w ith pow erful states. T hat’s fine. It’s just the poor w ho aren’t
supposed to cooperate.
Corporate welfare
In an op-ed in the Boston Globe, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the
only Independent member of Congress, w rote, “If w e’re serious
about balancing the budget in a fair w ay, w e must slash corporate
w elfare.” You’ve said you’re very uncomfortable w ith the term
corporate welfare. W hy?
I like Bernie Sanders, and that w as a good column, but I think he
starts off on the w rong foot. W hy should w e balance the budget? Do
you know a business—or a household—that doesn’t have any debt?
I don’t think w e should balance the budget at all. T he w hole idea
is just another w eapon against social programs and in favor of the
rich—in this case, mostly financial institutions, bondholders and the
like.
Putting that aside, I don’t hesitate to use the term corporate
welfare because corporate w elfare doesn’t exist, or because it isn’t
a serious problem, but because people typically use the term to
refer to specific government programs—a subsidy for ethanol
manufacturers, say—rather than the more pervasive and
fundamental w ays government helps business. T hat’s a serious
error.
If it hadn’t been for massive government interference, our
automobile, steel and semiconductor industries probably w ouldn’t
even exist today. T he aerospace industry is even more thoroughly
socialized. W hen Lockheed—Gingrich’s favorite—w as in big trouble
back in the early 1970s, it w as saved from destruction by a $250
million loan subsidized by the federal government. T he same w ith
Penn Central, Chrysler, Continental Illinois Bank and many others.
Right after the 1996 elections (I assume the timing w asn’t
accidental), the Clinton administration decided to funnel w hat’s
expected to amount to $750 billion or more of public money into
developing new jet fighters, w hich w e don’t need for military
purposes. T he contract is to be aw arded not to the traditional