The case against cronies: Libertarians must stand up to corporate greed

Being "pro-business" is not the same as being in favor of free enterprise.  Many businessmen are pleased with their special protection from competition or their government subsidy or special tax break or regulations designed to give them an advantage.  Many business people do not object to the government picking winners and losers as long as they are the one picked.  This article explains why crony capitalism is immoral and why advocates of free markets should expose and condemn it.

Crony capitalism is not just a national issue, but evident here in Nashville when a mandatory minimum fee and regulation are designed to protect established limousine companies from competition, when special tax breaks are given to HCA or Gaylord, and when eminent domain is used to take property from one person and give it to another.

The case against cronies: Libertarians must stand up to corporate greed

Timothy P. Carney , The Atlantic, April 30, 2013 - It's time for a free-market corporate social responsibility. Conservatives who rail against government hand-outs should also blast companies who seek shelter from Washington.

The Republican attack on President Obama's economic policy has changed subtly, but significantly, in the last three years. In 2009, he was allegedly a "socialist" and a "Marxist" who lusted for government control of the entire economy. But lately, that has given way to more nuanced charges of "crony capitalism" -- of giving special, friendly treatment to certain companies and industries, or allowing powerful corporations to essentially write the laws, themselves.

Republicans shouted about Obama's green energy handouts and industry bailouts. Mitt Romney assailed him for picking winners and losers. "Free enterprise works," Romney said in early 2012. "Crony capitalism does not."
.....
When the ethanol industry writes an ethanol mandate, or H&R Block hatches a policy that crushes its small competitors, it's legal. But it's also a naked attempt to extract money from unwilling payers, restrict the freedom of competitors, and deny options to customers. This is the sort of behavior conservatives and libertarians need to denounce. (link)

Top Stories

Palin Accepted $25,000 in Gifts, Alaska Records Show

By James V. Grimaldi and Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writers, Friday, September 26, 2008; A08

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has made a crackdown on gift-giving to state officials a centerpiece of her ethics reform agenda, has accepted gifts valued at $25,367 from industry executives, municipalities and a cultural center whose board includes officials from some of the largest mining interests in the state, a review of state records shows.

The 41 gifts Palin accepted during her 20 months as governor include honorific tributes, expensive artwork and free travel for a family member. They also include more than $2,500 in personal items from Calista, a large Alaska native corporation with a variety of pending state regulatory and budgetary issues, and a gold-nugget pin valued at $1,200 from the city of Nome, which lobbies on municipal, local and capital budget matters, documents show. (read more)

Comment
This does not look good. This does not look good at all. This is depressing news. Maybe there was full disclosure and it is all perfectly legal, but for someone who bills herself as a reformer, she should be above reproach. Accepting gifts from someone seeking favors from the state certainly does not pass the smell test. I don't have too much of a problem with a lobbist buying a poltician a meal, but a $1200 gold nugget pin is a little much. Unless there is a very good rational why this was not a conflict of interest, this could be very damaging to the McCain campaign.

I just now discovered this news item and it was published on Friday. I am surprised it has not made a bigger news splash. There was nothing in our local paper about it and I have not heard it mentioned on any news program. So, maybe it is not such a big deal. I hope that this does not derail the campaign but part of the appeal of the McCain-Palin ticket is that they are reformers and will change the culture of Washington. I want to really believe that. Even if there is no political fallout from this, I still find it disappointing. Call me naive, but I would like to think that there really are honest public servants who have high ethical standards.

With Obama's long time connection and financial dealings with the Chicago slum lord and shady character Antoin "Tony'' Rezko, the Obama campaign is probably reluctant to start comparing ethical records. Nevertheless, this is disappointing. I would like to hear an explanation.

Top Stories