The State-Run Corporate Handouts That Help Politicians and Harm Taxpayers
Nov 11, 2024
auto_awesome
John Mozena, an expert from the Center for Economic Accountability, unveils the troubling landscape of corporate welfare and its political implications. He discusses how state governments often trade taxpayer money for votes, fueling favoritism among businesses. Election year politics drive these decisions, with politicians leaning towards flashy subsidies over essential tax cuts. Mozena highlights the lack of solid evidence proving these handouts benefit taxpayers, questioning the ethical use of public funds in favor of private gain.
Corporate welfare represents a selective form of government financial assistance that favors specific companies at taxpayers' expense.
Politicians prioritize visible subsidies over tax cuts for electoral gain, despite evidence showing lower returns on investment from such corporate handouts.
Deep dives
Defining Corporate Welfare
Corporate welfare is characterized as government actions that provide special benefits to particular companies, often at the expense of taxpayer dollars. This can manifest in various forms, such as tax reductions, cash grants, loan guarantees, or exemptions from regulations. The distinction between corporate welfare and general business tax breaks lies in the selective nature of the benefits, targeting specific companies instead of making them available to all in a sector. For instance, a tax incentive for a specific sports team, as opposed to a broader incentive for any team, is seen as a clear instance of government favoritism.
Political Motivations Behind Subsidies
Politicians tend to prefer visible initiatives like subsidies over tax cuts due to their ability to claim credit for apparent job creation during photo-ops, such as ribbon cuttings or groundbreaking ceremonies. Research indicates that subsidies are significantly more visible and politically advantageous, even if they yield lower returns on investment compared to tax breaks. In fact, empirical studies show that states with governors seeking re-election often see a sharp increase in subsidy spending, motivated solely by political advantages rather than genuine economic needs. Additionally, companies that contribute to political campaigns are disproportionately awarded larger subsidies, indicating a clear link between political donations and financial favoritism.
Bipartisan Support for Corporate Welfare
The growing trend of corporate welfare continues to receive bipartisan support, as both major political parties unite around these programs, setting aside ideological differences. This collaboration is apparent in the increasing federal funding for projects such as electric vehicle factories and chip manufacturing, with states also eager to participate in these financial incentives. Despite public outcry over money in politics, the scale of taxpayer-funded subsidies far exceeds traditional campaign financing, illustrating a different facet of financially-driven politics. This systemic issue suggests that regardless of the election outcomes, the momentum for corporate welfare will likely persist, as neither party is inclined to discontinue these lucrative practices.
State governments regularly engage in corporate handouts to boost their electability. The evidence that they're good for taxpayers is still weak. John Mozena of the Center for Economic Accountability and Cato’s Steve Slivinski comment.