Third Party & Independents Archives

Jobs Act Gives $149B to Corporations

The House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that will give away 149 Billion dollars of your tax money to corporations in the name of creating jobs. My Congressman, Lamar Smith, voted for it because he got a concession for Texas State sales taxes to be deducted from Federal taxes. A whole lot of other Congresspersons got pork for their corporate constituencies as well. If you don’t live in one of the privileged pork areas like Texas, you will get nothing back from this Bill’s proposals.

Now the Ayes are going to tell you that 149 Billion dollars in tobacco company buyouts, timber subsidies, and so many other pork provisions are going to create jobs, as can be viewed in the Ways and Means Committee summary of the legislation. But nowhere in the bill is the stipulation that in return for these tax breaks, the corporations receiving them must create jobs here in America. Those corporations are free to invest that money in overseas operations creating jobs outside the U.S. There were many opponents, the Treasury Dep't., all but about 54 Democrats, and budget watch groups everywhere.

What does the Republican Party stand for anymore? The vote was 203 Republicans Aye, 23 Nay, while Democrats voted 48 Aye, and 154 Nay. Giving corporations subsidies to outsource more jobs, hemhoraged spending which is draining the life blood of payroll earnings for current and future non wealthy workers while they move to make tax cuts to the wealthy permanent, are not in the Republican Party platform. Government subsidies to corporations go contrary to the Republican platform which calls for downsizing government, reducing government spending, and getting out of businesses way. So when the Republicans hold their convention this year and tout their 2004 party platform, compare it the 2000 platform and their actions these last four years. If you find you can believe it, your loyalty knows no bounds.

With all those Corporate scandals, Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, Vivendi, WorldCom and dozens of others have resulted in only 10 persons going to jail. And can you believe it, after Enron steals billions from Californian homeowners and working families, the Republican controlled FERC, Federal Energy Regulation Commission, now says Californians must pay Enron and other companie 247 million dollars in refunds. This is outrageous and becoming a trademark of the Republican Party to favor corporate business regardless of harm to the fabric of our society or to working middle class men and women across the nation.

So if you want to cash in on those tax cuts to create jobs, you may want to consider moving to India or China where the new jobs will be created. If you are fed up watching your future taxes spiral ever upwards as you lose your Social Security and Medicare benefits paid for by your company, you should definitely find some party other than the Republican Party to vote for in November.

Posted by David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:16 AM
Comments
Comment #16787

David:

I’m not sure what you are railing at here. This bill seems intended to create jobs, and the synopsis you provided says nothing about overseas jobs at all. It isnt clear from the synopsis what the provisions of the bill are—perhaps you have seen a more thorough version of it though.

David, I imagine we would agree that there is way way way too much pork. Our elected politicians, in one sense, look ONLY to serve their constituents…but what that means today is that they take anything they can get their grubby little hands on, regardless of the overall impact.

Let’s say a Texas politician can get $10 million for a worthless project in Texas, but to do so would mean that a Minnesota politician does NOT get $10 million for a worthwhile project in Minnesota. Hmmmm…what to do??? The answer of course is: Screw them…I GOT MINE, and it’ll help me get re-elected.

Now, David, of course this happens on both sides of the aisle, so the real question is how do we stop it. Over spending and pork spending are the two things that prevent us from being in a more prosperous economy. Forget taxes, energy etc….if we could fix the amount of money we WASTE, we could handle all those other issues with ease.

Any suggestions on how to change this system?>

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 18, 2004 08:23 AM
Comment #16792

Our retiring Senator, Fritz Hollings, once said in a debate that he was one of the biggest deficit hawks out there (remember Graham-Rudman-Hollings). But once the budget was set, it was his duty to get as much money for South Carolina as he could. I’d say that’s pretty much the mind-set of most in Congress, save those who could care less about the budget at all. This is what you get when you invest in government.

We down here in the South tried to change the system a while back, but somebody got upset and started one of those illegal wars to put a stop to it :) While I don’t think it is time to bring up succession again, maybe we should try the Kerry tactic and just threaten it just to see what happens.

Posted by: George at June 18, 2004 09:44 AM
Comment #16794

Like I argue in my latest article, the use of tax cuts, tax breaks and subsidies only serves to prop up bad businesses, and prevent the market from doing the job that Republicans are always expecting it to do.

If we really want the market to work, we must punish dishonest, discourage malicious and negligent business practices, and hold companies accountable for bad finances and harmful behavior towards to the consumer. Any other attitude allows a lax attitude towards the business’s public and private duties, which will only contribute more to the next economic downturn.

We should not keep deficit spending to encourage business to do what in principle competition should be encouraging them to do in the first place. Even if doing so improves economic numbers somewhat, it only does so temporarily, and it doesn’t solve the problems that dragged our economy down.

In short, the message to businesses should be “get your act together”, not “here, we’ll bail you out.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2004 10:27 AM
Comment #16797

The single biggest mistake the founding fathers make was to allow the congress to levy taxes.

That power should be held exclusively by the people and available only by way of a national referendum.

The second biggest mistake this country make was to create the income tax. If the federal government were funded exclusively by a national sales tax the politicians would think twice before messing with the code.

Posted by: Bob J Young at June 18, 2004 10:48 AM
Comment #16801

> In short, the message to businesses should
> be “get your act together”, not “here,
> we’ll bail you out.”

Today the Bush Administration denied United Airlines the loan guarantees they claim to need to stay afloat. That’s a step in the right direction, I think. I believe that the American airline industry for the past 20-30 years has been operating almost like a state-funded business, the very antithesis of republican/libertarian dogma. With few exceptions, the major carriers have been perpetually unable to survive without continuous massive taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and loan guarantees. Plus, we pay for the FAA, the air traffic controllers, etc, etc.

Those who think that the USA is a free market and that our great American industries don’t rely on the American taxpayer to survive need only look at the airlines to see how fuzzy that idea really is. If the airline industry were truly forced to survive on their own financial merits, which would almost certainly lead to high prices and thus less people flying around, can you imagine how different this country would be?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 18, 2004 11:10 AM
Comment #16810

David—

Here here!!

Posted by: V Edward Martin at June 18, 2004 12:30 PM
Comment #16811

You state that the government is giving away our tax dollars to corporations, but the synopsis you link to mentions only cutting taxes that businesses would pay. That is not giving away any of the taxes I have paid, nor is it giving tax money to corporations.

The claims are of reducing taxes and reducing tax code complexity. That sounds consistant with Republican message to me.

Posted by: Josh Gentry at June 18, 2004 12:37 PM
Comment #16818

josh-
it is taking money out of the overall budget, which means one of two things; either you pay more, or the gov. cuts spending. either way the american people are the ones who suffer.

Posted by: martiniwitz at June 18, 2004 03:39 PM
Comment #16819

josh-
If a business doesn’t pay as much where does the Government make up the difference? either you spend more, or the gov. spends less. so no matter what the loser is the american public.

Posted by: martiniwitz at June 18, 2004 03:44 PM
Comment #16820

sorry I thought I lost the first of my posts=)

Posted by: martiniwitz at June 18, 2004 03:45 PM
Comment #16832

joebagodonuts, the entire bill may be viewed in PDF format House web site.

The problem is simply that the tax cuts do not tie the cuts to jobs creation behavior. That at least would have been defensible - but in the absence of such a condition for the tax cuts - it is just another giveaway ruse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:41 PM
Comment #16833

Chris Fahey, thanks for the report on Bush refusing to bail out the airline. That certainly distinguishes him from Reagan, and I think is a most appropriate decsision given our debt and deficit circumstances.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:47 PM
Comment #16834

Josh, consumers pay taxes on the gasoline they consume. Oil companies generate profits on this natural resource which is America’s. The oil below the ground within U.S. borders is a natural resource and as such belongs to all Americans in the same way all Americans fight to protect their territorial boundaries, regardless of who hold lease to this or that piece of land.

Why should oil companies get tax breaks for profiting on the depeletion of one of our natural resources while the American consumer is taxed for consuming it? This system when all is said and done simply transfers wealth from the general consumer to the elite investor class of Americans and is sanctioned by our Government, most especially the Republican government.

Tax cuts for corporations simply enriches those fortunate enough to have enough disposable income to invest while laying the repayment obligation of the 7.25 Trillion Dollar National Debt on the wallets of average working Americans present and future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 05:57 PM
Comment #16839

Bob, I don’t think a national sales tax is a smart idea. It’s a tax on economic growth. A rise in one’s salary will increase one’s share of taxpaying, but it will not impede the purchase of what that person buys. a sales tax directly taxes consumption, and raises the prices of items without comcomitant compensation to the businesses. It also raises the price of goods for the poor in a way that they cannot avoid.

I don’t think public referendums on taxes are a good idea, because it’s a situation that will naturally degrade as people short-sightedly lowball or overcharge themselves based on the passions. Our government works because such changes occur, but occur at such a pace that people can consider the consequences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 18, 2004 06:51 PM
Comment #16840

This is corporate socialism. Why are Republicans for this (aside from the obvious pork kickbacks)?

Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at June 18, 2004 07:44 PM
Comment #16853

I suspect Stephen because of Kerry’s campaign claim that while we have created 1+ million jobs, we still have 1+ million unemployed since Bush took office. Since that is true, the Republicans in Congress need to respond by actually appearing to do something about it. Note the word “appear”.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 18, 2004 11:12 PM
Comment #16873

Martiniwitz, your statement implies an assumption that any reduction in spending by the federal government is bad. That is a big assumption. I do not share it.

David,

Natural resources, in the United States, are not community property, except where found on federal lands. Yes, American A will help to protect the property of American B, because American A can expect the same kind of help in return should they need it. NOT because American A has a claim that they should directly benefit from the property of American B.

Posted by: Josh Gentry at June 19, 2004 11:19 AM
Comment #16874

Josh Gentry, I am sure many Americans of draft age will appreciate hearing that should Congress decide to reinstate it. Thanks to your logic, they won’t have to go unless their private property is threatened.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2004 11:26 AM
Comment #17025

So the government takes from me, and gives to…the corporations. The rationale for that is that the corporations will allegedly “hire” people with the extra money. Yeah right. Does this one at least come with the Brooklyn Bridge? It’s an old-fashioned pork boondoggle, and this time around the taxpayers don’t even get public works or infrastructure out of it.

That’s a lotsa moolah, I say. You’d think that could have gone to a subsidy to the auto industry to fund an immediate switchover of all new cars to hydrogen fuel, and to start up hydrogen generation plants in every major metro area. Then maybe three or four years from now we won’t have to be getting our people beheaded just for a tank of gas.

Posted by: Ciggy at June 22, 2004 07:43 PM