Citizen Action to Stop Gov't Welfare!

[wkmac]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022245.html

 

[av8torntn]

Now if there were only a way to get him to file those same types of lawsuits against government welfare for private citizens. Oh well never mind. I just can't help but wonder why they dont go after the big fish. I would guess they could save the state more money by going after something like state funded health care. Oh I get it now business is evil.

 

[wkmac]

In June, 1999', Stephen Moore, Fiscal Policy Director for the Cato Institute (not exactly a liberal/socialism organization) testified before the House Budget Committee concerning the topic of Corp. Welfare. I go back nearly 10 years because IMO it's an interesting exercise when having the advantage of then looking forward through those 10 years since and just the actions of gov't as it pertains to Mr. Moore's ideas.

Here are some highlighted comments from Mr. Moore's testimony.

I have divided my testimony on corporate welfare into 7 observations about the economic and political state of affairs regarding corporate welfare. Then at the end of my testimony I provide 6 recommendations regarding how Congress can reduce the size of the corporate welfare state.

1) Corporate welfare is a large and growing component of the federal budget. America's most costly welfare recipients today are Fortune 500 companies.

2) Almost all of the most egregious subsidies are in the forms of federal expenditures, not tax loopholes. If Congress is serious about weaning businesses from federal subsidies, it should concentrate on eliminating the Departments of Commerce and Energy, the Export Import Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, farm subsidies, and OPIC.


3) Many Fortune 500 companies are double and triple dippers. All but a small handful of America's most profitable corporations have participated in the hunt for federal or state government subsidies. Most of these companies are double-, triple-, and quadruple-dipping.


4) There are no time limits for corporate welfare benefits. In the mid-1990s Congress and the states--at the urging of the American people--enacted major reforms in social welfare programs. There are now time limits on welfare benefits. Work, training, or education is now typically required in exchange for benefits. The result: welfare rolls are down by 40 percent over the past five years and record levels of former-recipients now working and paying taxes, not collecting them.

5) If all corporate welfare were eliminated, the savings would be large enough to entirely eliminate the capital gains tax or the death tax. continuing Table 3 below shows a sample of the types of pro-growth tax reduction initiatives that Congress could afford to undertake without adding a penny to the federal debt, if corporate welfare were entirely ended.

* We could cut the personal income tax, the corporate income tax, or the payroll tax.
* We could entirely abolish the capital gains tax or the death tax.
* We could help finance a flat tax at a rate of 20 percent for all Americans.


6) Corporate welfare corrupts the political process.


7) Corporate welfare reduces American competitiveness. Business subsidies, which are often said to be justified because they correct distortions in the marketplace, create huge market distortions of their own.


http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm063099.html

From 2007'

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

 

[av8torntn]

* We could entirely abolish the capital gains tax or the death tax.

That would be a tax cut for the "rich" and we never abolish a tax for the "rich". Since your initial post was on a state level I still say if this guy were concerned about the citizens of his state wasting tax money they should look at personal welfare first to save the big money.

Your article said the state of NY spends 1 billion a year on corp. welfare. Here is the state budget. If you want to make a difference for your tax payers what line could you eliminate to make a real difference.

http://www.budget.state.ny.us/cashData/allFunds/index.html


OK since this is the largest line this is what I would do if I cared.

Health and Social Welfare


This is likely the real number for his corp. welfare for the state of NY.

1,484,690

 

[av8torntn]

Not sure why you wanted to bring up Cato but since you did here goes.

"Overall, the amount the system has promised beyond what it can actually pay now totals $15.3 trillion."

Hmm which welfare system is this? This could be the real problem. I know before you say it I must just hate old people or something. Since you switched to the Federal government I still say as I have before that this is the largest challenge we as a nation face. You people complain about a mythical loss of freedom because the central government is listening to phone calls from known terrorists during a time of war but not about the loss on a very large scale of your economic freedoms. You people complain about one billion dollars the people of NY give to corporations (that is not even in the budget so it leads me to believe this is also a myth) but I suppose if we have a problem with the trillions spent on welfare through the SSA we must have a problem with old people. Anyhow here is one of many articles from Cato on this.


http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9267

 

[wkmac]

AV,

Here's the bottomline with me, I'm against ALL forms of wealth redistribution. I'm against taking my or anyone's tax dollars under complusion or force and then transferring the fruit of my labor to someone else who did not earn, no matter what the cause or reason.

The word socialism is tossed about in our society like a ball on a school playground and we give little thought to one of the core principles of the term. Our only desire is to make sure we hit the other kid while being sucessful with the dodge ourselves so that we don't get hit. So much for the name calling among us!


No matter where I looked or at what definition, the one common denominator of socialism was the distribution of wealth by the State for the benefit of the state. Soialism is also not an exclusive left idealology either as the Mussolini model known as Fascism uses the power of the State in alliance with the private corp. world to build a grander society. Right Socailism if you will. Some call it corporatism whch is valid but if you study feudalism some, it's very much a type of Neo-Feudalism IMO and thus one of the reasons you see me use the term merchantilism. I use this to distinguish us outside a Free Market which we are not.


Going back to that core denominator of socialism is wealth re-distribution, read and think about that statement and you sit there and tell me that taking my tax dollars from me, the fruits of my labor and in fact MY PROPERTY, and giving it to Bass Pro Shops or Debo's Hardware is not different than taking my tax dollars and giving it to Sally or Chuck or whoever in the form of public assistance welfare payments. It's still wealth re-distribution and the ultimate benefactor in this scheme is the State.


As for filing in New York. It would appear they have found something in various State Constitutions, in this case the 1846' NY Constitution, that gives them some type of legal leverage. Other States may hold similar footing. This is not new ground as Kennesaw Ga. used the Georgia Constitution to cement it's city ordiance on requiring gun ownership.

As for using Cato, I used it for you. You claimed earlier to be some type of libertarian and I thought Cato was probably a fit somewhere in that framework. Some common ground if you will. They do to an extent support the current mideast policy so there's some common ground.

Besides, I didn't think you were ready for Rothbard, Hayek or Russell Kirk!


Not sure where you are but it's HOT here so be cool!

 

[av8torntn]

AV,

Here's the bottomline with me, I'm against ALL forms of wealth redistribution. I'm against taking my or anyone's tax dollars under complusion or force and then transferring the fruit of my labor to someone else who did not earn, no matter what the cause or reason.

OK, but that is not what this suit is about as far as I can tell. He claims one billion dollars but that number did not even make the state budget. Now that leads me to believe that what you are really against is the government giving property tax freezes and and tax rebates to companies (this and the living wage incentives come closer to his one billion dollar number). I support anyones taxes being reduced (not EIC a separate issue) and this is where we all seem to part ways. I am now guessing from your words above and in the rest of this thread you really are only against wealth redistribution when it comes to you but not when it comes to others. This really appears to me that someone is attacking tax cuts and slapping the label of corporate welfare. As I said before if this guy wanted to attack welfare or wealth redistribution he should go after one of the big dogs and really make an impact. I would be against the state giving money to any companies. I am also against stupid things like the minimum wage or the popular thing now the living wage and payments to companies that the state requires to follow these things. I always support tax cuts of all types property, income, payroll, storage, and several others that slip my mind at the moment. I wish someone would find a way to fight things on the federal level like the SSA and Medicare.I also wish the Federal government would find a way to reduce the huge burden of the taxes some of our largest companies have to pay.

 

[wkmac]

AV,
I just don't see this in the same way as you do. That's a Shocker!
I also understand the website that posted this info is devoted to Austrian Economics principles espoused by Ludwig Von Mises and anarcho-capitialist/liberterian ideals as proposed by men like Rothbard, Hoppe, etc. that are opposed to large collective gov't of any type and opposed to all forms of compulsary gov't welfare or taxation and that the lawyer involved also believes along these lines of principle. That said:

Bottom line, this country went 150 plus years without direct taxation ie income tax and nearly if not a bit more without either public welfare or what is known as corporate welfare. Let me also say that the corp. welfare has been around much longer but it wasn't as overt as it has become over the last 50 years as public welfare exploded on the scene. You might also consider that point and connection sometime.

I've come to believe you are as big a socialist (although from a right perspective) as some of you claim towards the left and therefore you violate the core principle of laissez-faire, free market economics with your own form of gov't market intervention, a type of Mussolini/Gentile hybrid if you will. At the same time, just as the left would loadshift the tax burden onto a segment of society in order to drive an economic outcome in total violation of Laissez-faire principles, you do just the same in your own way. It's almost a Hegelian Dilectic reaction to the action of the left socialist. An antithesis which brings about the Hegelian synthesis which is greater gov't. Either way, the free individual loses.

Sorry, but in my book, that is the mark of a socialist. Instead of fighting the system to eliminate the whole filthy process, you've joined the team which either way, the Super State wins at the end of the day.

I'm sure no matter what I say or how much I present, you will not depart from your God-State so I'll just leave it at that and I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.


Gee, what a Shocker!

 

[av8torntn]

AV,

I've come to believe you are as big a socialist (although from a right perspective) as some of you claim towards the left and therefore you violate the core principle of laissez-faire, free market economics with your own form of gov't market intervention, a type of Mussolini/Gentile hybrid if you will. At the same time, just as the left would loadshift the tax burden onto a segment of society in order to drive an economic outcome in total violation of Laissez-faire principles, you do just the same in your own way. It's almost a Hegelian Dilectic reaction to the action of the left socialist. An antithesis which brings about the Hegelian synthesis which is greater gov't. Either way, the free individual loses.

You have made the accusation now feel free to explain how I would chose to have a tax burden or for that matter shift one to any segment. What government market intervention do I now supposedly support? You and Diesel both seem to think that we should have a smaller government with less regulation and intrusion on our life just as long as it does not affect you. Why not go after the big dogs of government programs first? Yes I would like to have a free market economy.Yes I have a pretty good idea what that means. No I do not think we should have this progressive income tax for more reasons than the we just survived without it for x number of years. The main reason is that it allows the government for to much control of your life. A secondary reason is that it punishes its citizens for being successful. All that said I still do not see how it is welfare for a state or local government to freeze a property tax rate to have them expand in their area. I am all for someone, anyone paying lower taxes. I am sure you have a history lesson ready for me to explain how since I believe that we should have a small central government with little or no tax burden on its citizens means that I believe in socialism. Oh I know better than to ask but the curiosity has gotten the best of me today.

 

[av8torntn]

AV,
I just don't see this in the same way as you do. That's a Shocker!

Hey, I posted a link to the state budget did you see the one billion dollar expense for corporate welfare? It is very possible that I overlooked it.

 

[wkmac]

If you want specific names and amounts, look at the complaint on page 5 under Factual Allegations.

http://jimostrowski.com/docs/Bordeleau%20Petition.pdf

In a court of law, this complaint must be sworn too and must be backed up by evidence to prove those factual allegations made in the complaint.

No matter how you cut it AV, you are a socialist who wants to tax me or whoever and then transfer that wealth to someone else who did not earn or labor to create that wealth in the first place. No matter what the excuse, even if for righteous or noble reasons, it's still socialism. It's wealth re-distribution. If you cut someone's taxes while not cutting others equally or don't cut spending or direct services to the recepient of the tax cut in order to pay for the cut, then it's either welfare or you are tampering with market forces in order to drive a false outcome for your own purpose. That's fraud. You are the snakeoil salesman pandering a false product under the guise it will cure cancer.

Either way, it's still socialism.

If this makes me out to only think of myself then so be it, think what you want.

 

[av8torntn]

No matter how you cut it AV, you are a socialist who wants to tax me or whoever and then transfer that wealth to someone else who did not earn or labor to create that wealth in the first place.

I suppose no matter how you cut it that would still be untrue. I have never been or never will be an advocate for the government to create wealth in a first place or a second place. I have always been and probably always will be an advocate for the government to get out of my way so that I may create my own wealth. What you seem to be is a populist. Business is bad so let's tax them more. Wah Wah Wah. I'm not even sure why you have a problem with the chamber of commerce. I myself do not even know what they do. I have no idea why they even exist. As I have said many times if you and Diesel really had a problem with big government you guys would be going after big targets.

I re read your lawsuit and see where their proof is that they feel like the government is giving away money even though it is not in the budget. That is why I missed it in the budget they left out the line item for I feel like this is a grant.

 

[tieguy]

AV,

Here's the bottomline with me, I'm against ALL forms of wealth redistribution. I'm against taking my or anyone's tax dollars under complusion or force and then transferring the fruit of my labor to someone else who did not earn, no matter what the cause or reason.

Does this also mean you do not support any charities?

 

[wkmac]

AV & Tie,

I'll just let Col. Davy Crockett answer you both. From the book, "Life of Col. David Crockett", published 1884', we find the following account.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html


Here is a couple of exerts more to the point at hand and also the book is available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Col. Crockett speaking before the house:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."​

What caused such a principled stand by Crockett?

The words of a wise farmer:

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."
Col. Crockett's response:​

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."​

Gentlemen, I leave this with you as my final response. Do with it as you please!​

 

[moreluck]

for us common folk.....

sock·dol·a·ger Variant(s): or sock·dol·o·ger \säk-ˈdä-li-jər\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1830

1 : something that settles a matter : a decisive blow or answer : finisher 2 : something outstanding or exceptional

 

[av8torntn]

AV & Tie,

I'll just let Col. Davy Crockett answer you both. From the book, "Life of Col. David Crockett", published 1884', we find the following account.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html


Here is a couple of exerts more to the point at hand and also the book is available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Col. Crockett speaking before the house:



What caused such a principled stand by Crockett?

The words of a wise farmer:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Col. Crockett's response:​

Gentlemen, I leave this with you as my final response. Do with it as you please!​

[/FONT]

Not sure what this has to do with some guy that feels like the state of NY gave away money to a business in the amount of one billion dollars even though it is not in their budget but OK. Maybe old Crokett had the feeling that the state of NY would one day give some money to some company called Bass Pro shops. It only took a few posts to go from point A (some nut filing a lawsuit in state court claiming a will to do something about welfare) to I'm a socialist for saying if this guy wanted to do something about state welfare he could go after much larger targets, to point C that Davey Crokett was a good guy. But OK whatever.

 

[tieguy]

AV & Tie,

I'll just let Col. Davy Crockett answer you both. From the book, "Life of Col. David Crockett", published 1884', we find the following account.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html



Here is a couple of exerts more to the point at hand and also the book is available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Col. Crockett speaking before the house:



What caused such a principled stand by Crockett?

The words of a wise farmer:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Col. Crockett's response:[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]​

Gentlemen, I leave this with you as my final response. Do with it as you please!​

[/FONT]

could have been a yes or no answer instead I get what Davy crockett would have done...only davy ain't doing much of anything these days. Thirty more paragraphs of crap where a yes or no would have done.