The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:I'd like to find a cruise that spends a couple of days in Israel, and the rest cruising the Greek Islands.

Big Orange Junky wrote:Remember it's not "food stamps" any more. It's SNAP and you get a card that looks like a Discover card to assure the gubment that you will spend more and not have a save the money attitude and you can feel good knowing that most people now won't be able to notice you buying that candybar and getting 99 dollars in CASH as change.

Call the Navy...that's where I got mine.

10ac wrote:Yeah, right. No one has bitched about the ethanol scam.

Corporate Welfare

One egregious type of special-interest spending is ‘‘corporate welfare’’
or business subsidies. The federal government spends about $90 billion
annually on corporate welfare. That includes direct cash payments to
businesses, such as subsidies to farmers and grants to automobile companies.
It also includes indirect benefits, such as loans, research, and marketing
support for businesses.

In addition to spending programs, corporate welfare comprises barriers
to trade designed to protect businesses from foreign competition, and it
includes domestic regulations that confer advantages on certain companies
at the expense of individual consumers and the general economy.

A Sampler of Corporate Welfare Programs

The following are some corporate welfare programs that are long overdue
for repeal. Where provided, spending totals are for fiscal year 2008.
● Agriculture Department: Market Access Program. This program
hands out more than $200 million annually to exporters of agricultural
products to pay for their overseas advertising. Some of the recipients
include the Brewers Association, the Pet Food Institute, Sunkist
Growers, Welch’s Food, and the Wine Institute.
● Commerce Department: Advanced Technology Program. This
$198 million program gives research grants to high-tech companies.
● Foreign Military Financing. U.S. taxpayers fund weapons purchases
by foreign governments through this $4.7 billion program.
● Amtrak. The federal passenger rail company receives about
$1.4 billion in subsidies annually. But Amtrak would be better off
privatized so it could cut inefficient routes, maximize profits, and
innovate.
● Export-Import Bank. This agency uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize
the financing of foreign purchases of U.S. goods. It makes billions
of dollars of preferential loans to foreigners, guarantees the loans of
private institutions, and provides export credit insurance. In 2007, a
Dallas television station (WFAA) discovered that the agency provided
$243 million in loans to bogus Mexican companies, including
drug cartels.
● Maritime Administration. This $591 million agency provides subsidies
to the commercial shipping and shipbuilding industries. For
example, the agency provides loan guarantees for purchases of ships
from U.S. shipyards. But the best way to ensure a vigorous U.S.-
owned ship industry is to reduce domestic taxes and regulations,
which have encouraged the industry to move offshore.
● Energy Department: Energy Supply Research. This $894 million
program aims to develop new and improved energy technologies.

Corporate Welfare and Earmarks

But the energy industry itself should fund such work, since it will
earn profits when breakthroughs are made.
● Small Business Administration. This $530 million agency provides
subsidized loans and loan guarantees to small businesses. It has a
poor record of selecting businesses to support, as its loans have high
rates of delinquency.

Ethanol: A Case Study in Corporate Welfare

Supporters of federal ethanol subsidies claim that ethanol production
reduces America’s dependence on foreign oil. But that effect is negligible
and it comes at a high cost by distorting the economy and raising food
prices.
The federal government subsidizes ethanol—a fuel derived from agricultural
products—through a variety of regulatory and tax provisions,
including:
● A 9-billion-gallon federal mandate for ethanol usage in vehicles,
● A 51-cent-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol producers,
● A 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, and
● Subsidies to corn producers, which partly subsidize ethanol production.
As a result of these subsidies, U.S. ethanol production has skyrocketed
in recent years, with the effect of transferring much wealth fromconsumers
to farmland owners and agribusinesses. Ethanol subsidies here and abroad
are helping to push up food prices worldwide as farmland is converted
from food production to fuel production.
As the price of oil has risen in recent years, the prices of agricultural
commodities have also risen because of the ethanol link, and that is hurting
food consumers everywhere, including many of the world’s poorest people.
A recent World Bank report concludes that increased biofuel production
has been the major factor behind soaring world food prices in recent years.
In 2007, Congress increased the mandated production of ethanol and
other renewable fuels to 9 billion gallons in 2008, 11 billion gallons in
2009, and increasing amounts after that. U.S. ethanol is made from corn,
and corn producers already receive billions of dollars each year from
federal farmsubsidy programs. Ethanol subsidies increase the governmentgenerated
profits for corn producers and owners of farmland.
Ethanol is damaging to consumers and taxpayers, and it is also not
very energy efficient. Studies show varying results, but it appears that the
production of ethanol consumes about as much energy as the ethanol itself
produces in vehicles, thus providing little net benefit to America’s energy
needs. Congress should stop fueling the ethanol industry with subsidies
and regulations, and let the market decide whether ethanol makes any sense.