Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Sarah Palin on Carrier deal: corporate welfare the “hallmark of corruption”

Sarah Palin on Carrier deal: corporate welfare the “hallmark of corruption”

“We know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail”

President-elect Trump’s deal with Carrier to keep a thousand jobs in America is drawing fire from an unexpected source.  Former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is slamming the deal as an example of crony capitalism.

Writing at Young Conservatives, Palin explains that the government picking winners and losers is always a bad idea, even when “our guy,” the good guy does it.  She begins, though, with heartfelt good wishes for the Carrier employees who will be keeping their jobs and having a far better Christmas than they expected.

Palin writes:

When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.

Politicians picking and choosing recipients of corporate welfare is railed against by fiscal conservatives, for it’s a hallmark of corruption. And socialism. The Obama Administration dealt in it in spades. Recall Solyndra, Stimulus boondoggles, and all their other taxpayer-subsidized anchors on our economy. A $20 trillion debt-ridden country can’t afford this sinfully stupid practice, so vigilantly guard against its continuance, or we’re doomed.

Reaganites learned it is POLICY change that changes economic trajectory. Reagan’s successes were built on establishing a fiscal framework that invigorated our entire economy, revitalized growth and investment while decreasing spending, tax rates, over-reaching regulations, unemployment, and favoritism via individual subsidies. We need Reaganites in the new Administration.

However well meaning, burdensome federal government imposition is never the solution. Never. Not in our homes, not in our schools, not in churches, not in businesses.

She’s not wrong.

An early Trump supporter, Palin expresses her hope that the Trump team understands that this type of intervention is unacceptable and that the terms of the deal aren’t as concerning as she fears.

She continues:

Gotta’ have faith the Trump team knows all this. And I’ll be the first to acknowledge concerns over a deal cut by leveraging taxpayer interests to make a manufacturer stay put are unfounded – once terms are made public.

But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn’t the answer. Cajole only chosen ones on Main St or Wall St and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska full of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up. The lines strangle competition and really, really, dispiritingly screw with workers’ lives. It’s beyond unacceptable, so let’s anticipate equal incentivizes and positive reform all across the field – to make the economy great again.

Watch the report:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

People are demanding an awful lot from someone who isn’t even in office yet.

    No doubt this is much of the point of Trump having taken such action. He has raised expectations, but also, forced people to treat him like he already is President when he most certainly is not.

    This is a move Trump could make now. (Largely because it isn’t really his move, it’s the move of his vice-president elect, a sitting governor – Trump just added his own “prestige”.) All of the things Palin is talking about are things he can’t even begin to do until taking office. I’m sure he’s fine with her raising these points and Bernie Sanders raising his, and for the National Review to lose its lunch over using precious taxpayer dollars to save the jobs of a bunch of washed-up losers. (That’s not an unfair characterization of NRO today.) It makes everyone go, hey, wait, we have a new President, why can’t he do more already?

      Zachary in reply to JBourque. | December 3, 2016 at 6:17 pm

      It’s something Pence already tried but was ineffective until the pressure put on Carrier’s parent company by the president-elect made them reverse course.

    Zachary in reply to tom swift. | December 3, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    People are also applauding a lot of things he’s doing before taking office. Many are excusing anything he does and he’s not even in office yet.

    What’s your point?

    He made the move here.

Henry Hawkins | December 3, 2016 at 5:43 pm

I appreciate Palin sending this message strongly and early.

I’m confused by Palin’s complaint. After all, Alaska had one of the most convoluted corporate tax incentive programs in the entire nation, while she was Governor and still does today.

The point is that every single state in the Union has corporate incentive programs to attract and keep businesses and industries within their borders. They do this by granting tax incentives. In the Carrier case, we do not know exactly what tax incentives were granted or from what governmental entity. However, as Trump IS NOT the President, and Pence IS still the Governor of Indiana, it is much more likely that any tax incentives would come from Indiana, which had already granted them, not the US Government. So, all the hand wringing about potential crony capitalism seems to be a bit premature.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Mac45. | December 3, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Carrier is owned by United Technology. United Technology collects a huge amount of money through contracts with the federal government. Trump takes over the federal government in January. Carrier is small potatoes compared to the United Tech contracts.

    I see your point, but I think there’s a difference between the states taking action to incentivize business and the federal government doing so. The problem isn’t Carrier or Indiana, it’s UT and federal taxpayer dollars.

    However, as you and Palin note, we don’t know the specifics yet, but hand-wringing is what we do. It keeps us young.

      Let us remember what the Trump rebellion was all about. It was all about sticking a thumb into the eye of the Establishment and reclaiming this nation and its economy for the average citizen. So, along comes Trump; either swinging in on his bat-rope or surrounded by his mafia goons, a la the Godfather, which ever you prefer; and makes United Technologies [a major Establishment player] an offer that it can’t refuse. And, in the long run, it costs the people of this country virtually nothing, while paying off big benefits immediately. In other words, Trump did exactly what he was hired to do. If he had refused to do anything about Carrier leaving the country, the same people, who are criticizing him now, would still be criticizing him as being powerless to keep his promises. And, the man has not even assumed office, yet.

      Now, let’s take a close look at exactly who is complaining about this. They are all have Establishment connections. Just because a politician claims to be a “conservative” does not mean that they are not establishment pawns. Virtually all career politicians rely upon the Establishment to be elected to office and to be taken care of, through lucrative consultant jobs, when they are out of office. Does anyone here really believe that John McCain’s VP candidate would NOT be favored by the Establishment? And, why would a “conservative” be critical of a deal which saves 1000 jobs with a proven manufacturer? Especially when the “subsidy” is smaller than the amount of money wasted in foreign aid payments to the smallest countries in the world? Who does the use of this type of leverage really scare?

      It would be a really good idea to see if the sky is falling before people start screaming that it is. But, then, if the sky did not fall, people wouldn’t be scared that it would.

I wish everyone would hold their fire rather than preen for their “followers”. Trump’s intervention was sending a message that change is coming and if I he (Trump) has to get personally involved to move the needle, he will.

Palin is comparing apples and oranges. Local governments make deals to attract or keep businesses every day. That’s not “Crony Capitalism”. Soon the tax and regulatory environment will be more conducive to keeping jobs here. In the meantime Trump would rather give, or Indiana give, those incentives rather than pay unemployment, Medicaid, “Job Training”, food stamps and assorted other government give aways to 1,100 unemployed workers and their families.

Cool your jets Sarah.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to nerkbuckeye. | December 3, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    As stated above – Carrier is owned by United Technology. United Technology collects a huge amount of money through contracts with the federal government. Trump takes over the federal government in January. Carrier is small potatoes compared to the United Tech contracts.

    This is about a lot more than Carrier and an instate tax deal.

      Sure it is. That is the point. UT was free to move the Carrier operation out of the country. And, if the fact that it was moving its assets out of the country, with which it currently holds several big defense contracts as well as other government contracts ad relies upon continuing to obtain those contracts for a significant portion of its yearly income, results in losing that country’s business; well its a big world. Perhaps the Russians or China would be willing to purchase UT’s products instead. If the US can establish requirements for racial and gender quotas for government contract, why can’t it establish requirements for minimum participation in the US economy?

Where’s Rags? Oh wait, the sun is over the yard arm…

It’s not clear to me that Trump offered more than high tariffs. I understand that Indiana had already provided more than a half million in incentives to Carrier over some time period – which their legislature was already trying to claw back. And the new incentives are over a ten year period including a $16 million investment by Carrier in its factory. Not quite the same as multi-million dollar grants to companies soon to to go bankrupt, as we have seen of late. But I agree with Palin in what she says.

DieJustAsHappy | December 3, 2016 at 8:27 pm

I doesn’t necessarily disagree with her, although I think she is premature in her remarks. It’s one deal. Let’s allow the man to assume the Oval Office and go from there.

A whole lot of people are willing to stand on principle when it’s not their job going overseas.

Reported tax break / yr = $700k.

Cost of not doing it.
Average welfare pmt / family / yr = $20-40k.
1000 jobs lost x 20,000 = $20,000,000 / yr.
Lost SS income on 1000 $20/hr job = $5,000,000 / yr.

Sounds like the deal was good economics.
Add the dignity of being able to provide for your family – priceless!

The place to fight the battle over corporate welfare is in the legislature – not on the backs of guys and gals just trying to feed their families. If the only solution you have is to put people out of work, you don’t have a solution.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/heres-why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-so-important/

“But listen to what Carrier said after meeting with Trump. It said its decision was made possible “because the incoming Trump-Pence administration has emphasized to us its commitment to support the business community and create an improved, more competitive U.S. business climate.”

If that’s the message Trump is delivering to business leaders, we should all be cheering…

What’s more, if Trump succeeds in cutting business taxes, allowing companies to repatriate money parked overseas, and easing the regulatory burden on job creators — as he’s promised — he won’t have to browbeat companies into keeping jobs here, because they will already be doing that, and creating millions more.

We can hardly wait to see how Trump’s critics try to put a negative spin on that.”

Why don’t we all argue about something we don’t the details of. Oh, we are. Hillary, Stein, Palin….Are all those women that unhappy? Maybe that’s why Gen Mattis never married. A man needs a break from combat sometimes.

The inference to be drawn here, Ms. Palin now knows she will not be in the next administration.

    Heh, you’re probably right.

      Maybe. I find the whole paper a bit odd for Palin, at this time. She doesn’t actually do what the headlines indicate, scorch trump over cronyism. She simply talks about cronyism and relates it to carrier/ut. States across the country, most states I think, have been doing this a long time. I am opposed to it.

      Trump has made it clear what he is proposing, 15% corporate tax along with regulation rollback, doddfrank rollback, Obamacare rollback. That is a level playing field for everyone. And I’m not bothered in the least using the stick at some level if needed.

      So, what has Palin all bent? Beats me. There is zero evidence this was any special deal at the federal level. Curious.

None of us knows what has transpired between Trump and UT so anything we say is pure speculation. However, Palin making statements as if she knows is signalling the end of her fame as a winner or endorser of winners. She is doing what every major newspaper and TV network are doing, in a very negative way, and projecting as to what Trump is going to do. This would be a great time for all of them and us to discuss things that we know for fact and things that we wish for in the future. But to argue about the unknown is a waste of time.

She sounds like the old Sarah.

Palin has bought into the Left’s narrative that everything we own and everything we earn belongs to the State unless the State decides not to confiscate it. Only by that logic can reducing taxes–taking less of what we own and what we earn–be considered “welfare”. It’s doubly wrong here because corporate earnings are taxed twice–once when the corporation earns them, and again when they pay them out as dividends. There are no taxpayer dollars being given away here, there are taxpayer dollars not being confiscated.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend