cognitive declines

(probably "dry-drunk syndrome").

This video intercuts footage from
10 years ago with recent footage -
the difference is dramatic and
disturbing.

And obvious.






Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron