The Carrier deal was not crony capitalism

Posted by DC on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 06:25

I saw Johnathan Hoenig on Cavuto's show on FBN melt down over the Carrier deal in Indiana.  He called it crony capitalism and said it's the same thing Hussein Obama did with Solyndra, and President Trump is picking winners and losers.  He has no idea what he's talking about.

This was a deal between Indiana and United Tech (parent company of Carrier) and not a Federal deal.  The Federal government didn't take money from the taxpayers and hand it to a bunch of scam artists.  Instead, the state of Indiana told United Tech that they could keep a bunch of their money they earned if they stayed.  Oh dear, how terrible.

One thing Marxists do very well is to get people to believe that letting someone keep their earnings is the same as giving them money.  I expect better from seemingly smart "free market" proponents like Hoenig.  Theft is not the same thing as not stealing.

If this deal was between the Federal government, and the Feds gave United Tech money, then yes, this would be bad.  It would be President Trump picking winners and losers.  That didn't happen (as I understand it).  Solyndra, for example, had no business model or market.  Without stolen money from the people of all states, they would have never been able to purchase their swank digs and blow money on fun luxuries that had nothing to do with business.  It was an in-your-face scam enabled by Hussein Obama.  They should be in jail right now for the fraud they engaged in.

Carrier does have a business model.  They have a product that people buy.  They survive the best they can in the environment they operate in.  They are a legitimate company that gets to legitimately get to keep their own legitimate earnings.

Why did President Trump get involved?  The Carrier layoffs made it to the news and Trump isolated it and campaigned on such stories.  From his story, he saw the employee on a show talk about how President Trump was going to save their jobs, so he picked up the phone and got involved.  States try and lure businesses by giving them breaks and incentives.  States can do that.  If the people of the state don't like it, they can apply pressure to their Governor and state legislatures.  If you live in that state and think the extra jobs and economic boost are not worth the company keeping their money, then fine.  That's between you, a resident of that state, and your state government.  Is it "fair" that other companies with smaller workforces can't get the Governor and legislatures together to get tax breaks?  No, but the jobs stay to keep the boosting the state economy, and the conversation is out in the open with the American people.  That will help apply pressure to reduce regulations and reduce tax burdens in your state and at the Federal level.

Back to President Trump and the Federal government.  He made it clear he's going to reduce job-strangling regulations that cause companies like Carrier to leave for greener -- or I guess sandier -- pastures.  I do not like him hinting that companies will get penalized for leaving.  That is too far, and not a free market policy.  I don't believe that President Trump, however, is a free market guy.  It may seem like it because he's light years beyond Hussein Obama regarding business friendliness, but that's not hard to do.  I do believe, and hope, that President Trump will reduce regulations and tax theft so businesses have no reason to leave, but I don't expect him to be a free market purist.

In the end, this is a state deal that President Trump kick started, but it's just that; an agreement between United Tech/Carrier and Indiana and is absolutely nothing like the Solyndra scam, unless such information comes forth.

Share on Telegram

Recent Articles