I find one argument that Republicans like to point is that welfare is inherently evil and robs the individual of dignity and personal responsibility. But the same Republican often supports Corporate Welfare in the form of tax shelters, offshore accounts, subsidies, special considerations, etc, etc.
Which do you think is more damaging to our society? Individual or corporate welfare? How is it the party of "personal repsonsibility" supports and encourages "corporate dependence" on government?
I'm thinking that 90% of what gets called "corporate welfare" come in the form of tax credits. You do this or that, engage in this research, open a plant in that state, etc, and your tax rate will go from n% to n%-x for a certain time.
That's different than getting a check in the mail. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's similar too, but there are sufficient differences in my mind to consider the things not the same.
"Corporate Welfare" encourages certain productive behavior (Ford's research on potential customers of hybrid vehicles said there were not enough of them to justify production, until the govt came up with their hybrid tax credit.) Individual welfare encourages the exact opposite (I keep getting my money as long as I do NOT solve the problem).
This topic always gets me going. On the one hand I am against corporate welfare but on the other I can see reasons that a government may want to encourage a particular behavior or industry for reasons of the long term good of the country or even national security. The Europeans are the kings of corporate welfare. Encouraging companies to develop alternative fuels or vehicle technologies could easilly be used as tools for national defense as we become less dependent on countries that want to do us harm.
An easy target for many has been farm subsidies. Why should farmers get money to grow a certain crop or get help with water. The argument goes that if our farmers can not compete then perhaps we should not be farming. As a farmer even I can see a logical argument here but....what happens when a country goes from being a net exporter of food and fiber to a net importer. The same thing we are seeing today in the oil market via high prices, supply problems, and money going to people who are not our friends which they use to buy weapons. We can become subject to countries that do not like us and they can use the price and supply of fuel as a weapon against us. The Europeans heavilly subsidize farming in there countries, much more than is done in the U.S. Why, because those countries had starving populations at one time. They don't want to lose an industry that could mean their future survival. During the great depression farmers in this country dumped their milk and killed their own livestock because they could not make enough selling the products to cover the costs. All this while people were standing in bread lines.
Once you pave over a farm and turn it into a parking lot it will never be a farm again. Even if you wanted to change it back to farmland it would take almost a generation to get the same yield out of that piece of ground especially if permanent crops such as trees or vines are planted. Thus there are property tax breaks for farm ground to encourage it to stay farm ground. More government welfare.
Competition wise, it is not a level playing field. In European countries we find that many farmers recieve over half their income through government subsidies. Other countries allow farmers to use techniques and methods which are illegal for environmental reasons or the welfare of farm workers. These banned US methods may increase costs significantly for farmers in this country. Did you know that farmers in Mexico still use DDT? A pesticide banned for many, many years in the U.S. Many countries also do not require their farmers to provide things such as overtime pay, workmans compensation, permits, liabillity insurance, or pay fuel surcharges, sales taxes, etc nor do they specify a minimum wage the employee must be paid. It is not a level playing field.
I find that many people are all for eliminating corporate welfare as long as it is not their own welfare. The guy who is gung ho to eliminate farm subsidies or tax breaks for car companies doing research will scream bloody murder if you threaten to eliminate his deduction for interest on his mortgage. Hey folks, welfare is welfare. What about affordable rural phone service? Ready to pay 10 times more for your phone bill? Government welfare made rural phone access possible. What about paying 10 to 100 times more for the water that comes out of your tap. It was government welfare that helped build the Army Corp dams that allows for water storage. Not everyone needs a dam for their cities water needs. Maybe you should move to somewhere with a cheaper means of delivering water to your home.
