Corporate welfare bums and politics

[jacee]

I think we all know that our democracy is corrupted by powerful money-wielding people who pay to have laws, contracts and government handouts go their way ... so they can make more money.

We make cynical jokes about it while shrugging it off as something we can't do anything about ... like we are helpless ... like we know that our democracy is a sham and that can never change because we are powerless.

Are we really powerless?

Corporate welfare flourishes in lean times

For five years, Mark Milke, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, has been churning out highly critical reports on “corporate welfare.”

The right-wing Albertan is an odd successor to former New Democratic Party leader David Lewis, who launched the crusade 40 years ago. Milke is not motivated by a desire to invest in social programs, redistribute wealth, give labour a larger share of the pie or move toward a planned economy. His primary goal is tax relief.

...

"Peer-reviewed research on business subsidies does not support the oft-heard claims that corporate welfare is responsible for widespread economic growth or job creation," Milke said.

"Just as bad, in contrast to the interest rates paid on loans obtained by consumers and businesses in the private sector, little interest has been paid on Industry Canada’s taxpayer-financed loans to corporate Canada."

An update on corporate welfare: $182 billion and climbing.

When the Fraser Institute published the first study on corporate welfare one year ago, the tally between April 1, 1994 and March 30, 2004 amounted to $144 billion. That was the amount Canadian governments distributed to businesses in the form of subsidies from federal, provincial, and municipal treasuries (i.e., taxpayers) over the 10-year period. One year later, and with two more years of data available, that figure has climbed to over $182 billion for the 12 years between 1994 and 2006.

_______________

Corporate welfare bums

“While they publicly denounce increased government expenditure, particularly in the form of social welfare, these champions of free enterprise actively lobby the government for incentive grants, research grants and tax concessions, and all manner of assistance at the individual taxpayer's expense.”

Then federal NDP leader David Lewis, in his 1972 book, Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums: cited by Marke Milke, Fraser Institute, May 2011

More ...

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17965&terms=corporate+subsidies+by+province

When the right-wing Fraser Institute has a problem with corporate welfare, you KNOW it's a problem ... a billion dollar boondoggle chewing up OUR money for no purpose, no jobs, no accountability, no good reason that has ever been justified by observable results ... just greedy pigs gorging at the public trough and power hungry politicians too eager to be bought.

HOW MUCH IS IT?

Federal, provincial and municipal handouts to corporations now add up to $20b per year. That's about

- the same as the federal government's contribution to health care (Canada Health Transfer)

- twice as much as the federal contribution to postsecondary education, support for children and social programs (Canada Social Transfer)

-$1200 per year out of your pocket, my pocket, each and every taxpayer can kiss $1200 goodbye every year as it flies into corporate pockets ... $36,000 over a 30 year career, far more than the average person donates to charity.

Maybe we should just rename corporations and call them for-profit forced charities: They take money from us all against our will to profit the wealthy.

Or is it just common crime?

Are we powerless to stop the fraud and corruption that exists as corporate welfare in Canada?

Edited September 23, 2012 by jacee

[eyeball]

Are we powerless to stop the corruption that exists as corporate welfare in Canada?

Yes we are, and I think we'll remain so until such time as we do what no human society has ever done before, invade the secrecy of the highest offices of the state to the extent that Orwell himself would blush.

Voting only seems to encourage the scheming bastards.

[dre]

Yes we are, and I think we'll remain so until such time as we do what no human society has ever done before, invade the secrecy of the highest offices of the state to the extent that Orwell himself would blush.

Voting only seems to encourage the scheming bastards.

Or we can just kill them all and start again... They usually behave for about a century or so after that

[eyeball]

Or we can just kill them all and start again... They usually behave for about a century or so after that

I'm more into taking a lot of the fun and most of the profit out of power.

I want the conniving scumbags to seethe in frustrated resentment for at least a couple of thousand years.

[TimG]

How to make a lefty's head explode:

Point out that subsidies for wind/solar/biomass are likely included in the "corporate welfare" numbers.

It is quite funny to see people who demand that government subsidize any number of economically unjustifiable projects then complain when the dollars are spun as being 'corporate welfare'.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TimG

[WWWTT]

How to make a lefty's head explode:

Point out that subsidies for wind/solar/biomass are likely included in the "corporate welfare" numbers.

It is quite funny to see people who demand that government subsidize any number of economically unjustifiable projects then complain when the dollars are spun as being 'corporate welfare'.

Very good point.Perhaps we should have a breakdown.

Or perhaps you should look at the options in the poll like I have where I noticed that there is an selection to provide subs./grants if a company can prove they are creating jobs.

Providing evidence of job creation and assuming job creation are two different things.

WWWTT

[TimG]

Very good point.Perhaps we should have a breakdown.

In other words - you are perfectly fine with corporate welfare as long as you are the one approving the spending. Which makes it rather hypocritical for you to complain about 'corporate welfare' without knowing what it is spent on.

[WWWTT]

In other words - you are perfectly fine with corporate welfare as long as you are the one approving the spending. Which makes it rather hypocritical for you to complain about 'corporate welfare' without knowing what it is spent on.

As far as I know we live in a democracy and am entitled to one vote.

I will vote any way that I feel is important.

If you don't like it then that's just too bad for you!

There are lots of corporations getting grants and corporate tax cuts without disclosing to the public,this I am against!

WWWTT

[madmax]

How to make a lefty's head explode:

Point out that subsidies for wind/solar/biomass are likely included in the "corporate welfare" numbers.

It is quite funny to see people who demand that government subsidize any number of economically unjustifiable projects then complain when the dollars are spun as being 'corporate welfare'.

Are you for Corporate Welfare?

Long before the Wind/Solar/Biomass Corporate Welfare "Bums" have been at the trough of the Canadian Government treasury since Sir John A MacDonald.

I personally am a little surprised by this as the last time the idea of corporate welfare bums got on the radar was back in the 70s.

Obviously within the last 15 years there has been significantly more corporate welfare and it appears those corporate welfare rates may continue to climb.

Considering that some of these Welfare recipients are well connected Conservatives today (before they would have been well connected Liberals) it can be said that all energy sectors have been at the receiving end of the handouts.

[TimG]

Long before the Wind/Solar/Biomass Corporate Welfare "Bums" have been at the trough of the Canadian Government treasury since Sir John A MacDonald.

And I am willing to bet the vast majority of money was handed because of some program or policy wanted by "progressive" voters who believe that government should be directing the economy whether it is regional development grants or green energy nonsense.

Considering that some of these Welfare recipients are well connected Conservatives today

If the government is allowed to hand out money then the bottom feeders will make sure they are 'connected' to whoever has the power to hand it out. It is not an indictment of any party but rather an indictment of the policies that are used to justify these handouts - policies that are generally demanded by the left of center people who complain when that money is handed to 'corporations'.

[scribblet]

I'd like to see a breakdown, and if the huge subsidies for wind/solar/etc. are included.

When referring to subsidies, do they mean outright cash given, or tax breaks ?

Some incentives given by Industry Canada do help to expand operations and R & D, or to help with competition, not all are bad. Don't forget a lot of these breaks are for struggling small business, not all are giant corps.

If you want to cry about "welfare" take a good look at the grants offered to the Arts community through the Canada Council and so on, now that's "Welfare".

[bleeding heart]

If the government is allowed to hand out money then the bottom feeders will make sure they are 'connected' to whoever has the power to hand it out. It is not an indictment of any party but rather an indictment of the policies that are used to justify these handouts - policies that are generally demanded by the left of center people who complain when that money is handed to 'corporations'.

Sorry, blueblood, but it doesn't work quite so conveniently for people who consider themselves "Conservatives."

That is, conservatives (ie Conservative voters) need to take a page from a well-worn conservative platitude; that of "personal responsibility."

When Conservatives behave a certain way, it gets a little specious to blame progessives for conservatives' behaviour.

In short, as with anyone else, Conservative is what Conservative does.

[madmax]

And I am willing to bet the vast majority of money was handed because of some program or policy wanted by "progressive" voters who believe that government should be directing the economy whether it is regional development grants or green energy nonsense.

I am willing to bet that a vast majority of corporate handouts are to well connected insiders and lobbiests.

I am not sure how "Progressive" Bruce Carson is.. But I do know he is a well connected Conservative insider and former Harper Advisor.

Edited September 23, 2012 by madmax

[madmax]

If the government is allowed to hand out money then the bottom feeders will make sure they are 'connected' to whoever has the power to hand it out. It is not an indictment of any party but rather an indictment of the policies that are used to justify these handouts - policies that are generally demanded by the left of center people who complain when that money is handed to 'corporations'.

So, "Left of Centre" want corporate handouts.

Thank you for that opinion.

and now for something completely different from our Conservative Government.

Seems the Fraser institute overlooked this...

The report did not mention the more than $800,000 repayable loan the Conservatives gave to an Ontario company last month to make non-exploding sausages

Yummy and safe.

Edited September 23, 2012 by madmax

[TimG]

I am willing to bet that a vast majority of corporate handouts are to well connected insiders and lobbiests.

You are missing the point. The issue is why is this money being given out in the first place. No matter who gets the money the money is being given out because of programs "progressives" are constantly demanding. If we suddenly passed a law prohibited government from giving handouts to corporations it would be the progressives that would scream the loudest because it would mean it would be impossible to implement any of the industrial/economic development policies that they love.

[eyeball]

If the government is allowed to hand out money then the bottom feeders will make sure they are 'connected' to whoever has the power to hand it out. It is not an indictment of any party but rather an indictment of the policies that are used to justify these handouts - policies that are generally demanded by the left of center people who complain when that money is handed to 'corporations'.

Blah blah blah.

People like you who blather away about the god damn left are also the last people to demand the sort of official accountability and transparency that would clear both the left's and the right's deck when it comes to the process of lobbying for, handing out and receiving subsidies.

The corporations, the welfare and the bums are not the real issue here - the politicians are, and at the end of the day, you right-wingers are always the first in line when it comes to defending their right to secrecy.

[TimG]

So, "Left of Centre" want corporate handouts.

What do think that subsidies for green energy are? What do you think those tax credits for movie production are? What do you think any "industrial strategy" is?

[bleeding heart]

What do think that subsidies for green energy are? What do you think those tax credits for movie production are? What do you think any "industrial strategy" is?

Movie production?

[TimG]

Movie production?

nothing but corporate welfare which is blessed by progressives.

[eyeball]

nothing but corporate welfare which is blessed by progressives.

How do you know? Were you in the room when the lobbyists and politicians got together to discuss the welfare? Do you have a record of what was said and by whom and to whom during the meetings that had to have preceded the ah blessing as you put it?

[madmax]

What do you think any "industrial strategy" is?

I think its this...

Industrial strategy generally refers to any attempt by government to apply a coherent and consistent set of policies that are designed to improve the performance of the ECONOMY.

[TimG]

Industrial strategy generally refers to any attempt by government to apply a coherent and consistent set of policies that are designed to improve the performance of the ECONOMY.

In practice it always means the government gives money to industries that the government decides it want more of.

[eyeball]

In practice it always means the government gives money to industries that the government decides it want more of.

The government gives money away, that's about all anyone knows for certain.

[Argus]

Subsidies are not really the issue. The issue is proper taxation. Corporate profits need to be taxed within Canada for operations within Canada. They can be taxed on the corporations, or on Canadian ownership, but they do need to be fully taxed. That means closing tax loopholes, especially those which allow corporations to move money abroad without being taxed on it, or to hide money in offshore tax havens. The same goes for individuals, btw.

[eyeball]

Subsidies are not really the issue. The issue is proper taxation. Corporate profits need to be taxed within Canada for operations within Canada. They can be taxed on the corporations, or on Canadian ownership, but they do need to be fully taxed. That means closing tax loopholes, especially those which allow corporations to move money abroad without being taxed on it, or to hide money in offshore tax havens. The same goes for individuals, btw.

You've still left the issue entirely within the politicians court, or their secret cozy little back room I should say.

Tax loopholes like subsidies exist because lobbyists ask for them, out of sight and earshot.