Archive

Pa.’s corporate handouts | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Pa.’s corporate handouts

Pennsylvania’s legacy in corporate welfare — in all, more than $5.7 billion in public subsidies since 2007 — has benefited the chosen few and politically connected while hosing the taxpayers.

Leading the nation in corporate handouts, Pennsylvania ranked 35th in job growth, 31st in personal income growth and 38th in population growth from 2005-15, according to Bob Dick of the Commonwealth Foundation. His report, “The Costs of Corporate Welfare,” documents the folly of government favoritism, which “stunts economic growth, misallocates resources and leads to higher tax bills.”

Doling out millions of dollars to corporations, film producers and racehorse owners diverts resources from private investment, Mr. Dick reports. Rather than benefit state consumers, this creates a system that rewards those entities that know best how to game it.

On this the record is clear: The 10 states spending the least on so-called “economic development” saw faster job growth than those (like Pennsylvania) spending the most.

The alternative to the state’s empty policies of government favoritism is economic freedom that embraces reduced regulations and lower tax burdens. That begins by eliminating corporate welfare handouts and channeling those savings into lower taxes.

Simply picking winners and losers ad nauseam won’t move Pennsylvania beyond economic mediocrity.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.