Wealthfare: Free Hand-Outs for the Rich
By: Valerie Orosco
When the word “welfare” comes up, most think of things like food stamps, free-rides, poverty and ghettos. But the money that is given to causes that involve the poor pale in comparison to the aid that is doled out in the form of “wealthfare”. “Weathfare” (coined in 1956 by Ralph Nadar) is a term used to describe corporate welfare which is defined as direct payments, low-cost loans, insurance, or subsidized services to private businesses and cost taxpayers an estimate of over $100 billion dollars per year. The following articles address the inception of social welfare, current structure of corporate welfare, as well as recommendations by modern critics about its place in our debt-ridden economy.
Business Man and the Bureaucrat: The Evolution of the American Social Welfare System, 1900-1940
View Article
This article covers the early days of social welfare programs and shows how their roots were established by businessmen and corporations themselves, as well as showing how the tables began to turn.
In the early 20th century social welfare programs supported by the federal government did not exist. People of the time did not even believe that the government should be responsible for these types of programs. The rising intensity of debate over the development of corporations and industrialization forced the hand of businessmen who could not ignore the negative impacts strikes were having on their businesses. In an effort to reduce dissatisfaction among workers, thus quelling socialist activity, mass industrial welfare programs were developed.
Overtime, corporations came to view these benefits as something that they had to “purchase” instead of as something that they had actually “produced” to maintain higher levels of production. In an effort to standardize benefits (and hold/protect their own corporate interests) the Welfare Department of the National Civic Federation was created starting with 100 firms in 1904 and swelling to 2500+ firms in 1914 reducing the welfare offered to workers.
In 1916, the first unemployment insurance program was establish by corporations, who still showed preferences of welfare issues to be in their own hands and not interfered in by the government; largely in part to the popularly held belief at the time that the business industry should take care of its own problems. To do this, many corporations reflected the cost of the welfare programs they provided to employees in the price of their products. The logic was that those who enjoyed the products being sold would supplement the welfare of the individual working for that company as opposed to allowing taxation of the general public through the government do this task.
Company welfare programs were depended upon emergency money that the corporation had set aside and accumulated over time. During the years of the depression, much changed as the contributions made to this “rainy-day” fund decreased and expenditures increases until they were non-existent. As a result, FDR asks for federal money to be authorized by the Congress for grants to individual states for the unemployed (known as The Federal Emergency Relief Agency.) In addition the National Recovery Administration (NRA) is set up in an effort to change and improve business. NRA establishes maximum work hour requirements, the minimum wage, suspends anti-trust laws, and turns out to be unsuccessful in its improvement efforts. In 1934, the government realized that the issue of social welfare was not one that could fix itself and decided to establish their own programs; thus the inception of social security which, to this day, continues to link the public and private sector over social welfare.
Though this article does not directly deal with modern corporate welfare, I felt it was important to include illustrating how time can drastically change the norms that are often taken as inherent truths. The term “welfare capitalist” appears to be an oxymoron, as clearly they are contradictory terms. I think it is so interesting that at its beginnings, corporations felt responsible and carried the burden of the struggling society. But like any good capitalist, it seems as thought the bottom-line snuck in rather quickly suppressing any altruistic efforts, while modern corporations take an opposite stance with an outstretched hand to receive instead of give.
BIG-PICTURE ORGANIZING--PART 4: CORPORATE WELFARE
This article highlights the author’s (Montague) views about the two foremost reasons for the abolishment of corporate welfare. The first factor is that the middle class has become what Montague characterizes as an “anxious class” fearful of many issues such as maintaining their jobs or the future of their children; while the over-class continually reap large portions of available benefits. The rise of technology and global trade are sited as main factors that are destroying the middle class. As a consequence, it is suggested that Americans must embrace technology, learn, and be willing to change. Also since it is not feasible to close all borders America must find a way to compete effectively in a global market.
The effect of these two factors leads the author to the conclusion that corporate welfare must end so that: 1. the gross amounts of money can be instead reinvested into the workforce and 2. to stop shielding corporations with free hand-outs that ultimately weaken them by shielding them from the global market. It is said that the competitiveness of both those who do not receive government handouts are also undermined by the issued subsidies. The unsubsidized companies find themselves at a huge disadvantage both competitively and economically which often puts them in a position to have to move their businesses to a location in the global economy that offers cheaper labor and materials just to remain in business. This illustrates how corporate welfare really ends up weakening the US economy.
The author goes on to make a definitive distinction between public assistance and corporate welfare. Unlike so many that receive public assistance, it is stated that many of the subsidies stem from political influence and NOT need. Subsequently, a culture of dependency is created amongst many of the companies who learn to enjoy living off of and taking advantage of the free money being handed right out of the pockets of taxpayers. Unfortunately the government trend continues to favor corporations, who as a result of all the extras they receive are able to make large campaign contributions, over the people.
I thought this article did a good job bringing together two ideas into a concise synthesis about why the corporate welfare needs to stop. But I did find it rather interesting that all that was really address was the plight of the middle-class. What about the lower class? Do they not exist? Although, I’m sure that their anxieties differ from those of the middle-class; perhaps it is a topic for another paper. However, I did like at the end of the article when the author points out that not all subsidies are bad, singling out those, “…government programs [that are] intended to promote social goals that benefit everyone, not a wealthy few.” That is a message I can agree with. This article demonstrates many aspects of conflict theory seeing as how there are great issues of inequality represented in this structure. Also because conflict theorists are critical of capitalism stating that those with power and money influence the legislature and policy in their favor; corporate capitalism demonstrates that to a tee.
The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation
View Article
This is an interview with Greg Leroy who is the author of the book, “The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation.” Basically the book highlights many cases where large corporations are receiving huge tax breaks and subsidies from the government both locally and statewide while never delivering on the promises they make to create “good” jobs or pay higher tax revenues.
Written in 2005, Leroy’s book puts a concrete number ($50 billion dollars) spent every year just within states and cities that are pitted against one another by corporations trying to acquire “hefty taxpayer subsidies” while promising to create jobs, help promote higher wages and standards of living that never come to fruition. Many times the company does nothing different in its practices due to the subsidies and the government does a poor job enforcing or even looking into whether the promises made by the corporations are kept. This creates an unfortunate situation where the taxpayer ends up paying twice: once for the higher tax revenues that are never received from the companies and next for the paying out of monies that could have been used to generate jobs in other ways.
Leroy goes on to illustrate how taxpayers often end up subsidizing the same corporation twice, but in very different ways. The example of Wal-Mart is prominent and shows how it first receives “brick-and-mortar” subsidies in the form of loans, grants, cheap land, etc. But the taxpayers also end up floating the bill to pay for “safety net programs” such as Section-Eight housing, free lunch programs, etc., known as “back door” subsidies due to the fact that Wal-Mart does not provide its employees with a livable wage.
If this problem is to be combated, Leroy proposes that the demand of accountability may be the first and most effective step to accomplish this. In fact, a standard that has just started to appear attached to many subsidies enacted by many states is the provision of “claw-backs” which utilize a money-back guarantee clause of accountability that now demand the return of some monies if the promises are not met on the part of the company.
Though not an easy process to change, Leroy points to disclosure as being the “bedrock” to building new framework and agreements for change. By allowing people to see who actually receives the money and what the actual benefits are, then change will follow. The idea of smart growth is also addressed; for example, building new business that will ultimately be providing the jobs in close proximity to public transportation, allowing for people with low-incomes to have accessibility and thus opportunities to access these new prospects. This works additionally by cutting back on traffic congestion and, consequently, cutting down on pollution caused by vehicles.
This interview peaks my curiosity and make me angry. It seems as though the government (with its deep roots in capitalism), if putting this much money forward would want to ensure, like any good business-man, that the investments that it is making are indeed producing and yielding profits. But instead it does not function in a manner anything close to the sort. I would like to read this entire book (which is available on Amazon in hard-cover (used) for as low as $8.44.) It seems to me like the idea of disclosure would be an excellent one. A democracy is only successful if the citizens are informed. Without the information, it is difficult for the masses to get angry, but perhaps this was and remains the goal. I think that from a critical constructionism perspective, the issue Leroy addresses really emphasizes the importance and influence of the elite interests and shows how its role changes the process of problem construction as well as the outcomes. Everyday people become more and more entwined in debt, many sinking deeper with high interest rates and payments. Yet corporations are allowed not only to receive the handouts and loans but not be punished or penalized when conditions are not met. This is clearly a case of inequality.
Common Cause Urges Senate To Act To End Corporate Welfare Programs (Remarks by Common Cause before a recent hearing by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, on S. 1376, the Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and Termination Commission Act of 1995)
In this hearing what is documented is an outline and proposed actions of S. 1376 lead by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and supported by others in a bipartisan effort to alter, terminate and bring public awareness to the issue of corporate welfare.
The article goes on to address the fact that many times when the issue of balancing the budget comes up in politics, as it often does, many of the programs to get cut first are things like education programs, Medicaid and other federal programs while corporate welfare remains untouched. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that of the $722 billion in corporate subsidies slated to be doled out over the next seven years, legislation passed in October of 2005 would achieve just $8 billion in that same time period.
Examples of corporate welfare are abundant. The Agriculture Department’s Market Promotion Program is an example that comes up many times in several readings. It’s goal as a subsidy is to pad foreign advertising budgets of huge corporations so that they can advertise abroad; companies such as Gallo Winery, Pillsbury, Sunkist or McDonald’s. But Agribusiness and food corporations over the past decade have made nearly $50 million in contributions to congressional candidates, resulting at least in part, to a $6.2 billion a year bill to taxpayers. It is said that since average American’s do not have powerful special interests supporting them, federal programs are at a huge disadvantage to the corporations that are rife with special interest money and influence, which is essential to the survival of these subsidies. In fact, Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor said, “Ninety percent [of corporate welfare], if not 100 percent of it, is a result of lobbying and campaign donations by particular companies and industries.”
To effectively end corporate welfare, S. 1376 demands an independent commission that would put this issue under the same scrutiny as other budget items, despite their powerfully backed programs, and giving specific recommendations for cuts. To conclude, it is suggested that Congress needs to more fairly address the issue at hand.
While this article does indeed make a reference to the fact that federal programs are cut way before corporate welfare is even considered an issue, it does fall short in the arena of suggestions as to what will be done with the money should corporate welfare indeed become terminated. This over-site leads me to believe that the optimism of the authors of this proposal do not truly believe that anything will change, but that is just an assumption. I tried in vein to find out what the outcome of this proposal was. I did however find a proposal made by Representative Adam Smith [WA-9] introduced in February of 2005 called H.R.974 that in effect calls to establish a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to review Federal subsidies with the recommendation of termination, modification or retention of these subsidies. Essentially it outlines all of the same things that Cheney’s proposal did in 1995, only with larger numbers plugged into the equation, which leads me to believe that the first proposal went nowhere. I also tried to follow up on Smith’s proposal but all that is stated is that as of February 17, 2005 all the proposals are under the jurisdiction of the respective committees concerned, which sounds rather inconclusive to me. I do applaud Cheney for exhibiting some of the ways of a critical constructionist. From my point of view he does make an effort to give a voice to the less powerful groups of society that, in this case, is clearly overwhelmed in public debate by the resources of the more powerful interests.
Phantom Welfare: Public Relief for Corporate America
This article chooses to call what the United States experiences as the “phantom welfare state" because the federal expenditures that total an excess of $150 billion dollars a year do not actually go to the traditional welfare programs that the public has been lead to believe that the money goes to. In fact, corporate subsidies take away from these traditional programs that are already floundering, competing for scarce federal dollars in the first place. It goes on in detail addressing the major types of federal subsidies to American businesses such as corporate welfare, direct expenditures, credit subsidies, tax expenditures, subsidized services, trade restrictions, secondary mechanisms, regulations, and purchase arrangements.
The article also makes mention for the first time, in my readings, the importance of social workers and keeping them informed about different kinds of welfare beyond just traditional programs that they may have to directly work with. It is stated that the, “…continued avoidance of non-poverty welfare programs puts social work in a poor position from which to advocate for fundamental reform of current budget priorities.” It is conveyed that in the eyes of the author that the traditional mission of social workers is as an advocate for the social welfare of the people has been lost and that social workers need to get back to and embrace that tradition. It is thought that is social workers can reestablish themselves as leaders in the realm of social welfare then they will also be able to more effectively help and return America to a state of more equitable redistribution in the realm of wealth .The article goes on to site that corporate welfare is a major contributor to the growing gap between the rich and the poor as it represents the gross injustices in the distribution of wealth that is currently occurring; a problem that is too big and influential to ignore.
I enjoyed the fact that this article had a call to action. It has been a resounding theme among my articles to have many governmental changes that need to take place to help abolish corporate welfare, but this is the first that call upon a specific group outside of the government structure in the handling of the dismantling of this enormous problem. I think this article is demonstrates a different perspective that seems positive about how to make a change in regards to government with continuing to rely on it. Perhaps this is article and this type of thinking that will prove to be the roots of a positive new social movement.
Conclusion
It appears to me that corporate welfare amounts to nothing more than stealing from the poor to give to the rich. In the not so distant past the nation’s tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals and that corporations found a value in workers and their well-being. But many changes have occurred as the nation rewards more and more favorable preferences directed at big business over the plight of the individual. Corporate tax shares continue to decline. Much needed tax relief to the lowest income earners, most likely already be treading water and struggling to survive is ignored. All the while the nation continues to pay taxes each year that end up going to special interests that neither need, nor deserve, the help.
By: Valerie Orosco
When the word “welfare” comes up, most think of things like food stamps, free-rides, poverty and ghettos. But the money that is given to causes that involve the poor pale in comparison to the aid that is doled out in the form of “wealthfare”. “Weathfare” (coined in 1956 by Ralph Nadar) is a term used to describe corporate welfare which is defined as direct payments, low-cost loans, insurance, or subsidized services to private businesses and cost taxpayers an estimate of over $100 billion dollars per year. The following articles address the inception of social welfare, current structure of corporate welfare, as well as recommendations by modern critics about its place in our debt-ridden economy.
Business Man and the Bureaucrat: The Evolution of the American Social Welfare System, 1900-1940
View Article
This article covers the early days of social welfare programs and shows how their roots were established by businessmen and corporations themselves, as well as showing how the tables began to turn.
In the early 20th century social welfare programs supported by the federal government did not exist. People of the time did not even believe that the government should be responsible for these types of programs. The rising intensity of debate over the development of corporations and industrialization forced the hand of businessmen who could not ignore the negative impacts strikes were having on their businesses. In an effort to reduce dissatisfaction among workers, thus quelling socialist activity, mass industrial welfare programs were developed.
Overtime, corporations came to view these benefits as something that they had to “purchase” instead of as something that they had actually “produced” to maintain higher levels of production. In an effort to standardize benefits (and hold/protect their own corporate interests) the Welfare Department of the National Civic Federation was created starting with 100 firms in 1904 and swelling to 2500+ firms in 1914 reducing the welfare offered to workers.
In 1916, the first unemployment insurance program was establish by corporations, who still showed preferences of welfare issues to be in their own hands and not interfered in by the government; largely in part to the popularly held belief at the time that the business industry should take care of its own problems. To do this, many corporations reflected the cost of the welfare programs they provided to employees in the price of their products. The logic was that those who enjoyed the products being sold would supplement the welfare of the individual working for that company as opposed to allowing taxation of the general public through the government do this task.
Company welfare programs were depended upon emergency money that the corporation had set aside and accumulated over time. During the years of the depression, much changed as the contributions made to this “rainy-day” fund decreased and expenditures increases until they were non-existent. As a result, FDR asks for federal money to be authorized by the Congress for grants to individual states for the unemployed (known as The Federal Emergency Relief Agency.) In addition the National Recovery Administration (NRA) is set up in an effort to change and improve business. NRA establishes maximum work hour requirements, the minimum wage, suspends anti-trust laws, and turns out to be unsuccessful in its improvement efforts. In 1934, the government realized that the issue of social welfare was not one that could fix itself and decided to establish their own programs; thus the inception of social security which, to this day, continues to link the public and private sector over social welfare.
Though this article does not directly deal with modern corporate welfare, I felt it was important to include illustrating how time can drastically change the norms that are often taken as inherent truths. The term “welfare capitalist” appears to be an oxymoron, as clearly they are contradictory terms. I think it is so interesting that at its beginnings, corporations felt responsible and carried the burden of the struggling society. But like any good capitalist, it seems as thought the bottom-line snuck in rather quickly suppressing any altruistic efforts, while modern corporations take an opposite stance with an outstretched hand to receive instead of give.
BIG-PICTURE ORGANIZING--PART 4: CORPORATE WELFARE
This article highlights the author’s (Montague) views about the two foremost reasons for the abolishment of corporate welfare. The first factor is that the middle class has become what Montague characterizes as an “anxious class” fearful of many issues such as maintaining their jobs or the future of their children; while the over-class continually reap large portions of available benefits. The rise of technology and global trade are sited as main factors that are destroying the middle class. As a consequence, it is suggested that Americans must embrace technology, learn, and be willing to change. Also since it is not feasible to close all borders America must find a way to compete effectively in a global market.
The effect of these two factors leads the author to the conclusion that corporate welfare must end so that: 1. the gross amounts of money can be instead reinvested into the workforce and 2. to stop shielding corporations with free hand-outs that ultimately weaken them by shielding them from the global market. It is said that the competitiveness of both those who do not receive government handouts are also undermined by the issued subsidies. The unsubsidized companies find themselves at a huge disadvantage both competitively and economically which often puts them in a position to have to move their businesses to a location in the global economy that offers cheaper labor and materials just to remain in business. This illustrates how corporate welfare really ends up weakening the US economy.
The author goes on to make a definitive distinction between public assistance and corporate welfare. Unlike so many that receive public assistance, it is stated that many of the subsidies stem from political influence and NOT need. Subsequently, a culture of dependency is created amongst many of the companies who learn to enjoy living off of and taking advantage of the free money being handed right out of the pockets of taxpayers. Unfortunately the government trend continues to favor corporations, who as a result of all the extras they receive are able to make large campaign contributions, over the people.
I thought this article did a good job bringing together two ideas into a concise synthesis about why the corporate welfare needs to stop. But I did find it rather interesting that all that was really address was the plight of the middle-class. What about the lower class? Do they not exist? Although, I’m sure that their anxieties differ from those of the middle-class; perhaps it is a topic for another paper. However, I did like at the end of the article when the author points out that not all subsidies are bad, singling out those, “…government programs [that are] intended to promote social goals that benefit everyone, not a wealthy few.” That is a message I can agree with. This article demonstrates many aspects of conflict theory seeing as how there are great issues of inequality represented in this structure. Also because conflict theorists are critical of capitalism stating that those with power and money influence the legislature and policy in their favor; corporate capitalism demonstrates that to a tee.
The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation
View Article
This is an interview with Greg Leroy who is the author of the book, “The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation.” Basically the book highlights many cases where large corporations are receiving huge tax breaks and subsidies from the government both locally and statewide while never delivering on the promises they make to create “good” jobs or pay higher tax revenues.
Written in 2005, Leroy’s book puts a concrete number ($50 billion dollars) spent every year just within states and cities that are pitted against one another by corporations trying to acquire “hefty taxpayer subsidies” while promising to create jobs, help promote higher wages and standards of living that never come to fruition. Many times the company does nothing different in its practices due to the subsidies and the government does a poor job enforcing or even looking into whether the promises made by the corporations are kept. This creates an unfortunate situation where the taxpayer ends up paying twice: once for the higher tax revenues that are never received from the companies and next for the paying out of monies that could have been used to generate jobs in other ways.
Leroy goes on to illustrate how taxpayers often end up subsidizing the same corporation twice, but in very different ways. The example of Wal-Mart is prominent and shows how it first receives “brick-and-mortar” subsidies in the form of loans, grants, cheap land, etc. But the taxpayers also end up floating the bill to pay for “safety net programs” such as Section-Eight housing, free lunch programs, etc., known as “back door” subsidies due to the fact that Wal-Mart does not provide its employees with a livable wage.
If this problem is to be combated, Leroy proposes that the demand of accountability may be the first and most effective step to accomplish this. In fact, a standard that has just started to appear attached to many subsidies enacted by many states is the provision of “claw-backs” which utilize a money-back guarantee clause of accountability that now demand the return of some monies if the promises are not met on the part of the company.
Though not an easy process to change, Leroy points to disclosure as being the “bedrock” to building new framework and agreements for change. By allowing people to see who actually receives the money and what the actual benefits are, then change will follow. The idea of smart growth is also addressed; for example, building new business that will ultimately be providing the jobs in close proximity to public transportation, allowing for people with low-incomes to have accessibility and thus opportunities to access these new prospects. This works additionally by cutting back on traffic congestion and, consequently, cutting down on pollution caused by vehicles.
This interview peaks my curiosity and make me angry. It seems as though the government (with its deep roots in capitalism), if putting this much money forward would want to ensure, like any good business-man, that the investments that it is making are indeed producing and yielding profits. But instead it does not function in a manner anything close to the sort. I would like to read this entire book (which is available on Amazon in hard-cover (used) for as low as $8.44.) It seems to me like the idea of disclosure would be an excellent one. A democracy is only successful if the citizens are informed. Without the information, it is difficult for the masses to get angry, but perhaps this was and remains the goal. I think that from a critical constructionism perspective, the issue Leroy addresses really emphasizes the importance and influence of the elite interests and shows how its role changes the process of problem construction as well as the outcomes. Everyday people become more and more entwined in debt, many sinking deeper with high interest rates and payments. Yet corporations are allowed not only to receive the handouts and loans but not be punished or penalized when conditions are not met. This is clearly a case of inequality.
Common Cause Urges Senate To Act To End Corporate Welfare Programs (Remarks by Common Cause before a recent hearing by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, on S. 1376, the Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and Termination Commission Act of 1995)
In this hearing what is documented is an outline and proposed actions of S. 1376 lead by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and supported by others in a bipartisan effort to alter, terminate and bring public awareness to the issue of corporate welfare.
The article goes on to address the fact that many times when the issue of balancing the budget comes up in politics, as it often does, many of the programs to get cut first are things like education programs, Medicaid and other federal programs while corporate welfare remains untouched. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that of the $722 billion in corporate subsidies slated to be doled out over the next seven years, legislation passed in October of 2005 would achieve just $8 billion in that same time period.
Examples of corporate welfare are abundant. The Agriculture Department’s Market Promotion Program is an example that comes up many times in several readings. It’s goal as a subsidy is to pad foreign advertising budgets of huge corporations so that they can advertise abroad; companies such as Gallo Winery, Pillsbury, Sunkist or McDonald’s. But Agribusiness and food corporations over the past decade have made nearly $50 million in contributions to congressional candidates, resulting at least in part, to a $6.2 billion a year bill to taxpayers. It is said that since average American’s do not have powerful special interests supporting them, federal programs are at a huge disadvantage to the corporations that are rife with special interest money and influence, which is essential to the survival of these subsidies. In fact, Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor said, “Ninety percent [of corporate welfare], if not 100 percent of it, is a result of lobbying and campaign donations by particular companies and industries.”
To effectively end corporate welfare, S. 1376 demands an independent commission that would put this issue under the same scrutiny as other budget items, despite their powerfully backed programs, and giving specific recommendations for cuts. To conclude, it is suggested that Congress needs to more fairly address the issue at hand.
While this article does indeed make a reference to the fact that federal programs are cut way before corporate welfare is even considered an issue, it does fall short in the arena of suggestions as to what will be done with the money should corporate welfare indeed become terminated. This over-site leads me to believe that the optimism of the authors of this proposal do not truly believe that anything will change, but that is just an assumption. I tried in vein to find out what the outcome of this proposal was. I did however find a proposal made by Representative Adam Smith [WA-9] introduced in February of 2005 called H.R.974 that in effect calls to establish a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission to review Federal subsidies with the recommendation of termination, modification or retention of these subsidies. Essentially it outlines all of the same things that Cheney’s proposal did in 1995, only with larger numbers plugged into the equation, which leads me to believe that the first proposal went nowhere. I also tried to follow up on Smith’s proposal but all that is stated is that as of February 17, 2005 all the proposals are under the jurisdiction of the respective committees concerned, which sounds rather inconclusive to me. I do applaud Cheney for exhibiting some of the ways of a critical constructionist. From my point of view he does make an effort to give a voice to the less powerful groups of society that, in this case, is clearly overwhelmed in public debate by the resources of the more powerful interests.
Phantom Welfare: Public Relief for Corporate America
This article chooses to call what the United States experiences as the “phantom welfare state" because the federal expenditures that total an excess of $150 billion dollars a year do not actually go to the traditional welfare programs that the public has been lead to believe that the money goes to. In fact, corporate subsidies take away from these traditional programs that are already floundering, competing for scarce federal dollars in the first place. It goes on in detail addressing the major types of federal subsidies to American businesses such as corporate welfare, direct expenditures, credit subsidies, tax expenditures, subsidized services, trade restrictions, secondary mechanisms, regulations, and purchase arrangements.
The article also makes mention for the first time, in my readings, the importance of social workers and keeping them informed about different kinds of welfare beyond just traditional programs that they may have to directly work with. It is stated that the, “…continued avoidance of non-poverty welfare programs puts social work in a poor position from which to advocate for fundamental reform of current budget priorities.” It is conveyed that in the eyes of the author that the traditional mission of social workers is as an advocate for the social welfare of the people has been lost and that social workers need to get back to and embrace that tradition. It is thought that is social workers can reestablish themselves as leaders in the realm of social welfare then they will also be able to more effectively help and return America to a state of more equitable redistribution in the realm of wealth .The article goes on to site that corporate welfare is a major contributor to the growing gap between the rich and the poor as it represents the gross injustices in the distribution of wealth that is currently occurring; a problem that is too big and influential to ignore.
I enjoyed the fact that this article had a call to action. It has been a resounding theme among my articles to have many governmental changes that need to take place to help abolish corporate welfare, but this is the first that call upon a specific group outside of the government structure in the handling of the dismantling of this enormous problem. I think this article is demonstrates a different perspective that seems positive about how to make a change in regards to government with continuing to rely on it. Perhaps this is article and this type of thinking that will prove to be the roots of a positive new social movement.
Conclusion
It appears to me that corporate welfare amounts to nothing more than stealing from the poor to give to the rich. In the not so distant past the nation’s tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals and that corporations found a value in workers and their well-being. But many changes have occurred as the nation rewards more and more favorable preferences directed at big business over the plight of the individual. Corporate tax shares continue to decline. Much needed tax relief to the lowest income earners, most likely already be treading water and struggling to survive is ignored. All the while the nation continues to pay taxes each year that end up going to special interests that neither need, nor deserve, the help.
posted by WelfareAxiom at 11:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home