No Wonder People Hate Big Pharma

Eli Lilly is shilling for Medicare Part D, the better to receive government dollars in the form of medicare reimbursements. Their scare campaign is shameless hucksterism and favor-currying with a corrupt Democrat White House and members of Congress. This is the evil of too much government; your tax dollars go to government programs that fuel profits that get recycled into expanding these same programs to take more of your tax dollars. Boycott Eli Lilly. They can have their freedom of speech, I can avoid their products.

Obama's Christmas Tree Tax - Hilarity from The Onion UPDATE

UPDATE below.

In today's news:

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).

Those guys at The Onion, always lampooning the government, what a bunch of chuckleheads. But wait, is it really The Onion. An internet search of federal government websites reveals this announcement (excerpted here):

The proponent, the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force is an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this proposed program. They have conducted meetings throughout the United States with several State and multi-State Christmas tree organizations. The proposed program is not intended to duplicate any State program. The proponents have determined that they need a mechanism that would be sustainable over time. A national Christmas tree research and promotion program would accomplish this goal.
. . .
This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order), was submitted to the Department of Agriculture (Department) by the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force (Task Force), an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this program. Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees will pay an initial assessment of $0.15 cents per tree, which would be paid to the Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board). This Board will be responsible for administration and operation of the Order. Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. The program is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act).
. . .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (301) 334-2891; or facsimile: (301) 334-2896; or email: Patricia.Petrella@ams.usda.gov.

Yes, I urge you to contact the Marketing Specialist. Your government is on the job, promoting Christmas trees. And dang, if crony capitalism isn't alive at the very lowest levels of government. The very innocuousness of the program belies its evil. One group of producers gets to tax other members of the industry to put together an ad campaign for their product. It is unbelievable that we tolerate this in our government. And as you can see by the relatively small beer program, this kind of thing permeates state and federal government. Not to pick on Patricia Petrella, but why in the world do our tax dollars pay for a marketing professional that the Christmas tree industry could fund themselves? And really, why do Christmas trees need marketing anyway?

UPDATE

Apparently, someone in the administration got a clue as to what a public relations disaster this was and is going to delay implementation. Delay implementation? That's a relief. The real issue is why does the federal government believe it is constitutionally enabled to perform this function anyway? The administration likened it to the 'Got Milk?' campaign, but that's outside the legitimate bounds of government action as well.

I am sick to death of apologies for corporate welfare and crony capitalism. This crap costs the taxpayers, because employees of the federal government are paid to administer the programs and the public pays higher costs for milk and Christmas trees for the ad campaigns. In the comments, I was taken to task for the headline, the commenter thought that Obama should be held blameless because an industry group requested the fee. By that measure, we should hold Washington blameless for spending taxpayer money on bailing out GM, banks, etc, since industry requested the bailouts. Without unchecked government power, taxpayers are going to continue to pay for benefits that flow to corporations. This must end. That's my tea party stance. Waiting for the occupiers to make this their major focus.

Corporate Welfare, OWS and the tea party movement

This morning's WSJ editorial page picked up on a theme from this blog that the occupiers and tea partyers can come together in opposition to corporate welfare. The whole article is worth a read, but they offer additional egregious examples of the waste of your tax dollars in support of companies that should sink or swim on their own.

Some of the most expensive flops include the Supersonic Transport plane of the mid-1970s, Jimmy Carter's $2 billion Synthetic Fuels Corporation (the precursor to clean energy), Amtrak, which hasn't turned a profit in four decades, and the most expensive public-private partnership debacle of all time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have lost $142 billion of taxpayer money.

The ethanol subsidy, benefiting mostly corn farmers and corporate fuel blenders in the Midwest, costs about $6 billion a year through an array of tax subsidies, tariffs and mandates while making fuel and food more expensive.

Crop price supports for wheat, corn, rice, sugar and soybean farmers are supposed to help struggling family farms, but at least half the subsidies go to large and wealthy farmers and corporations. Congress can't seem to wean the farm belt off these payments even though commodity prices and farm incomes are near an all-time high. Restricting those funds to farmers with incomes below $250,000 would save $30 billion over the next decade.

The Export-Import Bank has a portfolio of $14.5 billion of outstanding loan guarantees to assist major U.S. exporters. More than 90% of the funds went to 10 corporations, including Boeing ($6.4 billion), General Electric ($1.043 billion) and Caterpillar ($424 million).

The Presidential candidate that can capture the anger over these outrages can easily beat Obama, because he is all in for government subsidies, and has doubled down on defending the likes of Solyndra.

The Republican nominee doesn't have to have a great track record on this issue, he just has to show a credible change of heart on the issue. Fortunately, there is an easy way to do so, campaign against ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and then consistently oppose any other such subsidies the rest of the campaign. Tying Obama to corporate welfare is relatively easy. Given the justified anger over giving our tax dollars to corporations, Obama should have no chance. That he does is shameful.

Quotes of the Week

Some great quotes about the state of the nation this week. First from Dean, on diagnosing the exact reason that the occupy movement appears to be careening out of control.

By rejecting the norms and institutions of civlized society they only find themselves recreating those institutions but without the underpinning of the rule of law. Without the rule of law, the Occupy "villages" become a study in the tyranny of the majority where pendulum swings in the "mood" of the General Assembly. . .

Next, from Peggy Noonan, quoting Paul Ryan on what should be the real object of our ire, both tea partyer and occupier:

The "true sources of inequity in this country," he continued, are "corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless." The real class warfare that threatens us is "a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society."

Amen, brother.

Corporate Welfare - Uniting Left and Right in Opposition

The tea party movement was born in part over the frustration with the largess expended on banks, insurance companies and auto makers at a time when government had no business deepening the debt of the country. TARP and Stimulus became dirty words, as we watched our tax dollars bail out the banks and Fannie Mae, whose shoddy lending practices had kicked off the financial crisis to begin with. These complaints are not unique to our movement; in fact, one of the chief complaints on the left is that Washington caters to corporate interests. This is an opportunity for the next Republican candidate for President; but will require extraordinary discipline. (Pictured above are big three auto execs asking for federal dollars in November 2008.)

Discipline is needed because one can always obtain a temporary local advantage by catering to a particular industry or special interest. The most notorious example is ethanol, against which I have railed in numerous posts. Coming out against ethanol subsidies and tax breaks can cost a candidate front runner status in the Iowa caucuses. Obama showed that success in Iowa can be leveraged all the way to the White House. Further, politicians of every stripe want to be seen as "having a plan" to fix the economy. Usually these plans always include government spending on their pet projects, benefiting specific corporations and industries. Obama will be pushing high speed rail, bridges and green jobs, no doubt, on Thursday night. Zero Hedge has the scoop on the emerging scandal of bankrupt Solyndra, "green" solar company that is now bankrupt. Rick Perry had an "Emerging Technology Fund" to create jobs in Texas, which also seemed to help campaign donors. No Republican has vocally come out against the various agricultural price support programs that make absolutely no sense in a modern economy.

But I notice that when I engage those on the left, the issue of corporate welfare gets traction. I have on DailyKos, arguing against the GM bailout. I discussed areas of agreement with the Coffee Party folks. A recent exchange with Kelly the Little Black Dog, a progressive, confirmed that corporate welfare is unpopular on the left.

Politics is about building coalitions to achieve victory. Big business and big labor often collude to get big government to grant them favors. Other times big businesses can get the favors on their own, especially financial institutions. (The Fed, or dirty Fed, plays a role here, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.) It strikes me that corporate welfare is so broadly unpopular that a principled stand against it would be a key ingredient to winning a Presidential campaign. In fact, it would be a great platform for the Republican party, but they would have to follow through and eschew what corporate donations they might lose as a result. But running against the "corporatist" Obama could be a clear path to victory.

Ultimately, the country needs a "level playing" field for business competition. I don't mean that government ensures equality of outcome, but that it ceases to help favored companies or industries. It will help grow the economy by reducing the uncertainty that the federal government will intervene and wreck the business model of businesses. Even corporate fat cats might be in favor of that.