To this...
Posted on 12/02/2016 7:22:39 PM PST by Mariner
Former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who is reportedly under consideration for a spot in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, criticized Trump’s recent deal with Carrier to keep jobs in the United States.
Trump visited the Carrier plant in Indianapolis on Thursday and touted the deal during a speech after the visit in front of a Carrier banner.
Carrier will keep about 1,000 jobs in Indiana, instead of moving them to Mexico. In exchange, the state of Indiana is giving the company about $7 million in incentives. Vice president-elect Mike Pence in the current governor of Indiana.
“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,” Palin wrote in an op-ed published Friday by Young Conservatives.
“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.”
Palin, then the governor of Alaska, was on the 2008 Republican ticket with Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain and Palin lost to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Palin was an early supporter of Trump, endorsing him in January of 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Rationalize if you will, but "To suggest otherwise" in this case is simply a desire for adherence to founding principles.
It is not OK for the president to prime the pumps of select companies. And it helps neither Trump nor America in the long run to pretend otherwise.
Carrier is not a national security interest and even the number of jobs involved is quite statistically insignificant. It was a photo-op of a deal. Only 999 more "select" deals like this and we might bribe a single million jobs from fleeing conditions which could instead be improved for ALL businesses the correct way in a matter of months.
There is nothing special about this "transition period" that requires us to abandon primary principles before Trump even takes office and we see what can be accomplished via solid constitutional and free market principles.
No man is perfect. And you don't make a mostly good man better by applauding his mistakes.
I don't mind if you wish to call me quixotic, but keep in mind I did just vote for the incoming anti-Quix.
Thanks for your courtesy. Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no evidence that Trump did anything except explain the changes he was planning to put in place in the economy. The tax rebate was from Indiana and was on the table before Trump got involved. The combination of Trump’s plan to correct the business environment, his plan to favor US companies and Indiana’s offer swung the deal. What part of this was wrong on Trump’s part?
If talking to that CEO to keep jobs in America was wrong because he didn’t personally call every company than I think that is very poor logic.
The State of Indiana decided it was in their state’s best interest to offer a ‘tax’ incentive to keep this plant in Indiana. Rationally speaking, that is.
I have confidence in your appraisal of the situation.
Certainly there would be nothing wrong if Trump was just re-promising to follow though on promises of general purpose changes.
And, obviously, Trump can’t really do anything shamefully unconstitutional in the sense I implied until he becomes president.
So I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it is possible he will not get mired in wrong-headed deal-making at any level other than universal application of whatever law/rule/reg/enforcement change.
Trump seems to enjoy furthering the impression that the master deal-maker is already saving employees of specific individual companies.
So, even though I’m with him strategically (good appts/etc) I’ll still be holding my breath regarding his tactics mostly in regard to economic issues. I admire Trump’s business skills and his desire to be charitable.
But I’m not one who wants our country run like a business and the central govt is specifically not supposed to engage in charity. However, I worry less about Trump’s ways over time - mostly because he seems to be surrounding himself with good people.
Also, if I understand the deal correctly I would not approve of what was done at the state level either. But at least it is not a US Constitution issue and it is none of my business since I don’t live there.
I certainly would oppose that, of course.
But it’s none of my business since I don’t live in Indiana.
As long as the central govt has nothing to do with it, then I clearly acknowledge each states’ right to act in economically misguided and unfair ways if they so choose.
As someone who supports Sarah Palin and supported Donald Trump for POTUS, my attitude is not to get into a fight based on some article published in the “Sacramento Bee”.
I am watching what Donald Trump does and who he appoints, we all are.
Sarah Palin has always been an advocate against ‘crony capitalism’ or what Nigel Farage describes as Corporatism-the collusion of big government, big business and big banks.
I’m with her on that one and always will be.
Sarah wants an across the board plan to relive all capitalists, big and small, with tax relief just like Donald Trump does.
If we cut the corporate tax rate for everyone in business, we are not favoring one business over the other.
If Donald Trump does something wrong, I will be there to say he is wrong.
Yesterday, Trump said he supports the Dakota Access Pipeline, being built on land ‘the white man’ took from the Indians when the federal government broke treaties signed back in the 19th Century.
We need some energy development in this country, but we also need some justice for the Native Americans.
Left-wing Greens complicate the dispute, but I stand with the notion that land ownership issue is a problem that needs resolution.
I agree with you, I think he is on a God authored mission. He’s the real deal.
In the past 25+ years in the county I live three 'new' Wal-Marts' were built because of 'tax' incentives offered by the respective 'towns' and county. I do not recall if the state as well offered tax incentives but it would not surprise me. Carrier as part of this incentive is going to spend over $16 million revamping this facility.. That means bodies being hired to do the overhaul. I have no doubt the state of Indiana will benefit long term with a thousand people employed, rather than in unemployment lines, welfare, food stamps, and the host of other government programs we the taxpayers already fund.
In my opinion the State of Indiana and Carrier deal is a symbolic stand that we the people need to demand a pro-growth tax policy for everyone, and strip to the bone those regulations that are really the tool of crony capitalists.
“...three ‘new’ Wal-Marts’ were built because of ‘tax’ incentives...”
Yes, I certainly understand crony capitalism is going on at the state and lowers levels.
Thank you for that post.
Crony capitalism is NOT limited to ‘tax’ incentives. Those Omnibus Spending bills are filled with ‘pet’ projects for those that fund elected officials political campaigns. A trillion here and a trillion there makes that 7 million for a 1000 employees pennies on the dollar.
Then there are the ‘unions’, wherein the leadership rakes in the big bucks, and the ‘union leadership’ in turn funds their choice candidate, so that candidate will by law keep their pay scales rising.
The lesson here is that elected officials know full well, high taxes kills jobs. The bigger problem is the taxation or otherwise called ‘regulations’ are by design to profit a few, while driving the majority of private business out of business. Well, that is unless a ‘business’ funds the candidate that wins an election. (In both parties.)
Trump paid for his own campaign, so it is NOT like he is paying off a big packed donor.
No, this state tax break wasn’t enough to bring back Carrier. Remember, the mexican plan is already built (or most of it)
Trump said on thursday it was all about getting rid of regulations
If she was Prez, she would have given the same speech as Obama. “Sorry, Carrier but there is nothing I can do. But I can sell a jet!”
She overtaxed the oil industry? Guess Trump, Ross and Mnuchin won’t be taking economic lessons from her
He’ll most likely argue against a National Carry law, buying health insurance across state lines, school choice and going after Sanctuary cities because of “states’s rights”
I’m not real clear on what you mean by “pennies on the dollar”, but certainly the smaller scale of state level mistakes -vs- fed level does not make a wrong thing right.
Not just the MSM. The PDS sufferers had a field day on this thread as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.