DECEMBER 1997 · VOLUME 18 · NUMBER 12
L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R
DECEMBER 1997 · VOLUME 18 · NUMBER 12
L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R
AS A MEMBER of Rep. Kasich's bipartisan Stop Corporate Welfare! coalition, I would like to clarify a number of points in "Corporate Welfare Strategies" (Multinational Monitor, October 1997). First, the coalition did not focus on cutting an entire package of corporate welfare programs. Though we identified a list of twelve programs to target and Rep. Kasich introduced a bill that included the twelve, the coalition focused most of its lobbying efforts on individual items as they came up in appropriations bills. A great deal of lobbying was done on some programs and virtually none on others.
Second, the campaign was not largely fueled by contrasting corporate welfare with cuts in programs for poor people. My Corporate Wealthfare Project (CWP) was the primary proponent of that strategy. The libertarian coalition members' goal was to eliminate corporate welfare as a way to reduce the role of government. Members representing taxpayer groups wanted to end wasteful government spending. Environmentalists in the coalition sought to cut government programs that harm the environment.
Third, the coalition decided that its final list would contain only items that all the members agreed should be included. Tax breaks, defense spending and programs of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are all listed in my report, Aid for Dependent Corporations, but were not targeted by the coalition because one or more of the groups opposed including those programs. The taxpayer and libertarian groups want to reduce taxes, so wouldn't agree to eliminate any tax breaks. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) wouldn't allow defense and NIH programs to be included because PIRG could only support cutting programs that hurt the environment and claimed to see no adverse environmental impact from the defense and NIH programs discussed.
The framework suggested in "Corporate Welfare Strategies" shows a lack of real world experience in efforts to cut corporate welfare. First and foremost, there are no unanimously agreed upon definitions of corporate welfare or public interest goals and means of achieving those goals. For instance, environmental groups may support government subsidies for development of sustainable products, while libertarian groups argue that investment decisions should be left to the private sector. The members of the Kasich coalition evaluated each program being considered for targeting, based on their organization's corporate welfare definition, public interest goals and acceptable means for achieving those goals. Even when common goals and means exist, cost/benefit analysis is difficult because better information is needed; decisions about keeping or cutting corporate welfare programs are further complicated when conclusions from multiple studies conflict.
To improve the quantity and quality of information available, the CWP has sent letters to the Office of Management and Budget and the Securities and Exchange Commission recommending increased disclosure requirements for agencies doling out corporate welfare and companies receiving subsidies and tax breaks. The CWP also continues to work alone and with coalitions seeking to improve the accountability of or eliminate local, state and federal corporate welfare programs.
Janice C. Shields
Coordinator, Corporate Wealthfare Project
Institute for Business Research