Latest Bipartisan Support for Corporate Welfare.

[RaleighDevil]

Here I was thinking that one party was against these handouts.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/repu...s-to-save-corporate-welfare-again/#more-49026

From the Hill:

The largest spending cut proposal came from Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), which would have eliminated the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account at the Department of Energy and used the $1.45 billion in savings toward deficit reduction. Like other Republicans, McClintock argued that this account needlessly spends money on questionable private investments that have not led to any measurable returns. But the House rejected McClintock’s amendment in a 113-275 vote, in which 113 Republicans voted for it but 107 Republicans joined every Democrat in opposition. ...

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) proposed ending all nuclear energy research subsidies to private companies, which would have saved $514 million and used that money to lower the deficit. But the House rejected that amendment in a 106-281 vote that divided Republicans 91-134. McClintock also proposed language cutting fossil energy research subsidies, which would have saved $554 million. But the House killed that amendment 138-249, as Republicans split again 102-123.

From Cato:

Update: Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense alerted me to an amendment introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and McClintock that would have shut down the Department of Energy’s Title 17 loan guarantee program. That’s the program that gave us Solyndra. The amendment failed 136-282 with 127 Republicans joining 155 Democrats to defeat the amendment. That the Republican-led House couldn’t get rid of the program that begot Solyndra is about as low as it gets.

 

[PhDeac]

Which party? Support from both depends on which corporate you're talking about.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

interesting to say the least. I wonder how the Tea Party Pubs voted.

 

[RJKarl]

They shouldn't shut it down. A vast majority of the investments are paying off. Solyndra (whose loan process was started in 2007/08) was less than 2% of the program.

There are going to be winners and losers. That's the way it always has been. That's the way it always will be.

 

[WFFaithful]

While I generally oppose corporate welfare, I am very much in favor of this country spending more money on research.

 

[RJKarl]

As Faithful says, this has nothing to do with corporate welfare. It's about R&D which our government has funded for over a century.

 

[PhDeac]

While I generally oppose corporate welfare, I am very much in favor of this country spending more money on research.

Agreed. We can't just wait for rich folks to think something is profitable before moving forward. By the time, something is profitable, it may be too late. Heck, people are still trying to figure out how to make a profit with the internet but nobody would argue that it was a waste of government money.

 

[RaleighDevil]

I believe in the market. Others here believe in the government picking who is worthy of backing. We have a clear difference.

 

[TR1982]

Agreed. We can't just wait for rich folks to think something is profitable before moving forward. By the time, something is profitable, it may be too late. Heck, people are still trying to figure out how to make a profit with the internet but nobody would argue that it was a waste of government money.

:wtf:

The Internet has been utilized for probably hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of profit since its inception.

 

[PhDeac]

It took a good 15-20 years after inception for that to come to fruition, primarily from using the internet as a middleman to conduct old school business. And it's still a struggle as we see anytime an internet based company goes public. Attempts to make quick money off it from the private sector would have led to a less open environment for utilizing the internet. No one entity owns the internet. That's a good thing that wouldn't be possible from the private sector.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

While I generally oppose corporate welfare, I am very much in favor of this country spending more money on research.

In other words...you oppose corporate welfare unless the welfare is going to a corporation you support.

 

[WFFaithful]

In other words...you oppose corporate welfare unless the welfare is going to a corporation you support.

No, I just think that research is important for securing the future economic stability of our country. Most companies do some sort of research.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

So you supporte corporate welfare to most companies? Howabout we just kill the corporate income tax altogether and call it a "research subsidy"?

 

[bym051d]

interesting to say the least. I wonder how the Tea Party Pubs voted.

Keep your government hands out of my medicare!

 

[RaleighDevil]

Senate refuses to begin phase out of sugar supports and subsidies.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/big-sugar-wins-in-the-senate/

The big losers from federal sugar programs are U.S. consumers. The Government Accountability Office estimates that U.S. sugar policies cost American consumers about $1.9 billion annually. At the same time, sugar policies have allowed a small group of sugar growers to become wealthy because supply restrictions have given them monopoly power. The GAO found that 42 percent of all sugar subsidies go to just 1 percent of sugar growers. To protect their monopolies, many sugar growers, such as the Fanjul family of Florida, have become influential campaign supporters of many key members of Congress.

U.S. food industries that buy sugar are harmed by current sugar policies as well. The employment in U.S. sugar growing is 61,000, which compares to employment in U.S. businesses that use sugar of 988,000. Thus, one small industry benefits from current sugar regulations, while industries that are more than 10 times larger are damaged…

Another problem is the environmental damage caused by U.S. sugar policies. Large areas of the Florida Everglades have been converted to cane sugar production because of artificially high sugar prices. These wetlands have been greatly damaged by land drainage, habitat destruction, and the phosphorous in fertilizers used by sugar farmers.

...

Of the 48 Democratic senators who voted, 32 voted to kill the amendment. And here I thought Democrats were supposed to be concerned about the environment and creating jobs. The Republican side did better with “only” 16 out of 46 voting to kill the amendment. Of note, Marco Rubio (R-FL), a tea party favorite and potential running mate for Mitt Romney, was one of the 16. An obvious sop to the powerful Florida sugar lobby, Rubio’s vote in favor of maintaining the federal government’s Soviet-style sugar racket is an all-too-common example of a politician choosing parochialism over principle.

 

[WFFaithful]

That's the reason sodas are sweetened with corn syrup.

 

[RaleighDevil]

This is not the classical definition of corporate welfare, but it will do. Note that the expansion of the state fund was facilitated by a Republican governor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...ny_duped_rhode_island_out_of_75_million_.html

If you asked me to loan $75 million to a would-be video game entrepreneur with no experience programming computers or running a business, I’d tell you to take a hike. But I’m not a New England sports fan being hit up by Red Sox pitching legend Curt Schilling. That said, even the good people of Massachusetts weren’t willing to go for Schilling’s idea. Instead, the Rhode Island State Legislature ponied up $75 million to Schilling’s 38 Studios, and now that the company’s officially declared bankruptcy, the Ocean State and its residents are left holding the bag. ...

Having struck out with Wall Street and Boston-area venture capitalists, he turned to the Massachusetts State Legislature and was turned down. You would think that the fact that even Boston VCs and even the Massachusetts government rejected a Red Sox legend’s request would signal that his company was a poor investment. But not, apparently, to the desperate little-brother Red Sox fans of Rhode Island. Schilling found a more receptive ear in the form of Republican Gov. Don Carcieri. The only sticking point was that Schilling wanted $75 million, which the state’s $50 million fund couldn’t accommodate. That problem was solved by expanding the total size of the fund to $125 million, thus allowing the original plan to go forward and also for Schilling to get his money.

 

[WFFaithful]

This is not the classical definition of corporate welfare, but it will do. Note that the expansion of the state fund was facilitated by a Republican governor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...ny_duped_rhode_island_out_of_75_million_.html

If you asked me to loan $75 million to a would-be video game entrepreneur with no experience programming computers or running a business, I’d tell you to take a hike. But I’m not a New England sports fan being hit up by Red Sox pitching legend Curt Schilling. That said, even the good people of Massachusetts weren’t willing to go for Schilling’s idea. Instead, the Rhode Island State Legislature ponied up $75 million to Schilling’s 38 Studios, and now that the company’s officially declared bankruptcy, the Ocean State and its residents are left holding the bag. ...

Having struck out with Wall Street and Boston-area venture capitalists, he turned to the Massachusetts State Legislature and was turned down. You would think that the fact that even Boston VCs and even the Massachusetts government rejected a Red Sox legend’s request would signal that his company was a poor investment. But not, apparently, to the desperate little-brother Red Sox fans of Rhode Island. Schilling found a more receptive ear in the form of Republican Gov. Don Carcieri. The only sticking point was that Schilling wanted $75 million, which the state’s $50 million fund couldn’t accommodate. That problem was solved by expanding the total size of the fund to $125 million, thus allowing the original plan to go forward and also for Schilling to get his money.

That's extremely shady.

 

[PhDeac]

What's even shadier is that they closed up 3 months after they released a game that from what I've read sold pretty well and got solid reviews. And there was a lot of hype for an upcoming game. Seems like they would be on decent footing if not for mismanagement or perhaps fraud on the inside.