It is utterly amusing to me to see supposed “Libertarians” and self styled “True Conservatives” busy mouthing the Marxist economic dogma that all economic output is property of the State and any time the state takes less it is a “Government subsidy”.
That is the base for this absurd “crony capitalism” argument. This dogma that any reduction in government taxation MUST be “paid for” by increased taxation on others is utterly absurd nonsense completely at odds with our system of Government.
No you foolish children. In our system, the State is granted revenues by the people as a collective good. It is their property granted TO the Government not vice versa. It is up to the voters in IN to render the judgment on their Representatives at the voting booth if this was a wise move or a foolish move for the collective to reduce tax burdens on Carrier in exchange for the collective good of keeping the 1100 jobs.
The other glaring error in this absurd argument is the assumption that the economy is a zero sum game. Thus a reduction here means an addition in taxes there. NO children it does not.
The Five on Fox ran the numbers. By keeping the 1100 jobs the State gets a net gain of $2.5 million in taxes from the 1100 jobs maintained. In addition, the State does NOT have to pay out mandated retraining, unemployment and welfare costs of having 1100 productive highly paid workers taken out of the the work force. The economy is a dynamic force not static as you try to make it be in your “Crony Capitalism” argument.
The final lesson here is, again, we see the reason the “Movement Conservatives” have been the least effective political force in US History.
Letting people keep their OWN money rather then taxing it way from them is GOOD. It is the heart of Conservatism.
We are not going to undo 100 years of creeping socialism by stamping out feet and holding our breath demanding ideologically perfect political dogmas. Yet here we go again with the usual “Movement Conservatives” trying desperately to spin a win as a defeat because it does NOT fit their ivory tower dogmatically pure political fantasies.
That mindset is EXACTLY why “Movement Conservatives” have been the most political ineffective group in US History. They all are so busy whining about everything not being dogmatically ideologically perfect they have accomplished nothing politically since 1980.
Rather the cling to these day dreams of some mythical perfectly ideologically pure fantasy land, it time Movement Conservatives learn to live in the REAL world of poltical incrementalism rather then their ideologically pristine ineffective bubble world.
I sincerely hope that the election of Trump signals a change in the American people to wanting effective government that works, instead of government by ideology.
So we should just accept the current socialist state of affairs and play under the new "rules"? Is Trump a change candidate or a "now it's our turn" candidate?
Yet here we go again with the usual “Movement Conservatives” trying desperately to spin a win as a defeat because it does NOT fit their ivory tower dogmatically pure political fantasies.
But, the "fantasy" is what we had before socialism, meaning it's an achievable reality. That's what we'd like to get back to.
I think ALL recognize that keeping the Carrier jobs is good, but if you can't handle ANY criticism of how it's done (and that's all it is), it'd be you that are the purist.
Criticizing Trump doesn't mean he's been abandoned. Every reasonable person recognizes that there is no perfect candidate. Demanding a lack of criticism implies he is.
“This dogma that any reduction in government taxation MUST be “paid for” by increased taxation on others is utterly absurd nonsense...”
Well said, and one of my biggest pet peeves.
Another aspect of this absurdity is the related idea that a deal like Carrier is “picking winners and losers” and therefore not “equal protection under the law”.
The problem with this application of the equal protection doctrine is that it fails to address difference between an opportunistic good vs. a selective good.
In other words, if you can save only one person from a sinking ship, then by all means save one! Don’t refuse to do so on the grounds that it is favoritism. It is only favoritism if you have a choice and you choose based on favoritism.
I think identifying a company on the verge of making a publicized decision whether or not to export 1200 jobs to Mexico from a state where your VP elect happens to be Governor, presents a unique opportunity to do a good deed.
There is no “picking” of winners and losers here, only the opportunity to save some jobs, and reduce some excess taxes and regulations at the same time. A classic win-win for the workers, the company, the state and the president elect.
And a win for the republic and for conservatism, as it advances the founding principles of Liberty and economic prosperity through limited government.
Well done Mr. President, and shame on all you fake-conservative neverTrumpers.
I’m actually inclined to give Sarah Palin a pass just this once - I don’t know why she stepped in it this time, but it was out of character - she usually gets it right.