Browse Tag

corporate welfare

Why Ann Wagner Is Wrong to Attack Heritage Action

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Accountability? We don’t need no stinking accountability.

No, Ann Wagner didn’t actually say that. But her comments to a 2nd District Republican committee meeting on Tuesday gave at least one attendee the impression that Mrs. Wagner opposes the idea of conservatives holding Congress accountable.

Ann Wagner Attacks the Conservative Heritage Action

Rep. Ann Wagner accused the conservative Heritage Action for America of “pitting Republican against Republican” and “never attacking Dems” at the Republican meeting.

I’d like to remind Mrs. Wagner that Heritage Action keeps score on all members of Congress, not just Republicans. Also, the reason Heritage Action and its Sentinels focus their activism on Republicans is because we know the Democrats are a lost cause. Yelling at Democrats doesn’t do a damn thing. (I have direct experience on this. I co-founded an organization that did nothing but yell at Democrats from 2009 to 2012.)

We don’t pit Republicans against Republicans, Mrs. Wagner; we pit members of Congress against their own principles. We hold people accountable, not to our standards, but to the principles people like you campaigned on.

Heritage Action Advances the Policies of Reagan’s Favorite Think-Tank

While no single institution is the sole judge of what is conservative, the Heritage Foundation comes close. Heritage’s white papers were the foundation of the Reagan Revolution. Here are some examples:

With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter’s Afghanistan policy into a more global “doctrine”, including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. According to political analysts Thomas Bodenheimer and Robert Gould, “it was the Heritage Foundation that translated theory into concrete policy. Heritage targeted nine nations for rollback: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam“.[5]

— Source: Wikipedia

And from Christian Science Monitor in 1984 writing about Heritage’s 1,100 page “Mandate for Leadership,” which was something like Reagan’s first administration blueprint:

Like a shadow government – but one with considerable clout – the conservative Heritage Foundation is at work throughout the Reagan administration. Its fingerprints can clearly be seen on the administration’s 1986 budget, now emerging from White House deliberations. And its access in recent days to top government officials, including Cabinet secretaries, has been unprecedented for a private organization.

Even the hardest of the hard left found Reagan’s policies looked like legislative or executive execution of Heritage policy papers:

Since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, the Heritage Foundation has had an incredible impact on Republican policies in America. The right-wing think tank founded by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors is largely to blame for the conservative state we find the country in today.

And, as Richard Amen wrote on We the People blog:

According to conservative writer William F.Buckley, Jr, Reagan acted upon approximately sixty percent of the three volumes of “Mandates” awaiting him when he took office which is why his Presidency was about sixty percent successful.

It’s safe to say that no other institution or think-tank exercised as much influence over the Reagan Administration as did Heritage. Now why wouldn’t Mrs. Wagner want to touch base with Reagan’s favorite think-tank? That’s exactly the service Heritage Action provides her.

Heritage Action launched in 2010 to help conservative legislators stay true to those first principles. Heritage realized that papers don’t change the world–actions do. But without a leader like Reagan to drive Heritage’s idea into law, its research and policy papers were just Saturday afternoon reading for conservative policy wonks.

Heritage Action’s purpose was to remind self-described conservatives in Washington that we don’t win when we don’t differentiate. And that call to differentiate seems precisely what disturbs Mrs. Wagner about Heritage Action.

Export-Import Bank Is a Silly Hill to Die On

Tell me how Mrs. Wagner differentiates herself from Democrats on Export-Import Bank? Wagner and Democrat Claire McCaskill read from identical talking point memos when they spoke to a St. Louis Public Radio reporter. They both threw out the same laughably false “facts” about Ex-Im and jobs, Ex-Im and “level playing fields.” Ann Wagner asking Heritage to attack Dems on Ex-Im is like a soldier calling for mortar fire on his own position.

Mrs. Wagner continued with some “facts,” like saying Ex-Im “is about 13,000 jobs in district. Jobs in this district. It’s not about Boeing.”

Oh really? Perhaps Mrs. Wagner would show us the research supporting her claim that Ex-Im created 13,000 jobs in her district. Because those would be the only 13,000 jobs Ex-Im created according to a Congressional Research Service report:

A Congressional Research Service report has confirmed that Ex-Im shifts jobs; it does not create them: “Economists generally maintain… that subsidizing export financing does not add to the overall level of economic activity, and subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of the domestic economy. [Therefore], promoting exports through subsidized financing…will not permanently raise the level of employment in the economy, but alters the composition of employment among various sectors… and performs poorly as a jobs creation mechanism.”

Wagner is also wrong when she tells people, “This is about leveling the playing field in the International arena, and I will always fight for jobs in the district.” Less and 1/3 of Ex-Im’s loans involve competing subsidies from foreign governments. And the largest recipient of Ex-Im loans, Boeing, has stated it doesn’t need Ex-Im.

As I pointed out in an earlier post on the matter, Ex-Im is not a huge program. It is not the worst example of corporate welfare and government interference in free markets. Instead, Ex-Im is an easy win for principled conservatives. A no-brainer that requires no action. It will just go away.

By defending Ex-Im, Mrs. Wagner has telegraphed how she will handle tougher corporate welfare issues. She will always back corporate welfare queens because they will always cry “jobs.” No facts, just slogans. And this is why I am voting for Bill Slantz for Congress on November 4.

I just don’t understand why Mrs. Wagner would choose the Ex-Im hill to die on?

Hey, Kettle: The Pot Is Calling

What’s more disheartening than the made-up facts was Mrs. Wagner’s silly attack on Heritage Action’s motives. Mrs. Wagner told the audience, which included some Heritage donors and Sentinels, “Heritage is just trying to raise money for itself.”

Remarkable.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION: A psychoanalytical theory, projection is the process whereby one subject believes they see attributes (both good and bad) in another. The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves.

— Source: PROJECTION from Psychological Dictionary

 

Psychologists call it projection. In South St. Louis it was simply  “the pot calling the kettle black”.

Mrs. Wagner is one of the best-funded people in the House. She’s raised nearly $2 million in the current cycle despite running unopposed in her primary.

Here’s Ann Wagner’s fundraising vs. the House average:

Ann Wagner raises well more than the House average, yet she accuses a grassroots activist of taking positions for money. Source: OpenSecrets.org

Money doesn’t fall into a politician’s lap. She has to work for that money. And she does. Ann Wagner is known as one of the hardest working fundraisers in town. This one and Washington.

While Heritage Action does accept donations, fundraising is not high on its activity list. Accountability is. On that point, Mrs. Wagner seems as ill-informed as she is on the proper role of government and on the “conservative-ness” of the Export-Import Bank.

I realize that Mrs. Wagner has to defend her positions against critics like me. I wish she should do it without the use of fabricated “facts” and psychological projection.

And that, my friend, is why I am not voting for Ann Wagner this time around.

 

Note: This post has been updated. Poor writing in the earlier version seemed to diminish Ronald Reagan’s presidency. My apologies. It was totally just crappy writing and did not reflect my views. —wth

Why Politics is Linked to the Stock Market

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Guest Post by Daphne Holmes.

There has been a lot of discussion recently, about how big business has too much influence on government. Of course, Democrat pundits are quick to point the finger at Republicans, accusing them of being in the pocket of big business, a charge that the Republicans also level at the Democrats.

If you look closely and objectively at how our government does whatever it is that it does, it becomes pretty obvious that both parties are well beyond being “in the pocket” of big business. The truth is, you’d be hard-pressed to find any area in which the political parties and big business aren’t one and the same. While the Republican Party’s stated platform is more closely aligned with the swelling movement demanding smaller government and less intrusion into our private lives, that platform has to a great extent become a philosophy rather than a consistent practice.

Let’s look at how the process works, oversimplified of course, in a few steps:

Stock prices drive legislation

Say the shareholders in Corporation “A” want to increase their dividends. The way to do this is to either tap an undeveloped market or increase the company’s share of an existing market. Right off the bat, the company discovers that there are government regulations in place that impede their efforts. Some of those regulations make perfect sense, such as those that make it illegal to sabotage a competitor.

Naturally, the company is under pressure from its investors to proceed with the expansion or product release. Since it will cost far less to donate to elected officials than to re-gear the expansion or abandon the product, the company hires lobbyists to “grease the wheels” by offering much-needed financial support to those elected officials in charge of regulating the company’s operations. The promise of a few hundred thousand (or a few million) dollars to a campaign fund goes a long way toward convincing a candidate to reconsider his or her position on a piece of legislation. Corporations large and small have come to view those contributions to be a normal cost of doing business.

Legislation is met with resistance

Special interest groups with unique agendas stage their own campaigns to impede expansion. Every possible rationale for halting the process comes into play, often appealing to the public’s emotions rather than good business practices, science, or common sense. These special interest groups find ways to appeal to those emotions, so their own funding continues to increase.

The end result is that we have extensive legislation and regulation drafted and passed, only to be challenged ad infinitum, rewritten, and then challenged again. The never-ending cycle, with moneyed interests on both sides, keeps the conflict alive with an increasingly complex mountain of laws and regulations. The more laws and regulations we have in place, the more our elected officials justify investigations, large staffs, and committees – all funded by the lobbies. In the end, stock prices fluctuate accordingly, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Who profits from this cycle?

  1. The businesses’ investors. To them, money spent on lobbying efforts and legally-rationalized bribes are a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they hope to earn from their companies’ ventures. So long as their profits and dividends remain high, they are happy to accept the cost of doing business.
  2. The lobbies that represent opposing factions. The lobby machine can be likened to the arms dealer who sells to both sides of a war. There is no incentive for the conflict in either theater to be resolved. On the contrary, so long as there is conflict, the lobbies are assured of making their money.
  3. The elected officials. They are able to remain in office and exercise their own power as long as there is some reason for them to take a stand. Ironically, our elected officials’ primary efforts are devoted to fighting against something, rather than working for a free and prosperous country.

Who loses?

The American people are the biggest losers in this game. With almost every new piece of legislation and new regulation, our freedoms are limited a little bit more. Elected officials could clean up the mess in a heartbeat, but there is no incentive for them to do so. On the contrary, they recognize that their own jobs and power could be in jeopardy if they decide not to play. As a result, change is slow in the relationship between politics and the stock market.

About the Author

Daphne Holmes contributed this guest post. She is a writer from www.ArrestRecords.com and you can reach her at daphneholmes9@gmail.com.