Skip to comments.A Tale of Two Conservatives
Posted on 06/18/2012 12:20:05 PM PDT by CDB
One test for economic conservatives is whether they are willing to oppose constituent business interests looking for government favoritism. On that score, two recent contrasting votes by Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida are instructive.
The political habit of favoring big business is bipartisan, as the sugar and Ex-Im Bank votes show. If Republicans want the political credibility to reform middle-class entitlements, they had better be prepared to eliminate corporate welfare too. Kudos to Mr. DeMint for understanding this.
(Excerpt) Read more at professional.wsj.com ...
It dismays me to hear someone adopt the title created by the left to advance what they think is Conservatism.
Who benefits from corporate welfare? Isn’t it share holders in the long run? Of course it is.
So what we’re talking about here, is fixing middle class entitlements, and then killing their stock and mutual fund income as well.
Wow. Lets hear it for Conservatism (this type)... NOT!
This isn’t Conservatism. It’s open season on the middle class.
Since when are welfare queens part of the middle-class? I’ll bet this doesn’t involve them at all either.
The economic conservative/social liberal a mythical beast that will ALWAYS err on the side of liberalism.
How are Solyndra shareholders doing?
That’s a fair question. I don’t consider what was done with Solyndra to be your typical Corporate welfare though.
The loan guarantees or whatever Solyndra actually got, couldn’t be justified on any level.
The business plan couldn’t have been sustained. We gave them money anyway.
In the long run everybody loses when the government plays favorites, as it does with the Export-Import Bank (the subject of the article). The term "corporate welfare" may be abused by the Left, but it has a meaningful referent and in its true incarnations should indeed be opposed by conservatives.
Corporate Welfare isn’t about tax abatements or “pay-for-play” schemes. It is about more or less ^regulation^ in each specific sector.
Less regulation is a conservative value, exchanging money and political favors with the party in power is not.
The term "corporate welfare" is, indeed, misused. Often the left refers to common tax deductions as "corporate welfare" which is, of course, dishonest.
But the Export-Import Bank is government-sponsored welfare for corporations which should be taking on the risk of selling on their own.
Later in the article, we learn of Rubio's helping to maintain the sugar import quotas which keep a few well-connected Floridians in the sugar cane business and cost American citizens (and that includes middle-class citizens) some $3 billion a year in higher sugar costs as well as lost candy-production jobs to Mexico.
Try not to let your dislike of the term "corporate welfare" [and I understand your complaint that it originated on the left] blind you to inappropriate government favoritism to certain companies using our money.
Expecting a Florida Senator to vote against them ... well, it's not gonna happen.
Too bad so many "conservatives" don't understand that simple fact.
25 years ago, we had Ronald Reagan, Johnny Cash, and Bob Hope.
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
As a Conservative, I agree that there are government abuses, as they relate to corporations. I just want reasoned heads to prevail when it comes to addressing what the left thinks of as abuses.