Posts

“We celebrate success.” Absolutely! But…..


Last night Mitt Romney said, “In America, we celebrate success, we don’t apologize for success.”

I’m down with that. It is absolutely true.

However, the problem arises when “success” is achieved via corporate welfare, corporatist protectionism and political favors to the politically connected.

That’s not real success. That is theft.

That is what, I think, the Occupy people are pointing out. They fail, however, when they concluded that EVERYBODY should get government favors. The answer, of course, is that the government should stay the hell out of the favor granting business.


It is true.

It
happened yesterday, in Denver. Six applicants begged the state for millions of dollars. The role of king is now played by the Colorado Economic Development Commission, a political board filled with political appointees by politicians. This board has the power to dole out millions of dollars. This largesse is ostensibly for local governments, but the money will end up with private contractors and other private companies.

For example, the city of Aurora seeks a state indulgence worth $123.8 million. The city is asking on behalf of Gaylord Entertainment Company, a private company with a market capitalization of $1.4 billion. Gaylord wants to build a huge, fancy hotel in Aurora, but will not do it without the government gift.

The theory behind this "Economic Development" is that tax breaks encourage business growth. Of course, that is absolutely true. But why do only those with the means and desire to scrape and bow and beg before the state board qualify? Why do politically connected applicants have to justify their business plan to a political board of political appointees? Why does Gaylord have the backing of the Aurora City Council for its massive project, but the mom and pop dry cleaner gets no support for any "economic development" of its business?

Because mom and pop do not have a "government relations" department. Because mom and pop do not have and can not afford a lobbyist. Because mom and pop do not have the time to put together a fancy power-point presentation for a group of politically connected appointees. Because mom and pop are too busy working. Because mom and pop are busting their butts earning money and not standing in line for a government gift.

Statists like to justify state action like this in the name of "fairness" and "equity." There is nothing fair or equitable about the king's whims.


BlueCarp

<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4099162-3575143914250423318?l=www.bluecarp.com' alt='' [...] '>

“I beg your indulgence, my liege.”

The subjects line up, waiting their chance at a meeting with the king. Each has a desire. Each hopes the king will be moved by his presentation and deign to grant his wish. No one can be sure what moves the king. Oftentimes  he seems moved by mere whim. But the subjects know if they do not ask, they have no chance. So they line up, they bow and scrape, and they beg.

It is a good thing such foolishness is a thing of the past.

What? It isn’t? You mean this still goes on?

It is true.

It happened yesterday, in Denver. Six applicants begged the state for millions of dollars. The role of king is now played by the Colorado Economic Development Commission, a political board filled with political appointees by politicians. This board has the power to dole out millions of dollars. This largesse is ostensibly for local governments, but the money will end up with private contractors and other private companies.

For example, the city of Aurora seeks a state indulgence worth $123.8 million. The city is asking on behalf of Gaylord Entertainment Company, a private company with a market capitalization of $1.4 billion. Gaylord wants to build a huge, fancy hotel in Aurora, but will not do it without the government gift.

The theory behind this “Economic Development” is that tax breaks encourage business growth. Of course, that is absolutely true. But why do only those with the means and desire to scrape and bow and beg before the state board qualify? Why do politically connected applicants have to justify their business plan to a political board of political appointees? Why does Gaylord have the backing of the Aurora City Council for its massive project, but the mom and pop dry cleaner gets no support for any “economic development” of its business?

Because mom and pop do not have a “government relations” department. Because mom and pop do not have and can not afford a lobbyist. Because mom and pop do not have the time to put together a fancy power-point presentation for a group of politically connected appointees. Because mom and pop are too busy working. Because mom and pop are busting their butts earning money and not standing in line for a government gift.

Statists like to justify state action like this in the name of “fairness” and “equity.” There is nothing fair or equitable about the king’s whims.

BlueCarp

<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4099162-4798149206686428972?l=www.bluecarp.com' alt='' [...] '>

Economic Development: Letting the politically connected feed at the public trough.

Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard describes the Colorado Economic Development Commission as “doling out grants under a law intended to bring new visitors to the state.”

In other words, the Commission will be giving public money to people, whom in the exercise of its considerable discretion, it deems worthy. More simply, they give free money to people they like.

And people wonder why corruption in government exists? “Economic Development” is code for  “corporate welfare.” It is corporatism. It enables the rich and politically connected to feed at the public trough.

The corporatists have succeeded so well they have people lining up to defend this nonsense. “It’s good for the economy!” they say. No, it’s good for the guy with his name on the check drawn from the public treasury. He can buy another boat with it.  With your money. And he ain’t gonna ask you to go water skiing with him, either.

Of corporate jets & corporate welfare: The Gaylord Hotel in Aurora

David K. Williams, Jr.

I need a little help understanding something. This, as those of you that know me personally can attest, is not unusual. Let me lay it out:

  1. President Barack Obama decries tax breaks on corporate jets because companies that can afford corporate jets need to pay MORE taxes and not get tax breaks.
  2. The City of Aurora is going to give Gaylord Hotels hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks because they need to pay FEWER taxes.
  3. Gaylord Hotels owns a corporate jet.

In fact, Gaylord Hotels CEO Colin V. Reed, just two years ago, was criticized by a major shareholder “for excessive corporate waste” involving use of the jet.

According to the New York Times, Texas billionaire and 15% owner of Gaylord Hotels, Robert Rowling, wrote a letter to all Gaylord shareholders complaining of

Mr. Reed’s use of the company’s $15 million Gulfsteam G150 private jet, which has been used 36 times to fly back and forth between Florida and Mississippi over the last two years, according to flight logs provided by the company.

(See “2 Tycoons in a Tiff Over Flights on a Corporate Jet.”)


This begs the question of why anyone would think giving millions of public dollars to a company when its private investors complain of excessive corporate waste is a good idea, but I shall leave that for another time.


I need some help on the larger policy question: If giving tax breaks to Gaylord for its corporate jet is bad government policy, how is handing Gaylord $300 million in tax breaks good government policy?


I do not have a Ph.D. in anything (not even an honorary one, and even Mike Tyson has one of those), so I am clearly not smart or educated enough to understand how the government letting a company keep money is bad but the government giving them money is good.


I know this is crazy talk, but how about this?


  • Have one set of rules for all companies. None of them get tax breaks that the rest do not also get. None of them get any subsidy that all the rest do not get.


Of course, this would stop politicians from being able to give out favors to certain corporations and industries at the expense of others.


Perhaps I understand it after all.

Of corporate jets & corporate welfare: The Gaylord Hotel in Aurora

David K. Williams, Jr.

I need a little help understanding something. This, as those of you that know me personally can attest, is not unusual. Let me lay it out:

  1. President Barack Obama decries tax breaks on corporate jets because companies that can afford corporate jets need to pay MORE taxes and not get tax breaks.
  2. The City of Aurora is going to give Gaylord Hotels hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks because they need to pay FEWER taxes.
  3. Gaylord Hotels owns a corporate jet.

In fact, Gaylord Hotels CEO Colin V. Reed, just two years ago, was criticized by a major shareholder “for excessive corporate waste” involving use of the jet.

According to the New York Times, Texas billionaire and 15% owner of Gaylord Hotels, Robert Rowling, wrote a letter to all Gaylord shareholders complaining of

Mr. Reed’s use of the company’s $15 million Gulfsteam G150 private jet, which has been used 36 times to fly back and forth between Florida and Mississippi over the last two years, according to flight logs provided by the company.

(See “2 Tycoons in a Tiff Over Flights on a Corporate Jet.”)


This begs the question of why anyone would think giving millions of public dollars to a company when its private investors complain of excessive corporate waste is a good idea, but I shall leave that for another time.


I need some help on the larger policy question: If giving tax breaks to Gaylord for its corporate jet is bad government policy, how is handing Gaylord $300 million in tax breaks good government policy?


I do not have a Ph.D. in anything (not even an honorary one, and even Mike Tyson has one of those), so I am clearly not smart or educated enough to understand how the government letting a company keep money is bad but the government giving them money is good.


I know this is crazy talk, but how about this?


  • Have one set of rules for all companies. None of them get tax breaks that the rest do not also get. None of them get any subsidy that all the rest do not get.


Of course, this would stop politicians from being able to give out favors to certain corporations and industries at the expense of others.


Perhaps I understand it after all.
" from the Denver Post and "Fix I-70 Day" on the Huffington Post.

Some of the suggestions to fix the problem are highlighted in these two articles.

All of them cost millions and millions (and millions) of dollars. Let us cut right to the chase... the ski chase, that is. Here is a crazy idea: make those that profit off the use of the public highways pay for their expansion.

If the Summit County resorts, and those farther west like Vail and Beaver Creek, want better access to their services, they should pay for that improved access. There is no good reason that the taxpayers of Colorado pay to improve the bottom line of private business.

Why should a family in Pueblo that does not ski pay to help the ski industry? Why should anyone in Sterling that has never even been to the mountains pay to help the ski industry?

They should not.

Let the ski resorts come up with a plan. Let them pay for it. If it is not worth it to them, why should it be worth it to anyone else?

It should not.

Any government money to expand I-70 is nothing but corporate welfare and a subsidy to private business. "Progressives" should be against corporate welfare. "Conservatives" should be against subsidies.


No public money to subsidize the ski industry.

Because of all the weekend skiers heading home, it can take 3 to 4 hours or more to travel east from Summit County back to the front range on a Sunday afternoon in the winter.

This Sunday afternoon congestion headed east on I-70 has been the source of much discussion – and consternation – lately. SeeExperts suggest ‘preferred option’ to ease Twin Tunnels bottleneck on I-70” from the Denver Post and “Fix I-70 Day” on the Huffington Post.

Some of the suggestions to fix the problem are highlighted in these two articles.
All of them cost millions and millions (and millions) of dollars. Let us cut right to the chase… the ski chase, that is. Here is a crazy idea: make those that profit off the use of the public highways pay for their expansion.
If the Summit County resorts, and those farther west like Vail and Beaver Creek, want better access to their services, they should pay for that improved access. There is no good reason that the taxpayers of Colorado pay to improve the bottom line of private business.
Why should a family in Pueblo that does not ski pay to help the ski industry? Why should anyone in Sterling that has never even been to the mountains pay to help the ski industry?
They should not.
Let the ski resorts come up with a plan. Let them pay for it. If it is not worth it to them, why should it be worth it to anyone else?
It should not.
Any government money to expand I-70 is nothing but corporate welfare and a subsidy to private business. “Progressives” should be against corporate welfare. “Conservatives” should be against subsidies.