Yes, the battle has to be fought on the legislative front. With or without this ruling, the overall attitude toward corporate welfare needs to change drastically. Most of the "wins" vs. corporate welfare have been for the benefit of rival groups with their hands out as well or rival groups with a vested interest completely unrelated to the public interest (i.e. Cablevision vs. West Side Stadium).
Check this out. Too funny.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/
hot...stliberty2.html
Julia, Vasco Julia?
That is pretty funny.
Tom, I think it can. It has to.
Generally, with all the shit going on, people aren't as apathetic as they were.
One of the issues is that the pro- corporate welfare side can point to visible effects and the anti side cannot.
Subsidies or tax breaks that create 400 jobs or the lack thereof that result in jobs moving away lead off the 6 pm news and make the front page of the paper.
You will not see a news report that says that 300 $40,000/yr. jobs were created through a cost to the taxpayers of $65,000/yr. per job. And nobody will report that payment for the subsidies that "created" Job X resulted in higher taxes that destroyed Jobs Y and Z.
This is not so much a left or right issue. Its an issue of people with influence grabbing what they can when the associated costs are hidden.
AND, nobody is going to report on the cost of the dislocation of investment capital either.
Yeah, it's me. How have you been? Nice blog, btw.
Czesc! I've been good. I'm in Polish exile again, but this time it's self-imposed. I got back into college, and things are okay.
I'm so glad you stopped by. How have you been?
***
All that's true, Tom. But I see hope in the various communities that are stopping Wal-Mart from coming into their towns. Their techniques can apply in other fights.
Commenting by HaloScan
