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 ...
Sac Bee is unfairly linking a clear conclusion from Palin with a recent victory by Trump. Journalists are criminals.
She is reprimanding Trump if he is playing favoritism to one company over others. That should be commendable to all people who demand equal treatment under the law. Don’t get so blind following one person that you lose sight of what is right and proper. Palin supports Trump. She also has the balls to point out inconsistencies and hold our leaders feet to the fire if needed. You should too.
Who gave the ‘tax’ break? Trump or the State of Indiana? I suppose putting those 1000 workers on welfare and food stamps would have been cheaper for the State of Indiana.
I do not agree but I respect your right to differ. Companies are not people and capitalism is not nursery school. We do not allow monopolies because then there is no competition and consumers have no protection against gouging. However companies succeed because they find niches and exploit them. Towns and States succeed by recognizing that they need to woo all businesses but will often make a special deal to attract a particularly beneficial one.
To me the problem lies in definition. The definition below is a common one but flawed. The key is favoritism. Companies can & should get deals if the circumstances warrant but the circumstances should relate to fidutiary responsibility to the Country, the State, the town etc. No because of some benefit to the grantor.
...Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
Sarah is speaking the language of the Republican Party that couldn’t win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
Trump speaks a different language. He wins working class votes, instead of losing with pure principles
We may see that tsunami, and that’s why we need a deal maker. Deals must be made and those with leverage will get the better deals.
As the business environment improves the pendulum will swing and it will be in the companies interests to stay. That’s when Trump will have the leverage and requests for deals will fall off nationally. States & cities will still be competing for factories & businesses, so horse trading will continue.
Agreed. She most certainly didn’t call it crony capitalism, outright. But she definitely insinuated it and teed it up for the corrupt media to spin it negatively. And she of all people knows better.
It makes no sense for her to write something like this - especially at this point in time. Politically, she’s considered more of a populist anyhow, so it’s not like she’s protecting some faux purist conservative image (ala Mark Levin).
Further, she comes off really tone deaf and phony - the do called blue collar momma grizzly moaning about a deal that saved over a thousand working class American jobs.
Full disclosure: I have been a hardcore Palin fan for years (see my profile), so this is sad for me to admit.
Romney called Mr. Trump a phony and a fraud— and was invited to dinner.
So, I now expect Sarah to definitely be offered a Cabinet post!
I’m sure that, within the bounds of the current tax law, some corps approach zero or lower. But, I’m neither a tax attorney, nor an economist. I’m not sure if a zero tax rate would be possible, practically, or not.
I’m listening if you do know, though. I only know what my FakeNews app tells me, and George Stephanopolis says that’s all a lie, so I better be good or Sheppard Mascara Smith might spank me.
I do know that 65M Hillary voters would spontaneously combust if corporate rates went to zero, which would be awesome. So, the down side really isn’t there for me. Let it rip, all other consequences be damned.
“Sarah is speaking the language of the Republican Party that couldn’t win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
Trump speaks a different language. He wins working class votes, instead of losing with pure principles.”
Best post all night.
We all have feet of clay. I have admired Sarah over the years but sometimes people get ahead of themselves. I am unclear if she has much business experience in the private sector. Private sector is much different than Government.
Good point. I think we’re in a good hands. I think we’re going to picking leeches off the body politic for the first year or two until wee hit an even stride.
Perfectly stated! The purists talk talk talk. And accomplish nothing even when given power. They are a bunch of debating eggheads. See Paul Ryan.
She is theoretically correct in her thinking.
However, the state of our nation is at this point so dire, that Pres. Trump realized this and other compassionate “special” deals needed to be made until he can get into office and implement the “fair” level playing field she describes.
Consider another air conditioner manufacturer located in Indiana operating under the same taxes and regulations as Carrier. Now, Carrier receives preferential treatment from the government which gives them a competitive advantage over the other company. The other company loses business, perhaps goes out of business all because the government picked winners and losers. Nothing right about this at all. What should be done is extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter.
Yes indeed!
I was really hoping that Trump could bring her into his administration and sort of get her image rehabilitated. She has so much talent and potential.
I look back at the 2008 Palin who was so impressive on the stump (especially her RNC speech) and conveyed a professional competent appearance. Eight years later its not even the same person who appeared with Trump at a couple of events early on where she was sort of rambling, calling out “thugs” while dressed more like a biker. I don’t think she was ever called back for any of the hundreds of rallies even the convention. That was sort if telling and depressing for a fan like me.
People like her are what Gingrich calls the perfectionist caucus.
They think the world is pure and politics can be too.
BTW:Has she heard Trump for the last 17 months?
Why gripe now?
I’m sorry. That is certainly one way of looking at it but I think that the right way of looking at it was that the local economy was at risk and Indiana made an offer which Trump sweetened by pointing out that the business environment was changing and it would be in their interest to stay. The changes Trump is planning will be in the interest of all the other American companies as well. He is sweetening the pot to get the businesses to bring their off shore capital to America as well, which will do a lot to reduce our debt & deficit.
To succeed in turning America’s business environment around Trump is going to need to work on many things simultaneously, the macro-environment for all companies and the micro-environment for certain industries and particularly important companies. It is not as you suggest a one size fits all situation.
Trump is my guy because his aims are the same as mine, to make America great again and restore the American dream to all Americans, and because he is a pragmatist who will do what it takes to get there and knows what is necessary. In America’s interest just as he did in the Carrier deal.
Your solution sounds good “extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter” but it would result in the status quo which is converting America to a third class country. The premise that the singularly important aspect is to avoid favoritism is naive, unworkable and doesn’t address specific issues only “fairness”.
It reminds me of Obamacare which is very fair, everyone gets the same healthcare which is super expensive because it mandates coverage of items that people don’t want while the high deductibles insure that people are screwed.
I’m sorry. That is certainly one way of looking at it but I think that the right way of looking at it was that the local economy was at risk and Indiana made an offer which Trump sweetened by pointing out that the business environment was changing and it would be in their interest to stay. The changes Trump is planning will be in the interest of all the other American companies as well. He is sweetening the pot to get the businesses to bring their off shore capital to America as well, which will do a lot to reduce our debt & deficit.
To succeed in turning America’s business environment around Trump is going to need to work on many things simultaneously, the macro-environment for all companies and the micro-environment for certain industries and particularly important companies. It is not as you suggest a one size fits all situation.
Trump is my guy because his aims are the same as mine, to make America great again and restore the American dream to all Americans, and because he is a pragmatist who will do what it takes to get there and knows what is necessary. In America’s interest just as he did in the Carrier deal.
Your solution sounds good “extend the same “breaks” to both companies and all others for that matter” but it would result in the status quo which is converting America to a third class country. The premise that the singularly important aspect is to avoid favoritism is naive, unworkable and doesn’t address specific issues only “fairness”.
It reminds me of Obamacare which is very fair, everyone gets the same healthcare which is super expensive because it mandates coverage of items that people don’t want while the high deductibles insure that people are screwed.
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.