Charles Koch comes to Dana Point and spits on your corporate subsidies. Everyone freaks out, OJB included.
I’m taking these quotes from this TIME Magazine story on the Koch Bros. trip to OC this weekend, which I encourage you to read in full. Charles Koch spoke (pronunciation note: those last two words rhyme) to a crowd of about 450 on, a bit incredibly, the question of whether businesses should lobby for tax breaks and government subsidies. His stance: “cease and desist!” You could hear Republicans gasping all over the country — but perhaps nowhere more than right here.
Here are the direct quotes that TIME serves up from the smaller-jawed Koch Brother:
“Business leaders (must) recognize that their behavior is suicide, that it is suicide long term. To survive, long-term, they have to start opposing, rather than promoting, corporate welfare.”
“Obviously, this prescription will not be an easy pill for many business people to swallow. Because short term, taking the principled path is going to cost some companies some profits, as it will for Koch Industries. But long term, it will allow business people to continue to own and run their businesses, which none of us will be able to do, in my view, in the future otherwise.”
“[Big banks took] “virtually free money from the Fed” [in exchange for regulations.] Now, the chickens are coming home to roost. The Fed is taking control of these banks. The Fed now decides what businesses they can be in and how they run those businesses.
“[Avoiding government regulatory takeover] means stopping the subsidies, mandates and special privileges for business that enriches the haves at the expense of the have-nots.”
“In my view, we’re heading toward a two-tiered society, a society that is destroying opportunities for the disadvantaged and creating welfare for the rich. Misguided policies are a creating a permanent underclass, crippling our economy and corrupting the business community—present company excepted, of course. But what this is doing, then, is turning more and more Americans against what they mistakenly believe is free enterprise.”
TIME ends the story with this warning:
The Koch-backed network plans to spend $889 million ahead of the 2016 elections, although officials are quick to point out that not all of that is explicitly political. Some of it, advisers say, will be spent pushing against what Koch sees as unjustifiable corporate welfare.
In my mind’s ear, I can already hear Ryan and Cynthia and Zenger and probably Travis pumping their fists and cackling at this development. OK, my friends (or in Zenger’s case, sometime allies of convenience), you win this round. I did not see this one coming — and I’ll bet that neither did the gaggle of CEOs in attendance who one can imagine choking on their fresh Cecil-the-Lion liver-and-kidney paté.
To you, I’ll say only that I’ll be more impressed if I see the Kochs bringing the same level of energy, enthusiasm, and expenditure that they have brought to the drive to extirpate unionization and worker protection laws from the galaxy. (Well, I’ll add that I think that the better reason to reject Creeping Pringleism is that it exacerbates those “permanent underclass” and “corrupting business” issues that they mention, not that it invites greater federal government control, which — depending on the wisdom and fairness of the policies — can be either a good or a bad thing.)
UPDATE INTERLUDE: Anaheim Republican activists Victoria Michaels and Brian Chuchua drove to the St Regis on Saturday hoping to get into the Freedom Partners event. Michaels reports that they were stopped at the kiosk into the resort, not allowed in, and brusquely told to leave immediately after the gentlemen at the kiosk checked to see if Brian’s name was on the guest list. (Brian thought that he had been invited and did not RSVP.) [Victoria] told them we had come to try and meet someone in order to tell them about the August 20 event on climate change and handed them a one page sheet of information. They folded it in half and may have tossed it. [Paraphrasing: We thought that the Koch brothers might be interested, because the theme of this talk fit well with what CATER has been fighting about in Anaheim.]
Update over; now it’s time for me to talk to my fellow Democrats:
Charles Koch just drank our milkshake. SLUUUURRRRRP! (And yes, dammit, it should be OUR milkshake!)
I think that it’s safe to say that it most of the country, the Democratic Party is not thought of as the one favoring big tax breaks for and subsidies to corporations. Here, though, a case can be made that the main opponents of the above are Republicans. (Yes, there are some exceptions — but me, Dr. Moreno, Jeff LeTourneau and others have all been pushed away by the local party’s current leadership.) I’d like to think that we could stand up as a party and say “HELL YES!” to most of Charles Koch’s critique above — even if we don’t agree with his rationale for it and even if we have grave doubts as to it being a sincere priority for him. So — why don’t we do that?
Plenty of local active Democrats — the liberal and environmental wing of the local party — are currently sizzling with enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders’s Presidential campaign. At the same time, they’ve continued to be supportive of local party leadership that props up advocates of subsidies, sweet deals, and tax breaks for corporations and rip-offs and sucker deals for the population. What do you suppose that Sanders would support if he were politically active in Orange County: corporate subsidies, or protecting the people?
I’m putting together a resolution for the next DPOC meeting responding to Charles Koch’s challenge on our our territory. I don’t expect that our Resolutions Committee will meet to consider it, let alone passing it, so it will probably be a 10/75 proposal coming up at the August 25 meeting itself. This is a great chance to highlight the ideological fissures in the Republican Party — IF we can get past our own.
*A wonderful week of Golf at Pelican Hills and the Montage! Hey, walk down to 1000 steps and watch the surfers on Brook Street. Buy some baubles near Broadway and
have a Danish. Heck, Republicanism at its best. Hang out at the Balboa Bay Club and talk that Republican talk. These are truly wonderful people……all with their palms turned
upward. Kind of like the Homeless guys in front of the 99 cent store.
I honestly thought, when I noticed that Zenger had posted and had not paid attention to the comment author here, that this was Zenger parodying you.
I think that you’re agreeing, though, so thanks for that!
Yes, it should be your milkshake, too.
Too bad Brandman, Correa, and Daly are OC’s Dems de jour – hardly distinguishable from our Repuglican kleptocrats except in number. Just waiting for the endorsement of the odious Lucy Dunn and her fake business organ. Oops, I meant organization.
It IS my milkshake too. Where I differ from you, I think, is that you’re against them categorically — much like my party’s anti-war absolutists — whereas I, to paraphrase Obama on wars, am not against ALL corporate subsidies and tax breaks, I’m against DUMB corporate subsidies and tax breaks. Admittedly, in OC I’ve learned to grade their dumbness on a stricter curve than I have elsewhere, because so awfully many of them here do turn out to be dumb.
That is true. I do oppose corporate subsidies categorically. They don’t work and they automatically create recipients and non-recipients, i.e., winners and losers. Ditto using the tax code for grand social engineering projects.
Get rid of the economic string pulling and you’ll clean up half the mess in Washington and Sacramento, and in every town government in the US that still uses public largesse to pay off friends and that promises to bring in revenue to pay for bureaucrats already ample salaries and pensions.
I’m an anti-war absolutist, too, at least insofar as no immediate threat to the commonwealth is detectable.
Yep, that’s probably the main difference between us when it comes to economic policy. You think that I’m naive because I think that it’s acceptable for the government to (if it can be done intelligently and in good faith) pick winners and losers. I think that you’re naive in thinking that refusal to involve the government in such decisions does not also pick winners and losers, just by private means.
Eliminate the corporate form’s limitations on individual liability, start everyone off with the same amount of capital, and prosecute fraud and antitrust regulations (I’d include others as well) and then I concede that you might win the debate. Until then, the notion of beneficent millionaires generating good public economic outcomes — WHILE NOT IMPOSSIBLE — is still going to be rare. (It may also be punished.)
Governance is a lot bigger concept than government — and my concern is limited *governance*, including by warlords. That’s where we diverge.
My concern is lack of governance – even as government gets bigger and costs more and gives away more.
Government without governance is a form of tyranny. And right now OC is full of it.
I think that you’re conflating “governance” and “wise governance.” “Governance” is simply the use of power to compel (or even impel) compliance (generally in the public realm, but it’s useful to consider its application even in the domestic realm.) It’s probably clearest when applied to banks and insurance companies and hospitals, which — so long as they can enforce contracts — can get along quite well with determining how you’re run your life in the absence of a strong governmental hand.
I think that you’re conflating “governance” and “wise governance.”
Of course I am. Sort of like I conflate “chocolate eclair” with “tasty chocolate eclair.” As a practical matter nobody wants an untasty chocolate eclair.
Well, then you’re not engaging the debate. “Governing” is public; “Governance” can be either public or private. To the extent that criticisms of “governing” also apply to non-governmental governance, the eclair in your analogy loses its tasty filling. (Or something.)
Seriously, as this is a fundamental difference between our political views; at some point it would be a good discussion to undertake seriously.
The Koch’s blather a lot about corporate subsidies. But a quick Google search and one realizes they don’t practice what they preach.
Where have the Kochs gotten subsidized? (That’s not intended as a challenge; I really do want to post the links.)
My sense is that while they may believe in this, they have made relatively little attempt to prioritize it. But coming here to do this at an event at the St. Regis was gutsy — or at least it would be if they were really risking much of anything to do it. Still, I’m happy to publicize what they’d said — hearing the responses around OC will be fascinating.
When one doesn’t practice what one preaches, it’s difficult to think that they really believe this.
However, taking what they say at face value, it certainly is more philosophically consistent to be opposed to welfare for citizens AND corporations, versus being opposed to it for citizens but not corporations.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/28/1212161/–Libertarian-Koch-brothers-have-taken-tens-of-millions-in-subsidies#
Haven’t read your piece yet (I know I should do that before I read the comments, and I will) but they are supposedly in favor of lotsa things they “don’t prioritize” – legalized pot, and womens’ reproductive rights come to mind. But who cares, their support of rightwing Republicans for their own selfish economic interests dooms those other causes.
You’re right, you should read the piece first.
This speech is making national news. I’d like to capitalize on it! It surely will have made some people who are mucking up OC sad.
I’d have to agree with Dave, but even if it were possible to determine which subsidies were smart and which were not, I would argue that government is uniquely ill suited to the task. Give a handful of elected officials with no training or experience in the field in question a few billion dollars and a few hours to go through thousands of pages of data to figure out how to allocate it and they will inevitably throw their hands up in the air and give it to the donors who wrote the biggest checks.
Good article, by the way.
No, Sean — not “inevitably.” And the alternative (as I argue above) is simply not necessarily better. If the Angels and Disney were not trying to take advantage of ties to government, they would be taking advantage of ties to whatever powers determined the appropriation of capital and the associated risks. That’s real world.
(Thanks for the compliment!)
Tell you what – I’ll read the book on Chaos theory you recommended, and you can read Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” where he makes much the same point.
I’ve read Hayek. He’s wrong — and for much the same reason that I pose in my comment to Zenger above.
You don’t need government to have serfs. Lack of government, plus private property, private armies and police, and the means and will to use them will do just fine.
Except that when you consider that the defining characteristic of a government is a monopoly on the use of force, anybody who had “private armies and police, and the means and will to use them” would be the government, so your argument is a bit of a Catch-22.
Ask victims of domestic violence or organized crime how many governments actually have a “monopoly on the use of force.” If you consider acts of battery like poisoning, the concept becomes ridiculous.
Right, Sean. And WE are unsuited and undermanned when it comes to determining when our government is paying off lobbyists under the guise of governance – i.e. which are “smart.”
Then there’s the problem of political apologetics in which political grifters like the (insert name here) are absolved for their serial chicaneeries by the partisan adherents for political reasons, i.e. they are Democrats, or Republicans, or because that particular scam purports to pursue a goal my party and I favor (it probably won’t, but who cares? – it must be “smart.”
All government subsidies lead to corruption eventually – sometimes the steps are small and sometimes not.
As a corollary rule we would all do well to remember that big government loves big business. And vice versa.
Mmmmmm. Milkshake.
Delicious.
I pronounce the name with the short “o” sound. But thanks Greg for bringing this monsters’ movements to mind.
Actually, I think in many cases organized criminals ARE the government, especially when they are operating in failed or failing states and within their territory.
*Have never heard the like of it. So glad we are getting a new TV. Our old Panosonic
has lasted 16 years of dutiful service. Amazing technology. The least we can say is:
Use Yamaha sound bars …they are the best. OK, you guys, please start to understand that we are your audience and whatever you say can either bring clarity of the basic waster of time. Kanoodleing…..about WTF!
Alright, alright. Point taken, Ron.
*Yup, those Winships, they say what the rest of us are unable to, or not courageous enough to, articulate.
*Yeah, Chuck Schumer refuses to take our e-mail regarding Guns and Drugs
Don’t Mix. Hilarious hypocrititus……this guy is so deep into the Big Pharma
and the NRA …..the hilarity is overwhelmning.
He refuses to take your e-mail? What does he do with it?
In light of this post, maybe time to get rid of the ad to the upper right?
Will take more than one good speech!
I’d rather see an add boycotting all things Pringle . . .
Disney, TNT, Hardin Honda, McConnell hotels…wait scratch that last one. I don’t think we’ll live long enough to see it.
Maybe not. Well, definitely not.
I saw a Koch brother drinking a pina colada at the st regis
his hair was perfect