Conference back40::soapbox

    excerpts from today's Boston Globe shed some light on the budget
    negotiations regarding corporate tax breaks and other bennies and show
    how difficult the problem is to break without meaningful campaign
    finance reform.
    
    "the Republican plan for reining in Medicare and welfare gave lawmakers
    of both parties ammunition to argue that cutting corporate subsidies
    was only fair and moral. For awhile, it seemed like deep cuts were
    inevitable. But corporate welfare, it became clear, is not a partisan
    issue. Rather, Republican is set against Republican, Democrat against
    Democrat when programs in a politician's home state are threatened."
    
    "For Reich, the 50-year-old longtime friend and economic adviser to
    Clinton, the corporate welfare fight began long before he joined the
    Cabinet. [...] ``Our primary concern should be the training and
    development of the American workforce, not the protection of the
    American-owned corporation,'' he wrote in 1990. [...] The solution:
    invest in jobs and training. Give people the skills to move from
    welfare to work, as the Republican rhetoric argues. Help them move from
    low-paying jobs to more lucrative ones. How to pay for it? Cut
    corporate welfare. Ask business, not just welfare recipients, to become
    more self-sufficient."
    
    "Reich's theme struck a chord across the ideological spectrum.
    Answering his challenge, the Cato Institute issued its report on the
    125 corporate welfare subsidy programs worth $85 billion. The
    Progressive Policy Institute, allied with the centrist Democratic
    Leadership Council, found $265 billion in savings over five years. To
    the right, the Heritage Foundation came up with its own plan to
    eliminate, not just shave, unnecessary spending. And to the left, the
    Ralph Nader group, Essential Information, identified 153 sources of
    subsidies as well as tax breaks costing $167 billion a year."
    
    "Vice President Al Gore weighed in with approval for Reich's ideas. But
    Treasury Secretary Bentsen, a Texan whose home-state oil and energy
    industries take millions of dollars each year in tax breaks, opposed
    cutbacks on business assistance. And Robert E. Rubin, who replaced
    Bentsen in January 1995, also was reluctant."
    
    "In November, two Republicans brought the issue to the Senate. McCain
    and Thompson proposed a ``dirty dozen'' list of programs to be
    eliminated. From agriculture, they selected the Market Promotion
    Program. From the defense budget, the B-2 bomber and military export
    subsidies. From transportation, they chose highway demonstration
    projects.
    
    McCain and Thompson won support from conservative Republican Phil Gramm
    from Texas, along with Democrats Kennedy and John F. Kerry of
    Massachusetts, and Bill Bradley of New Jersey.
    
    But they lost, 74-25. Voting to uphold the subsidies were such
    progressives as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, the California
    Democrats, whose state benefits from millions of dollars in subsidies
    to the Gallo and Wente Brothers wineries, Sunkist orange cooperative,
    almond growers and others."
    
    "At times, Clinton professed great interest in corporate welfare. [...]
    Liberal standard-bearers, like Sen. Kennedy, believed corporate welfare
    was the place to start. (finding ways to balance the federal budget)
    Clinton was interested. At the end of the session, he buttonholed
    Kennedy and asked him to send details to the White House, a source at
    the meeting said. But the next afternoon, as administration and
    congressional leaders met at the Capitol without the president, it was
    clear the White House had backtracked. 
    
    When Kennedy again argued to close tax breaks, aides to Secretary Rubin
    and Laura Tyson, the president's chief economic adviser, were working
    the room, talking privately with lawmakers. ``They were arguing, `Don't
    touch corporate welfare,''' recalled one person who was there."
    
      This amazes me. Where is the leadership? Pandering to the money is
    clearly a bipartisan trait, but one expects the President to lead.
    Failure to lead cost George Bush the seat of power. Failure to lead
    cost the democrats the power of congress in 94. Anybody got a piece of 
    cardboard and a magic marker? I want to make a sign: "Leaders Wanted".
    
    "In time, the Democrats did nudge Clinton. After starting with a
    proposal last December to end $28 billion worth of tax breaks for
    businesses, the president later increased the number to $62 billion for
    the 1997 budget, which begins in October. But the budget was equally
    noteworthy for what it allowed to survive including: sugar and peanut
    subsidies, tax breaks for the ethanol industry and the Advanced
    Technology program, which grants money to companies for research and
    development."
    
    ``If the Congress' performance was a disappointment, the Clinton
    administration's was dismal,'' Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel of the
    Cato Institute wrote in May. ``With few exceptions, the administration
    has shown itself hostile to even the modest corporate welfare cutbacks
    proposed by Congress.'' 
    
    "Even Kennedy, who criticizes the subsidies to sugar and peanut farmers
    or federal support of giant power companies in the Southwest, speaks
    quite differently when it comes to programs that help high-tech
    companies in Massachusetts. Virtually all of these so-called
    ``high-tech handout'' programs - the Advanced Technology Program, the
    Technology Reinvestment Project and the Small Business Innovative
    Research program - have been in the cross hairs of conservatives,
    especially Kasich and the Cato Institute."
    
    ``Each of these cuts is a knockdown, drag-out fight,'' Reich said in a
    recent interview. ``Why? Because the issue of corporate welfare is
    intimately tied to campaign finance. Why do we have so many targeted
    subsidies and tax breaks with no public justification or the thinnest
    justification? It's because companies and industries have managed to
    effectively lobby for their little piece of public largesse. Why have
    they been so effective? Because they support campaigns.'' 
    
     The bottom line is that without campaign finance reform there will be
    no wholesale cutting of business and agricultural subsidies, and these
    things are necessary for a balanced budget over the long term. Campaign
    finance reform is a dead issue until after the election.
    
     A new approach is being attempted by McCain, Thompson, Kerry, Bradley,
    Kennedy and others who want to establish a bipartisan commission that
    would draw up a list of subsidy programs to cut. Similar to the
    military base closure commission, the list, after approval by the
    President, would be voted on by the congress in an all or nothing vote-
    no amendments could be made by congress. This approach shows promise as
    it allows the pain to be shared without specific legislators risking
    their campaign money-spigots. It remains to be seen whether this will
    actually fly, however, but in the absence of campaign finance reform
    there are no other bright ideas and time's a-wastin'.
    
    
    
    
    
    

|   From agriculture, they selected the Market Promotion Program.
    
    Not only was the "Market Promotion Program" *NOT* cut, it was expanded,
    to include Popcorn (unpopped), Canola and Rapeseed Oil, Kiwifruit, and
    "agricultural commodities".
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	more reason to vote libertarian. :)
    
    
    

    Does my upcoming TFSO package count as corporate welfare?

    Just make sure they give you the tattoo.

    
    
    	BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! <thud>
    
    
    	hehehehe....
    
    

    .5
    
    > Just make sure they give you the tattoo.
    
    That might be a little extreme, don't you think?  I'd say Danny Deever
    did not long appreciate the tattoo they gave him.

    Speaking of campaign contributions, Aqua Leisure was in the news last
    night, again.  Mentioned as a stain on Dole's campaign for the
    contribution laundering that went on.  Apparently Dole also blew a
    gasket when questioned by Katy Couric wrt tobaccobucks that stuff his
    and fellow pols pockets.  Did anyone happen th catch this and care to
    report what was actually said/happened?  Jim?

    Of course they always forget to mention the contributions to Joseph P
    Kennedy's Campaign. ;-)
    
    /jim

    Wrong Jim but yes, that too.  :-)

Joe Kennedy has a humongous war chest.  And he usually runs unopposed.

    It's interesting that so many in this conference are ready to put
    their 2 1/2 cents in on cutting welfare to the poor but so few are 
    outraged by the river of our tax dollars that gush into the pockets of 
    corporations.  Maybe if the poor were to wear suits and ties, and carry
    briefcases, then no one would be bothered how many welfare dollars they 
    were given.
    
    I'm off now for a non-welfare financed coffee brake.

    When was the last time a poor person hired you?
    
    Then again,  when was the last time you saw a corporation starving in
    an alley?  :-)
    
    I agree with you.

    >I'm off now for a non-welfare financed coffee brake.
    
     One wonders if anyone will be able to tell the difference.

    .13
    
        That remark was a little too close to home.  By the state of my
        supplies cabinet, I should change my name to Mother Hubbard. ;^)
     
    .14 
    
    	Welfare financed coffee brake you pay for, except for the coffee 
        which I pay for.
    
    	Non-welfare financed coffee brake I pay for including the coffee.
    

    
    	Let's put a stop to coffee brakes!!
    

    From what I've been reading -- book called "Who Will Tell the People"
    -- the way it works is this:
    
    General Motors, or whatever company or industry, want a law passed that
    the American people will hate, or want to prevent a very popular law
    from getting passed.
    
    So they hire a Washington consulting firm that specializes in such
    things.  The firm researches congress to determine the following:
    
    	A. Who will vote for the bill no matter what
    	B. Who will vote against the bill no matter what
    
    Eliminating A and B leaves only a few representatives and senators who
    can be swayed, and these are the ones the consulting firm now
    concentrates on.  They "concentrate" by doing the following:
    
    	1. Let the rep know that there is a lot of money available for
    	   campaign contributions (through their party to avoid federal
    	   election law violations) if they will vote the right way on
    	   the bill.
    
    	2. Do research in the rep's home state to identify large groups of
    	   people who can be persuaded to write to the rep urging the
    	   "correct" vote.  For example, they might conduct a campaign
    	   aimed at AARP in the state of Ohio to get AARP members to write
    	   or call their reps to urge them to vote the right way on the
    	   bill, based on some scare tactics.
    
    Encouraged by their improved chances for reelection and/or other more
    direct rewards, and armed with thousands of letters and phone calls
    from "constituents" urging them to vote a certain way, the swayable
    reps do the "right thing", and the bill goes the way General Motors
    wants it to go.
    
    The bill might be something to do with tax breaks or other "welfare"
    for General Motors, or it might be to back off on emissions
    requirements or something.
    
    The above description leaves out a lot of detail that is in the book,
    but it gives you the idea of the book's basic point, which is that
    professional political consultants and large corporations and other
    special interests are successfully making our government less and less
    representative of the people it was meant to serve.
    
    And not only are we unable to do much about it, we don't even know it
    is happening, except for vague suspicions, because it is complicated
    enough (i.e., more than an 8-second sound bite) to escape the notice or
    interest of any of our mass media.  The result is that nobody much
    knows what is happening or why. 

    Cut only coffee brakes for "professionals" they cost the company
    the most so cutting their coffee brakes should save the most.
    
    

    
    breaks
    breaks
    breaks
    breaks
    breaks
    breaks!
    
    

    you can't teach an old dog new tricks

Maybe coffee brakes are for those trying to
cut down on caffine.

    Bipartisan group created to battle 'corporate welfare'
    
    By Chris Black, Globe Staff, 01/29/97 
    
    WASHINGTON - A coalition that includes Democrats, Republicans and the
    consumer advocate Ralph Nader took aim yesterday at the
    multibillion-dollar network of federal subsidies to US business. 
    
    With pressure mounting to balance the federal budget, the panoply of
    tax breaks for US corporations, often dubbed ``corporate welfare,'' is
    emerging as a prime target on Capitol Hill. 
    
    ``This is not left versus right. This is the establishment versus the
    consumers and taxpayers,'' said Grover Norquist, president of Americans
    for Tax Reform, a conservative organization that favors cutting taxes. 
    
    Norquist, along with eight other anti-tax, environmental and consumer
    groups, joined House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich of Ohio to
    announce a new ad hoc group called Stop Corporate Welfare Coalition. 
    
    While the coalition released a hit list of 12 programs that represent
    an estimated $11.5 billion in spending, a group of senators, including
    Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, meeting on the other side of the
    Capitol, vowed to establish a commission to make hard decisions on
    cutting subsidies to businesses. 
    
    ``The politics of pork make it difficult for people to make votes on
    the floor,'' said Kerry, who voted with Kennedy last year to cut $60
    billion in corporate welfare. The measure failed, getting only 25
    votes. 
    
    Corporate subsidies have been among the hardiest survivors at budget
    time, but lawmakers said the climate has changed. 
    
    Last year's cuts in Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the
    nation's largest public welfare program, have created pressure for
    comparable cuts in programs that benefit some of the world's wealthiest
    corporations, Senator John McCain of Arizona said at one of two news
    conferences announcing the initiatives. 
    
    ``We are trying to make adjustments to the entitlement programs,''
    McCain said. ``It means we are going to ask many of our citizens to
    make sacrifices. We cannot do that with clean hands unless we deal with
    the practice of corporate welfare.'' 
    
    Kennedy said the new effort is aimed at guaranteeing that
    belt-tightening would ``truly be fair for all Americans.'' 
    
    McCain is the prime sponsor of a bill to create an independent
    ``Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission'' modeled on the commission that
    made politically unpopular decisions about shutting military bases. 
    
    The panel would evaluate federal programs that provide more benefits to
    a specific industry or corporation than to the public. Its
    recommendations would automatically go into effect unless voted down by
    Congress after a four-month review. 
    
    Lawmakers said they will try to cut some programs this year and not
    wait for Congress to approve the commission, which would make its
    recommendations in 1999. 
    
    Kasich embraced the ad hoc group's list of 12 proposed cuts, including
    eliminating funds for electric and telephone loans for the Rural
    Utilities Service, formerly known as the Rural Electrification
    Administration, which was created during the Depression to bring
    electricity to rural areas. 
    
    Another target is the Market Access Program, a Department of
    Agriculture program that pays for advertising overseas of US products
    including M &Mcandy, Sunkist, the Dole Fresh Fruit Co. and Ocean Spray
    Cranberries in Massachusetts. 
    
    Also on the list are highway demonstration projects requested by
    members of Congress, one of the most popular forms of pork barrel in
    Washington. Eliminating the projects would save an estimated $4 billion
    over five years, the group said. 
    
    Kasich stressed that the list represents only a beginning. The Cato
    Institute and the Progressive Policy Institute last year teamed up to
    identify 125 federal programs costing $85 billion to subsidize US
    companies. The Progressive Policy Institute found $30 billion more in
    tax loopholes that benefit specific companies. 
    
    Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin said. the panel is ``an ideal
    vehicle that fits the mood of the American people.'' 

Too funny to see Kennedy of the right side of this issue ....

This will be a tough row to hoe ....

    Law of averages.
    
    And it shouldn't be that bad, because they are doing it as a
    "bipartisan commission" like the base closings. That way it doesn't
    cost anybody votes.

    
    You really ought to look at the number of times Kennedy teamed with
    *REPUBLICANS* to *PASS* *INTO* *LAW* damn good bills.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Gee, 115 billion?  That could go a LONG way toward balancing a certain
    budget.  Oh I forgot, corporations need this money to continue to gouge
    people like me while underpaying employees and finding more loophols to
    lobby for.
    
    meg
    

  >  You really ought to look at the number of times Kennedy teamed with
  >  *REPUBLICANS* to *PASS* *INTO* *LAW* damn good bills.
  
  What does that have to do with his past support of corporate welfare?

  > Naw, he's the "worst" Democrat, right boys?

   Oh, I see, it's that partisan thing rearing it's ugly head again ...

   Doug.

|                            -< reflex reaction ? >-
    
    Yes, when you wrote:
    
|Too funny to see Kennedy of the right side of this issue ....

    That was indeed a reflex reaction.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Actually, Doug, Kennedy is typically against corporate welfare. (I do
    wonder how he voted when it came to Ocean Spray's turn at the
    trough...)

|   (I do wonder how he voted when it came to Ocean Spray's turn at the
|   trough...)
    
    Kennedy voted against MAP.
    
    								-mr. bill

Didn't he vote for the package that contained Seagrams (or some other
liquor manufacturer) to operated basically free of taxation?

I seem to remember several 'deals' agreed with where Mass got big
buck and/or jobs if he supported CW of many flavors ...

Doug.

    
|   Didn't he vote for [something?]
|   I seem to remember [something?]
    
    Hey, progress.  You're actually trying to remember.
    
    								-mr. bill

 
>   Hey, progress.  You're actually trying to remember.
 
  Progress was moving out of that state becuase of the this repeat offenders
  inability to shoot straight. I found him to be the MOST offensive pol in
  the state. (And yes, even the pubs were offensive).

  And yes, I've long forgotten the details but I remember the theme they
  fit.

  I have found the NH delegation to be far more palatable group ...   
  
  Doug.

| I have found the NH delegation to be far more palatable group ...   
    
    Sure you do.  Nano-points if you can name which of your state Senators
    voted for corporate welfare for the popcorn (unpopped) industry, the
    Kiwifruit growers, and of course, the agricultural commodities industry.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >           -< Or two K's are trying to KO such rubbish.... >-
    
     Preferring, as they do, rubbish which benefits _their_ constituents.

    >    Sure you do.  Nano-points if you can name which of your state Senators
    >    voted for corporate welfare for the popcorn (unpopped) industry, the
    >    Kiwifruit growers, and of course, the agricultural commodities industry.
    
    You must have too much time on your hands.
    Name 3 senior senators that have never voted for corporate welfare in
    some form.
    
    Doug.
    

-----------------------------------------
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
-----------------------------------------
For release: January 31, 1997
-----------------------------------------
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
(202) 333-0008 Ext. 226
Internet: [email protected]
-----------------------------------------


Libertarians urge: End corporate welfare
for Ronald McDonald and his rich friends

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Ronald McDonald is a welfare cheat.

        Despite billions in profits last year, the fast-food chain
represented by the popular clown mascot pocketed $1.6 million in
taxpayers' money in 1996, the Libertarian Party noted today.

        "There's been a lot of talk about welfare for individuals, but
not much about the billions in taxpayers' money raked in by wealthy
corporations," said the party's chairman, Steve Dasbach. "Thanks to
Republican and Democratic politicians, corporate welfare is alive and
well-financed in America."

        In Ronald McDonald's case, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Market Access Program funneled $1.6 million in tax money to help the
multibillion-dollar corporation advertise its Big Macs and other
fast-food products to Europeans.

         "Anyone with a McNugget of common sense should be outraged by
programs like these," Dasbach said.

         But the tide may be turning. A number of groups say they are
committed to ending the subsidies, which total at least $30 billion a
year. At a news conference this week, at least a dozen such programs
were targeted for termination.

        "It's about time," said Dasbach. "Libertarians have been urging
Congress for 25 years to end these subsidies."

        A bill sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell
Feingold (D-WI) would set up a nine-member study commission to target
corporate welfare programs, and Congress would have four months to
approve or reject the recommendations.

         "But what's to study?" Dasbach asked. "Average Americans
shouldn't be forced to fork over their hard-earned money to business
executives. Let's topple these corporate fat cats from the welfare
wagon right now."

        Dasbach suggested some targets for immediate action:

        * Mickey Mouse behavior: The Walt Disney Corporation received
$300,000 in 1995 to "help perfect its fireworks displays," according to
research by Common Cause.

        * Boondoggle for billionaires: The Archer-Daniels Midland food
company -- which earned $13 billion last year -- has socked taxpayers
with a bill for $6 billion in ethanol subsidies over the last decade.

        * The whine industry: After Gallo and other California wine
makers poured $750,000 into Democratic and Republican congressional
campaigns, politicians returned the favor: Gallo uncorked $7 million in
federal subsidies in 1994. The funding went to boost Gallo wine sales
in Asia and Latin America under an "export promotion program," which
has paid California wineries over $50 million in the last 10 years.

        * Putting the squeeze on taxpayers: Sunkist Corporation has
received $78 million from the Agriculture Department since 1976 to
promote its oranges in Asia.

        * A little log rolling: The Forest Service has handed lumber
companies $3 billion over five years in taxpayer-financed roads to pave
the way for logging projects.

        * What's mined is yours: Exploiting the Department of
Interior's Mining Law of 1872, gold and silver companies purchased
public land last year containing $15.3 billion in resources for a
paltry $9,400.

        "Every taxpayer who learns about these programs wants them
eliminated immediately," Dasbach said. "But politicians and their rich,
corporate friends have fought to protect them. It's time to protect
taxpayers instead -- and shut the corporate welfare checkbook."

-- 
The Libertarian Party                                      http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                          voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                         fax: 202-333-0072

For subscription changes, please mail to <[email protected]> with the
word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.
    

     President Clinton has loudly complained that "They raise more foreign
    money," referring to republicans. Except that is plain untrue. 
    
     The democrats have had to return in excess of $1.6 million dollars in
    foreign donations, which are illegal, from a number of sources. The
    republicans have had to return a single $15,000 check, as a result of
    the fact that the date on the check was before the american subsidiary
    of the canadian corporation was officialy set up in Dallas. 
    
     Now who raises more foreign money?
    
     Don't answer yet. It is perfectly legal to raise money from the
    american subsidiaries of foreign owned companies. In this arena, the
    republicans do have a slight edge, $4.4M vs $4M. 
    
     Having been discovered accepting over a million dollars in illegal or
    questionably sourced funds, the DNC has decided not to even accept
    money from the american subsidiaries of foreign companies. Still,
    that's largely symbolic, as such funds account for less than 3 percent
    of their soft money.