Liberals go to the barricades to defend crony capitalism

There's nothing like a good fight over corporate welfare to bring out the Left's love of Big Business.

In the current battle over the Export-Import Bank, Democratic politicians and liberal journalists have dropped their populist pretenses and openly embraced the corporate-federal collusion that Ex-Im embodies.

For some, it's largely partisanship or disdain for the Tea Partiers who want Ex-Im dead. For others, it's that increasing government's role in the economy takes precedence over railing against Big Business. And for a shrewd few, it's about raising money from K Street and Wall Street.

Liberal writer Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, who in 2013 mocked the notion of free-market populism as “Ayn Rand in overalls,” this year sees the free-market attack on Ex-Im as a grave danger to “Big Business,” and, by extension, all of America. Lind blasted “militants on the right.”

“Angry outsiders on the right are threatening to replace business-friendly market populism with real populism,” Lind warned. “And that, to the business community, is downright terrifying. It ought to frighten the rest of us, too.”

Margaret Carlson, a liberal commentator at Bloomberg, wrote that ending Ex-Im, and thus leaving the financing of exports to -- gasp -- banks, was as absurd as privatizing the U.S. Mint.

Simon Maloy at the partisan-Left Salon.com, foamed at the mouth about incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's decision to oppose Ex-Im, calling it “a pointless, cynical attempt to appease angry conservatives.”

New York Times opinion writers have published at least four defenses of Ex-Im this summer. Neil Irwin wrote that we ought to save Ex-Im because even without the subsidy agency, government is already involved in helping businesses, and so “we're all crony capitalists, like it or not.” In for a dime of corporate welfare, in for $160 billion!

Blogger and economist Paul Krugman gave a qualified defense of Ex-Im on the Times site, and liberal business writer Joe Nocera dedicated two columns to defending Ex-Im, which he laments has become a “Tea Party piñata.” Trying to cut export subsidies, Nocera writes, is an “attack on exports.” One of his authorities on the matter is Republican congressman Chris Collins, who received Ex-Im subsidies. It's an amazing turn when millionaire Republican congressmen who received corporate welfare are now heroes of the liberal New York Times.

Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told Politico that the GOP resistance to Ex-Im “enforces the intuition that the American people have that Republicans are willing to inflict damage on the economy to protect their politics.”

As Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer explained: “The Tea Party is moving the Republican Party so far to the right on important issues like the Export-Import Bank, that the business community is now farther from the Republican Party and closer to Democrats.”

What Schumer and Israel have in common: They're fundraisers for Democrats.

Israel’s DCCC role requires him to raise money for House Democrats. Schumer is historically one of the chief fundraisers for Senate Democrats.

Politico’s MJ Lee explains what these two are up to: “Democrats have formed a united front in support of the bank, seizing on an opening to appeal to the hearts and wallets of the business community ahead of the November elections.”

Israel and Schumer both come from New York, highlighting one of Ex-Im's other big clients besides Boeing and the big exporters -- Wall Street. Ex-Im mostly subsidizes exports through loan guarantees. That means JPMorgan Chase lends money to a foreign airline, and if the foreign airline -- say, Ethiopian Airlines -- fails, the U.S. taxpayers eat JPMorgan's loss.

There's nothing new about the Left favoring corporate welfare in general, and Ex-Im in particular. Even under President George W. Bush, many more Republicans than Democrats opposed Ex-Im renewal in Congress: 50 House Republicans voted against Ex-Im in 2002, compared to only 26 Democrats.

What’s new is that there is a strong anti-corporatist streak on the Right and even within the upper reaches of the GOP.

When both parties were thoroughly corporatist, Democrats could sprinkle a few tax hikes into their policy stew of subsidies and mandates and claim the populist mantle—and the media would believe them.

Now, with the GOP opposing (some) corporate welfare, the Democrats’ corporatism is laid bare. Guys like Schumer and Israel probably figure that if they can’t pretend to be fighting for the little guys anymore, they may as well more aggressively fundraise from the big guys they’re subsidizing.

Instead of scrambling to keep the love of Big Business, Republicans should accept Schumer’s framing: The Democrats are the party of Big Business and Big Government.

Let’s see how that works on Election Day.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/liber...es-to-defend-crony-capitalism/article/2550610

 

This is news because it's new for the right (to oppose big business and corporations). Perhaps it's their turn to wear the "socialist" label for a while.

 

its because the true liberals (the ones like say ralph nader... the ones who oppose fascism and big govt control and theft of a person rights) are no longer democrats...
they are libertarians and the libertarians meet up with conservatives on many issues including smaller less corrupt govt. And its is this group who elects many Republicans.

All we need to do is get the rank and file union guys to oppose amnesty and income taxes and we will have an entirely rearranged electorate... we can kick the establishment Rs over to democrats / fascist side of the aisle.

So it really will be pre-fascists, big govt, free ice cream party and cronies ... vs those who work for living and those who value freedom.

 

Speaking of cutting income taxes (tax cuts raise revenue!), by now I'm sure you're aware of the Kansas experiment. If not...

Kansas Governor Wants To Double Down On Massive Tax Cut That Tanked State Finances
By Igor Bobic
Posted: 07/09/2014 12:20 pm EDT

"Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) is unfazed by a massive revenue shortfall that threatens to leave his state's finances in ruins. Determined that supply-side economics will ultimately be a boon to Kansans, Brownback promised Wednesday to "hit the accelerator" on deep income tax cuts should he win re-election in 2014.

"In 2012, Kansas lawmakers passed a plan backed by Reagan economist Arthur Laffer that slashed income tax rates under the assumption that it would reduce state tax revenue yet substantially create jobs and boost the economy. But neither of those promises came to fruition.

"According to The New York Times, the state has seen modest job growth, but it has lagged behind the national average. Kansas brought in $282 million less in personal income tax revenue than it expected in fiscal 2014, or just 57 percent of what it had planned to collect. Moreover, the state's budget office projects slower growth in both personal income and gross domestic product. And in April, Moody’s Investors Services downgraded the state's credit, citing, in part, the revenue loss from the tax cut.

"Appearing on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Brownback was asked how he planned to bridge the projected budget shortfall and fund critical state services, including education, at the same time.

"Uh, growth. I think we're going to be able to get there. Key part of that growth is keeping those taxes down," he said Wednesday.

"The governor of the deep red state argued that low tax rates, which are scheduled to decrease further in 2018, would help attract new residents and businesses to the state and ultimately grow the tax base. He said that Kansans should vote for him come November because he'll double down on the tax plan -- a policy that analysts on the left and right consider the worst in the country."

"I want to continue to get that income tax down because that's the one that holds back so many states. We started out as a high-tax state. I want to get us down further as a low-tax state to create jobs and opportunities," he said. "The government is going to have plenty of money; it's the people I want to have money."

"According to a poll conducted last month by SurveyUSA on behalf of KSN News in Wichita, Brownback stands 6 percentage points behind his presumed Democratic challenger, attorney and former state House Minority Leader Paul Davis. HuffPost Pollster, which averages publicly available polling data, has Brownback ahead by just 1 point, however."

 

I love how you continue to focus in on the one situation where a governor cut taxes and their government is still in the red like this one-off is a beacon of example why cutting taxes doesn't spur growth.

There are a whole bunch of problems with Brownback's government outside of the tax cut - but I don't expect someone like yourself to muddle the issue with facts.

 

The biggest agument in favor of Ex-Im is that other countries do it too, so we have to do it to compete. Aside from the lack of factual support, it ignores the fact that the exact same argument was used to oppose the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits commercial bribery.

 

Export Development Canada

 

I happily concede, since it's a point I've been trying to get through to jem for a long time. "Tax cuts raise revenues" is simplistic, there are always other variables at work to consider. The Kansas experiment proves tax cuts have no magic power to overcome all.

 

baloney... you know I have referred to the curve.

yes I have shown that tax cuts have been followed by increased revenues after the mellon kennedy reagan and bush tax cuts.

I have also shown that when creating luxury taxes have tanked industries and revenues

And we took at the President's own advisors paper (ChristineRomer) showing that raising taxes the way Obama did destroys Gdp.

I did not say they overcome all.

 

I thought about this some more. Since there are already high taxes on income above the state level... a states income tax reduction is really a signal to businesses and people to relocate. State tax cuts would therefore take longer to positively impact revenues... typically.