Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Is Loaded With Corporate Welfare

President Biden has just unveiled a new $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” plan, but a shockingly large portion of this bill is actually unrelated to infrastructure.

The plan includes massive subsidies for corporations as well as state and local governments, and comes right after the administration’s proposed increase in the corporate tax rate, which would raise the rate from 21 percent to 28 percent.

There’s $300 billion for manufacturing, $100 billion for electric utilities, $100 billion for broadband, $174 billion for electric vehicles, and a whole lot more. A significant portion of this spending is directed at subsidizing big corporations.

What the plan overlooks is that corporations are already investing heavily in the industries they aim to subsidize. For example, companies like Tesla and Volkswagen have invested billions into developing electric automobiles and charging infrastructure. Biden’s plan would aim to influence consumer spending decisions through the creation of further incentives for such vehicles. In other words, these companies would see their profits boosted as a result of artificially increased demand. The same goes for Verizon and T-Mobile that have invested in broadband, and Mitsubishi and Siemens that have invested in wind energy.

Subsidizing multi-billion dollar corporations and pumping up their profits is corporate welfare, not an infrastructure plan. The private sector built hundreds of thousands of gas stations across the country, and if there is demand for it, they will do the same with charging stations for EVs. A federal takeover of business investment decisions in this manner will inevitably have repercussions.

The Biden administration has included $100 billion to “decarbonize” the US electric grid, essentially eliminating coal and natural gas, alongside $213 billion for affordable housing and $400 billion to bolster home health-care. Despite President Biden’s push for bipartisanship, partisan political spending runs through his plan.

This plan comes on the heels of Biden's proposed corporate tax hikes.

The current administration is betting that damage caused by jacking up taxes will be outweighed by the massive amount of federal spending in this proposal. As the president of the Tax Foundation, Scott A. Hodge put it, “Based on CBO’s (Congressional Budget Office) assessment of the economic and budgetary effects of federal investment, there is no reason to believe that the economy will be better off with such a trade.”

The CBO estimates that $2 trillion in federal spending will yield about $1.3 trillion in actual investment. Since government investment only results in half the returns of private investment, we would be much better off if the $2 trillion in corporate tax increases that Biden needs to fund this plan were left in the hands of the private sector.

This plan would be a massive circular flow of revenue with increased corporate taxes funding subsidies for large companies, ultimately decreasing investment and long term capital formation. As federal spending increases to unprecedented levels, state and local governments become nothing more than the administrators of a giant national government.

Bureaucracies are notoriously and inherently inefficient, the economist Ludwig von Mises has pointed out.

“It is a widespread illusion that the effi­ciency of government bureaus could be improved by management engineers and their methods of scientific management. . . . What they call deficiencies and faults of the management of administrative agencies are necessary properties. A bureau is not a profit-seeking enterprise; it cannot make use of any economic calculation. . . . It is out of the question to improve its management by reshaping it ac­cording to the pattern of private business."

Expanding bureaucracy will only exacerbate these effects. The expenses and delays involved in collecting trillions of dollars in additional corporate taxes, running them through Washington and eventually using them to finance countless programs only serve as further discouragement against pursuing such a plan.

Overall, a thorough analysis of this proposal reveals that it would ultimately do more harm than good. In addition to the high levels of political spending and unnecessary intervention in business investment decisions, this plan would be a burden on the economy, reducing investment, growth, and prosperity over the long run.

Aadi Golchha

Aadi Golchha is the author of "The Socialist Trap: How the Leftist Utopia Will Destroy America" and an independent political analyst.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Biden’s $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan Is Loaded With Corporate Welfare

You Can’t Regulate Away Crony Capitalism

In a time of political polarization, it can be reassuring when the left and the right agree on an issue. One such area of consensus is the recognition of crony capitalism where big business and government work together for their own interests through systems of reciprocal favors.

The Taxi Industry Is a Prime Example of Crony Capitalism

An example of crony capitalism can be seen in the conflict between rideshare companies, like Uber and Lyft, and the taxi industry. Because Uber poses a competitive threat to the taxi business, the taxi industry has pushed hard to ban Uber from cities across the country by lobbying local governments with varying degrees of success.

The taxi industry has enjoyed a monopoly for a long time thanks to their close relationship with government. By creating occupational licenses and charging what is often several hundred thousand dollars for a medallion, the taxi industry posed massive barriers to entry on their competition. Now, this government-sanctioned monopoly is facing an inevitable dissolution because of the innovation of ridesharing companies.

Although both sides of the political spectrum may agree that relationships like the one between the taxi industry and local governments are a problem, they often disagree on the solution.

The Solution of Increased Regulation Is No Solution at All

The solution usually proposed by the left is to give the government more power to regulate business. The theory is that if we can increase the scope of the government, then government can clamp down on big business. But although this may sound good initially, it ignores the incentives created by government regulations.

When government has more power to regulate business, businesses will respond by shifting more of their resources towards influencing the government to intervene in their favor. Businesses are incentivized to twist the law to their own advantage. Put simply, when the government has the power to control businesses, businesses will end up controlling the government.

Increasing the scope of government over business accelerates the problem of crony capitalism in a cyclical manner which resembles a positive feedback loop. The government is given more power to regulate business, so businesses shift more resources towards gaining advantages using government power, and on and on it goes. Although many people who want the government to regulate business may have good intentions, in reality, this proposal ends up contributing to the very problem it seeks to solve.

Another costly effect of regulations is that they disproportionately harm small businesses. Bigger businesses often have the resources to deal with costs from regulations (or to twist regulations to their own advantage), but small businesses frequently do not. Regulations impose costs on businesses in the forms of both time and money, neither of which small businesses can afford to re-allocate if they want to remain competitive in their market.

Zero-Sum, Rent-Seeking Behavior

Regulations, then, decrease competition and shift the market towards monopoly in two ways. Not only do they incentivize companies to use government power to their own advantage and to the detriment of competitors, but regulations also bury small businesses in compliance costs.

Government regulations lead to what economists call “rent-seeking.” Rent-seeking, in this case, is when businesses divert their resources towards capturing a bigger portion of the existing wealth in a market instead of using their resources to create new wealth.

One of the defining characteristics of a free market is that it allows for the creation of wealth instead of merely the spread of existing wealth. In a free market, people can trade resources in a way that is mutually beneficial and produces a net gain for each party. But the introduction of government force into the equation shifts things towards a zero-sum game where one party benefits at the expense of another.

Government force in the form of regulations incentivizes this zero-sum, rent-seeking behavior. What this then leads to in a market is inefficiency, corruption, and less competition.

Economist Frederic Bastiat may have summed it up best when he said, “As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”

The solution to crony capitalism that logically follows from all of this is quite simple. The solution is to decrease and limit the scope of government power. The less power the government has to regulate businesses, the less incentive businesses have to get in bed with the government. If government intervention is decreased and limited to only what is absolutely necessary, we will see the problem of crony capitalism radically diminish in both frequency and severity.

Proposals for government regulations are a classic case of why policies must be based on more than merely good intentions. If one wants to evaluate a proposed policy, one of the best ways to do so is to consider the incentives that it will produce and the effects those incentives will have. Government regulations are a case where, although unintended, the results are very often negative.


Sam Dugan


Sam Dugan is a fourth-year undergraduate student at West Chester University of PA, studying economics and philosophy.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Growler bill pits Florida microbreweries against big-money beer interests

Growler bill pits Florida microbreweries against big-money beer interests

Florida’s Republican lawmakers frequently talk about creating a business-friendly climate. But Monday, the Senate Rules Committee voted 9-4 for a bill that would heavily restrict a burgeoning industry in Florida: craft breweries.

What started as an effort by Florida microbreweries to sell beer to consumers in popular half-gallon “growler'’ containers has morphed into a measure some say could put them out of business by strictly limiting retail operations.

SB 1714 is heavily backed by the Florida Beer Wholesalers Association, which has controlled beer distribution in the state for decades. The group has at least doubled its contributions to the re-election campaigns of senators who have voted on the measure, which was approved Monday by the powerful Rules Committee.

Call it a sobering civics lesson in the power of campaign cash.

Despite Attempts, Government Regulation Won’t Stifle Uber Without A Fight

Despite Attempts, Government Regulation Won’t Stifle Uber Without A Fight 

There isn’t much a smartphone can’t do these days. Now, it can even hail you a cab, using the app Uber. But regulators and the government bureaucrats are trying to stifle the service.

For those unfamiliar, Uber is an app that basically lets you hire a taxi or limousine with an in-app reservation service. Users can see reviews of the drivers. Uber uses independent contractors to provide the rides, and riders can pay on the app and follow the driver via GPS, as well.

Existing cab companies could all provide what Uber does, but they don’t. They would rather use the government to eliminate competition through regulations.

Florida governor’s budget boosts cash for corporate welfare

Among the largest individual increases, however, is a $256 million boost to the Department of Economic Opportunity for tax incentives and breaks to industries that meet goals for creating jobs.

via megalextoria.com

Crony Capitalist Blowout

There’s plenty to lament about the capital and income tax hikes, but the bill’s seedier underside is the $40 billion or so in tax payoffs to every crony capitalist and special pleader with a lobbyist worth his million-dollar salary. Congress and the White House want everyone to ignore this corporate-welfare blowout, so allow us to shine a light on the merriment.

via megalextoria.com

Plant that got $150M in taxpayer money to make Volt batteries furloughs workers

“Considering the lack of demand for electric vehicles, despite billions of dollars from the Obama administration that were supposed to stimulate it, it’s not surprising what has happened with LG Chem. Just because a ton of money is poured into a product does not mean that people will buy it,” Paul Chesser, an associate fellow with the National Legal and Policy Center, told FoxNews.com.

The 650,000-square-foot, $300 million facility was slated to produce 15,000 batteries per year, while creating hundreds of new jobs. But to date, only 200 workers are employed at the plant by by the South Korean company. Batteries for the Chevy Volts that have been produced have been made by an LG plant in South Korea.

via megalextoria.com