CT News Junkie | State Won’t Say Whether It’s Preparing Counter-Offer for GE

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

State Won’t Say Whether It’s Preparing Counter-Offer for GE

by | Aug 21, 2015 9:36am
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, The Economy, Jobs, Labor, State Budget, Taxes, Fairfield

Christine Stuart file photo

General Electric

In June when lawmakers passed a state budget that would increase corporate business taxes, General Electric, one of the most vocal critics of the budget deal, announced it was exploring a move to another state.

News reports have now surfaced suggesting that GE is doing exactly that, but it is unclear whether Connecticut is trying and convince them to stay.

The Connecticut Post reported Wednesday that Fairfield First Selectman Michael Tetreau said he was expecting Connecticut to offer GE a package of economic incentives to stay. GE is reportedly the town’s largest property taxpayer.

But, at least on Friday, the Malloy administration wasn’t offering specifics.

“While we cannot disclose conversations with individual companies, we always fight aggressively to cultivate growth among companies already here as well as attract new ones,” James Watson, a spokesman for the Department of Economic and Community Development, said Thursday.

GE has been headquartered in Fairfield for 41 years and is exploring a move to Atlanta, according to a report from Bloomberg News. The company also has been meeting with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, according to reports from Capital New York.

GE, which employs 5,700 people in Connecticut in several locations, has not been quiet about its desire to relocate its operations.

“We have formed an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ,” the company said in June. “It is too soon to comment further on the process.”

GE CEO Jeff Immelt sent an email to his Connecticut employees in June lamenting 10 “tough” years trying to maximize profits in the state.

Citing the tax package recently endorsed by the legislature, Immelt said the proposed tax increase of approximately $1.3 billion will be the second highest in the state’s history behind the $2 billion tax hike passed in 2011.

Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said that if the reports about GE relocating are true, then Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration should tell lawmakers if they plan on making a counter-offer.

Fasano also chided the legislative Democrats for accusing GE of bluffing about the relocation efforts because they felt the tax package they passed wouldn’t have the detrimental impact the business community has described.

He said if Democratic lawmakers truly feel GE won’t be impacted by the new state budget, then “why is Gov. Malloy prepping a taxpayer-funded aid package for GE less than two months after he signed the state budget into law?”

House Speaker Brendan Sharkey said he’s confused by Fasano’s remarks.

“First Senator Fasano says we ought to do everything possible to keep GE in Connecticut; Then when he learns the state is doing just that, he complains?” Sharkey said.

He said if there’s something the state can do to keep GE in Connecticut, then that should be explored. In the meantime, Sharkey said, the Republicans should stop “rooting for failure.”

Other Republicans have suggested that the impact of losing GE would be more significant than the company’s roster of 5,700.

In June, Rep. John Frey, R-Ridgefield, suggested GE’s relationships with suppliers and vendors around the state represent a much larger ancillary impact.

“We’re talking 50,000 employees that are either directly or indirectly related to GE,” Frey told the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. “That’s terrifying.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(39) Archived Comments

posted by: shinningstars122 | August 21, 2015  10:59am

shinningstars122

Jeff Immelt’s tough  years as CEO have been brutal, I mean he is barley getting by these days, so of coarse they need a entitlement tax break compliments of the tax payers of CT and the GE employees who actually live in the state.

Just another perfect example of corporatism run amok.

Plus GE is predicting a   very strong 2015 for growth in their industrial sector and have raised their earnings expectations.

Even more the reason to offer them a bail out.

Enjoy it while you can Mr. Immelt as Bernie is coming up fast in the rear view mirror of your red Ferrai.

posted by: art vandelay | August 21, 2015  11:49am

art vandelay

Within a very short period of time GE will pack their bags and move. I’m sure there are other states that will roll out the red carpet and welcome them.  Malloy & his socialist Democrats will be at GE’s gate bidding them farewell.

posted by: art vandelay | August 21, 2015  11:56am

art vandelay

@Shiningstars122,
For the life of my I cannot comprehend why you destain personal wealth.  What is wrong with Mr. Immelt driving a red Ferrari.  He’s worked hard his entire life and earned it.

If it’s your desire to live in a country where everyone is equal, I strongly suggest moving to Russia, Cuba,  Venezuela or for that matter North Korea.  Stop trying to transform this country into a third world nation.  Capitalism has made this country great and people like Jeff Immelt, Donald Trump, & Bill Gates are people who should be admired.

posted by: Janster57 | August 21, 2015  1:14pm

Mr. Sharkey does not comprehend the difference between “rooting for” failure and “pointing out” failure. I know that Malloy sees his transportation hallucination as a ticket to being the federal transportation secretary, but I still can’t figure out what Looney and Sharkey were trying to accomplish with this budget. Absent confiscation of the means of production, you can’t have a worker’s paradise without employers. Buckle up kids. Wait till someone figures out the effect of the stock market drop on revenue projections. It’s not over, it’s just starting.

posted by: GBear423 | August 21, 2015  1:53pm

GBear423

Democrats rushing with a Band-Aid to patch the mortal wound, even if GE accepts the offer (doubt it) the climate in CT is proven to be anti-business.  I am rooting for GE to leave, and if I were an employee I would be packing my things and going with them. Wherever they go, its guaranteed the employees will get to keep more of their wages than they do here.

posted by: State_of_Connecticut_Ombudsman | August 21, 2015  3:01pm

The Democratic Majority (Malloy, Looney, Sharkey, Duff, Bye, etc.) are complicit because they architected a poorly thought out budget that was nothing more than a revenue grab without regard for the ramifications.  They all should be removed from office.

posted by: State_of_Connecticut_Ombudsman | August 21, 2015  4:10pm

Why wasn’t my previous comment posted?

posted by: Cranky | August 21, 2015  4:22pm

What’s terrifying? No vision. Its terrifying that the Legislature and the Governor battle to dump hundreds of millions of TAX dollars into keeping GE around for how long? As long as UBS? Why not take the money that will likely only keep GE around until the next time they hold us up with Republican support for another giveaway and instead take that cash and invest in small businesses who will create jobs that are relevant to the state and surely should last longer than the most recent GE financial product

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 21, 2015  4:44pm

@artvandelay: You spend a lot of effort trying to understand shinningstars’ reasoning. Perhaps he just prefers to be continually misunderstood. Just let him ramble on to his content.

posted by: art vandelay | August 22, 2015  1:07am

art vandelay

If the low information crowd keeps voting these Progressive Socialists into office election after election there will be no private sector businesses left to support the ever growing Welfare State.

Within 5 years or sooner, Sikorsky, General Dynamics, UTC, the insurance companies, GE.  Bristol Meyer and ESPN will all be gone.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for voting these clowns back into office time after time.  If every person who has a private sector job realized that by voting Democrat, they are voting away their livelihood.  They would think twice about what they are doing to themselves.  The problem is they don’t.

posted by: art vandelay | August 22, 2015  7:56am

art vandelay

@Social Butterfly,
The ideologies of Shiningstar122, Politijoe, Gutbomb, and others need to be challenged.  These are hard core leftists who believe government, regulation and taxation are the keys to economic growth and prosperity.  leftists believe our country would be better served if capitalism were crushed and replaced by a utopian socialist society.

They fail to realize that socialism has failed in every respect.  One only needs to look at Greece, Spain, and other countries that are on the brink of economic disaster. They must be made aware that socialism is a dismal failure in every respect.
Somehow leftists feel that the United States can develop a socialist utopia far better than Europeans.  They are delusional. Socialism has never worked and will never work, but they keep dreaming.

Yes they must be challenged. Their ideologies are bankrupt and must be debunked, at every opportunity.

posted by: Politijoe | August 22, 2015  8:53am

Politijoe

@shinningstars and Cranky: well articulated positions which continually fall on the deaf ears of conservatives and libertarians who refuse to reflect on their own misguided notions of wealth. As a result, this cohort routinely confuses the correlation between wealth equality and fair taxation with wealth confiscation. In spite of pointing out the fundamental flaw in their thinking, the collective willful ignorance of this uninformed group remain wedded to their beliefs and not the truth.

The truth is corporations like GE hold states hostage pitting one against the other in a tax race to the bottom at the expense of the middleclass and working poor. The American public has become willing accomplices and bought into this scam under the guise of job creation, the threat of layoffs and instability. This dynamic of course is self-fulfilling. The more we erode labor unions which represent and protect American middleclass workers the the less leverage we have against footloose corporate conglomerates who engage in unfair tax practices, corporate welfare policies, offshoring jobs and worker exploitation.

Of course what the corpotacracy has peddled and what many conservatives and libertarians have bought into is the false belief is that lower taxes equates to higher wages, more jobs and better opportunities. The reality is, if any of this was true we would be drowning in jobs by now and middleclass wages would be in keeping with American productivity, instead just the opposite is true. In spite of significant increases in American productivity middleclass wages have stagnated, although the jobs market has improved were still lagging behind where we should be. However, corporate taxes are at historic lows and corporate profits and CEO salaries are at historic highs. This clearly indicates the wealth and benefits of increased American productivity has gone exclusively to the corporate elite at the expense of the middleclass workforce. The problem is the conservative constituency that continues to protect the corporations and their model of unfettered capitalism won’t accept these facts because it immediately begins to call into question their own flawed notion of American exceptionalism….. and therefore it remains easier to continue with the delusion than address the reality.

posted by: shinningstars122 | August 22, 2015  9:49am

shinningstars122

@Art you continually amaze me that you will go down swinging defending the very people and corporate institutions that have no loyalty or moral obligations to the country that enabled them to enjoy what they have.

That includes paying their fair shares of taxes… I am sure Mr. Immelt paid less than 12%  just like his buddy Mitt.

2/3 of the US economy is driven by consumer spending and if consumers do not see increases in their salaries…well guess what?

You do the math sir.

You and @Socialbutterfly continue to ignore the reality that our economic and political systems are out of balance and broken.

Your solution is to blindly trust in the trickle down failures of Reaganism and hopefully those few crumbs many of us barely see today and will be enough to support a family.

As in the past it will be up to the people to help leverage what is fair for the tens of   millions who actually help drive our economy,not the Jeff Immelts, Trumps or Gates.

It is no surprise you are coming out for Trump @Art and man I do hope you prepare yourself for that crushing and heart breaking political train wreck.

I mean a billionaire reality TV star is going to lead this country and right the ship for tens of millions of the working class?

@Art if you honestly believe that well what can I say?

Plus just for the record Russia is no longer a communists country.

Its crony capitalism baby!

posted by: art vandelay | August 23, 2015  11:03am

art vandelay

Sorry Politijoe in my book taxation is indeed wealth confiscation. The less money government
has, the less it has to spend.  Two worthless social programs that come to mind are the “War on Poverty”, and “War on Drugs”. Two government programs where trillions have been spent with ZERO results.
As a matter of fact both poverty and drug abuse have INCREASED since these programs began.  The only success they have had is increase the number of bureaucrats with government jobs.

Connecticut is a prime example. In 1990 our government functioned well on a 4 billion dollar budget.  In 1991 with the passage of the income tax, our budget mushroomed to over 20 billion. We have nothing to show for it except more bloated state agencies like Human Rights & Opportunities, African-American Affairs & Latino Puerto Rican Affairs.  Do these agencies actually do anything except force the population to become more dependent on government.  I doubt it.  Again all it does is create more government jobs at the expense of the private sector.

The only way an economy and society can prosper is through private sector business free of government regulations and restrictions.

I could go on forever where government has failed.  The more government and political correctness hamper a society the closer we as a nation slip into a third world nation. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders bring us close to this threshold.  The sad thing is we are knocking on the door.

posted by: art vandelay | August 23, 2015  12:08pm

art vandelay

@Shiningstars122,
Here we go again with the greatest of greatest liberal socialist term “fair share”.  Not one liberal or socialist has ever answered that question, what constitutes ones “fair share”.  It’s time for me to answer it for you. There is no definitive answer.  Rich people and corporations could pay 98@ of their income and they still will never pay their “fair share” as long as they produce income.  To a liberal/socialist there is only one answer and that is 100%.  The problem is they will never admit it.

To a liberal/socialist our economic and political systems will continue to be out of balance until the government has taken complete control over them. 

Liberal/socialist/progressives fail to comprehend that the United States had the greatest period of economic prosperity under the administration of Ronald Reagan.

Connecticut’s economy was a perfect example.  During the 80’s our state coffers were bountiful in numbers.  Democrats who controlled the legislature had so much money they did not know what to do with it.  When it was all gone, and the legislature could not control itself, an income tax was imposed.  Our economy was in a depression of which Connecticut never recovered.
Such was the thrust for more revenue, last session our illustrious legislature incorporated the single highest
tax increase in our states history.  The result now is that many major corporations are about to pull up stakes.

Granted Trump may not be the best politician, but I do give him credit for illustrating the disaster liberal/ progressive socialist politicians have created.  He could not do any worse than what Barack Hussain Obama has done these past 6 years.

posted by: art vandelay | August 23, 2015  1:46pm

art vandelay

@Shiningstars122,
The campaign is early and anything can happen between now and the election.  Do I have all my eggs in one basket in regards to Trump securing the Republican nomination?  The answer is an equivocal NO!  Do I expect Hillary to dance her way to the Inaugural Podium?  The answer is again No.  Will it be someone else who comes out from the woodworks?  Could very well be.

I do know this. Trump has transformed the landscape of New York and knows how to work the system at a level on par with the late Robert Moses. He constructed a building on 5th Ave that no one said he could. He transformed a dump of a hotel next to Grand Central Terminal into an architectural jewel.  He turned an abandoned rail yard on the west end of Manhattan into a gleaming complex of much needed housing.  He developed a vast wasteland of neglected land next to the Whitestone into a revenue generating golf course.  How many jobs has Hillary or for that matter Bernie Sanders ever created?
The answer is simple NONE.  Hillary & Bernie cannot compare to the negotiation skills Trump has developed for a positive end result.

I do know this.  I’d rather have a billionaire reality star capitalist sitting in the oval office than any socialist out to destroy our economic system.

We’ve seen what self proclaimed socialists have done to the countries where they have seized power. Fidel in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela.  I certainly would not want a socialist revolution in this country.

posted by: gutbomb86 | August 23, 2015  1:56pm

gutbomb86

“Sorry” @art - per usual you’re dead wrong on most of what you offer. Every time politjoe or myself post on this site, we’re correcting you. Every time. How is it that someone can be as disconnected from reality as you or @socialbutterfly are? It’s amazing.

Here’s a newsflash - the War on Drugs was a huge success if you measure it based on its real goals - the mass incarceration of people of color. I would expect you to know the difference.

Further, you keep spouting this garbage about the failure of the war on poverty as if it’s the same exact people who are still receiving food stamps for the last 40 years. What utter nonsense. People who have needed a helping hand have been working their way off welfare or food stamps or public assistance or whatever else it’s called since the programs were first conceived. People from every skin color or culture. You can’t see it because you live in a bunker, apparently, but in suburban communities like my own I see it all the time. People from the urban area next door get some money together based on hard work and buy their first home and before you know it, they have a good life and often they buy a second home nearby for other family. In fact, in my town people of color have a higher per capita income than white folks. In Connecticut. I’m not suggesting it’s easy, because it isn’t. But it works. Has been working since it began, but you wouldn’t hear that from Fox or any of the other sources of misinformation you apparently use because they have an agenda against poor people. Programs under the so-called “war on poverty” have moved tens of millions of people out of poverty into the middle class. That’s a fact.

posted by: art vandelay | August 23, 2015  2:19pm

art vandelay

@Gutbomb86,
You’re not correcting me.  You’re just offering a difference of opinion which is fine.  The people you describe who have pulled themselves up from the bootstraps and said goodbye to the slums of Hartford & New Haven, did it through their own initiative and motivation.  For this I commend them. They would have done it with or without government social programs.  I guess it goes back to the old biblical proverb.  If I fish for you, you will eat for a day.  If I teach you how to fish, you’ll eat for a lifetime.  The problem is government social programs do not teach people how to fish.

posted by: Politijoe | August 23, 2015  3:15pm

Politijoe

@Gutbomb: Incomplete thinkers like Art who subscribe to Libertarianism are never going to have the self-reflection necessary to look at the broader context of complex issues like poverty. Instead they will always hide behind false patriotism, the myth of American exceptionalism and the fictional narrative of boot-strap independence. Personally, I had the opportunity to experience growing up in public housing, on food stamps with fuel assistance. As a result of government providing a leg-up (not a hand-out) I was able to complete high school with a government supported GED initiative and go onto college with a low-interest government loan and then purchase my first home through a government mortgage program- all opportunities that would not have been available to me otherwise. Therefore I know a little something about public assistance policies and poverty programs that are derived beyond sterotypes, myths and conjecture. This type of knowledge doesn’t have to come first hand, all it requires is an open mind to a broader worldview of the issues surrounding poverty. Unfortunately too many have chosen the intellectually lazy route of false conclusions based on their own unacknowledged empathy gap that is rooted in fear and justified by inaccurately tossing around silly terms like progressive, liberal and socialism. This type of thinking gravitates to the likes of conservative hate radio and Faux news simply because its so easy to understand and subscribes to the very same fear-based, anti-intellectual, limited worldview.

posted by: gutbomb86 | August 23, 2015  3:23pm

gutbomb86

@art - save the twisting of the bible for another chatboard with low-information conservatives. What you posted is an insult to christianity. Jesus was a person of color and he was all about feeding the hungry. He wasn’t about teaching anyone to fish or any of that tripe. It IS good to teach people to fish, but hiring the person to teach the fishing and providing the pole and hook and line ... that’s a War on Poverty program, dude. Total failure by your account.

Differences of opinion are fine, but at the end of the day, people who manage to get off welfare and buy a home will tell you that they could not have done it without the public assistance, and that they and their children would have gone hungry without it.

Do you even listen to yourself?

For taking public assistance and getting themselves out of poverty, I commend them. And so should you. Rather than take public assistance, sometimes people break the law and sell drugs, etc. - the impacts of those behaviors ripple outward throughout a city and region. Face it - social programs keep people from becoming feral. *You* would be feral in a very short period if you found yourself on the street.

And then there’s your bunglehump about “fair share” and the idea that this hasn’t been defined clearly enough ... and then you go so far as to suggest everyone but you believes in 100% taxation.

Well guess what, Art - you showed your cards again. That’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve posted yet.

Fair share has been, and continues to be, well defined as a higher percentage of income as the total income rises. The flat tax concept won’t work but let’s face it - our country would be in a much better position financially if we bumped up the share of taxation in those top brackets by just 5-10%. Instead, we allow the wealthiest people to lather themselves with rooms full of cash that are helping no one. We had them money back in the form of tax cuts while simultaneously planning MASSIVE spending to conduct a pair of foreign wars and also to hand out free pharma to elders.

And you think that’s fine?

The US doesn’t need any more Tax Cut And Spend Republicans. At least the Dems are trying. By any standard of evidence it’s pretty clear the last GOP crew in the white house was actively attempting to bankrupt us. As is the GOP controlled congress.

posted by: Politijoe | August 23, 2015  4:24pm

Politijoe

What the these ill-informed teajahadist refuse to accept is that taxation is not wealth confiscation…..that is about the looniest idea Ive ever heard. The answer to the question of “fair share” is not a number….. its the RATIO RELATIVE TO INCOME. But it really doesn’t matter does it, because those who want to understand the broader complexities of poverty, taxation and wealth will educate themselves. In contrast, those who remain wedded to the false myths of American exceptionalism will continue to hide behind a silly fear-based rhetoric that labels anything or anyone who threatens their limited worldview and self-perception as socialists. By definition what can only be described as an extremely sad, dysfunctional, fearful little life. Which begins to explain the current side show of GOP presidential candidates and their upside down policies.

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 23, 2015  5:15pm

@gutbomb86: You join Politijoe and Shinning Stars as the biggest continual BS plenty warped rhetoric writers’ that are realistically unworthy of response. Neither of you are capable to give Art or any other writer an intelligent message or response yet you keep basking in failure. You are “birds of a feather that flock together.”

posted by: gutbomb86 | August 23, 2015  6:07pm

gutbomb86

@social - You’re being misled by the nonsense on your preferred cable network. I have yet to read a single post from you here that represents an accurate picture of anything in America. Even 50 years ago America. Typically you appear to be a person who is paid to post mean nonsense about Democrats all day. But to you’re likely not even on the Republicans’ payroll - working for them free of charge. Otherwise we would see more cogent arguments. Instead we see the same blurbs posted over and over.

But I know you’re not a robot because from one screen name to another you continually use quotation marks incorrectly in an effort to emphasize your points.

Quotations are supposed to be used to cite someone else’s words. Or, they are meant to imply sarcasm… but you never quote anyone else. So that suggests that you’re being sarcastic and don’t actually mean what you’re saying within the quotes.

And supporting Trump means you’re supporting:

-a misogynist bigot who doesn’t have a grasp of public policy beyond hairplugs and hot air

-a guy who doesn’t understand the cost of building and staffing a wall along the mexico border (hint: bankrupting the US just for starters)

-a guy who doesn’t understand basic international policy whatsoever at a crucial time in world history

-a flip-flopper on just about everything he’s ever said

-a guy who basically admitted he would go ahead and declare bankruptcy to slither away from our debts and thus destabilize the world economy

-a guy who also comes across like a complete moron even by 4th-grader standards.

The only notable thing he’s said thus far, about campaign finance, was copied right out of Bernie Sanders’ playbook.

If you think it’s OK to support Trump because you think he’s saying what you’re thinking… think again. He’s playing you and your party for fools.

Being a misogynist, bigoted blowhard is *not* a selling point for a presidential candidate.

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 23, 2015  6:34pm

@gutbomb: I must have
penetrated your cloud of accepting masked Democraic Socialism as you responded with a barrage on insults that proves that you cannot take the heat and must resort to being an editorial coward by condemning anyone who conflicts with your distorted political ideology. I have you in my prayers. God bless America.

posted by: justsayin | August 23, 2015  7:03pm

Art, good work. To chalenge the way left group is tough they run on misconception, misinformation and fear. The have the angles covered. But they have no solution and a record of failure. Keep the pressure on. CT can not loose GE.

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 23, 2015  8:21pm

@artvandelay:  You clearly describe Politijoe,shinning stars, gutbomb and others as “hard core leftists.” Enough said.

posted by: gutbomb86 | August 23, 2015  10:22pm

gutbomb86

@social - you wouldn’t know what socialism or a democrat were if you found both in your elastic waistband pants. You’re the one living in the cloud, my friend. We’ve been telling you that for quite some time. You have an utterly inaccurate perception of reality. How often do you leave your house or change the channel from Fox? You’re 100% propaganda. All the time.

Look - I laid it out for you. If you support Trump you’re supporting a leap into stupidity. He’s a bigot and a misogynist and a sleazebag. He gleefully admitted as much, and he’s also all too happy to point out that he’d squeezed every penny he could out of Atlantic City and left the place there to rot afterward. He is a cancer. You’re supporting a cancer.

You’ve got 17 candidates to choose from. As near as I can figure it, 16 of them are Clown College dropouts. One of them is under indictment. You would be better served spending less time in these comment threads and trying to learn something from the guy from Ohio. He seems reasonable. Otherwise, you’re just a clown college classmate with the rest of the bobbleheads.

And if you don’t like people criticizing your thoughts and highlighting your flawed thinking, don’t blurt so much crapolla onto the Internet.

posted by: art vandelay | August 24, 2015  12:36am

art vandelay

@Justasaying,
It’s easy to debate hardcore leftists like Politijoe,
Gutbomb & Shiningstars 122.  All one has to do is to present facts. When confronting left wing socialists, their non intellectual responses are to attack the messenger through personal attacks.

posted by: GBear423 | August 24, 2015  5:50am

GBear423

“ill-informed teajahadist”?? 

It’s spelled TeaJihadist, get it right.  The name calling, some of that high browed political discussion from the usual bunch. Art points out the historic examples of failed socialist governments and all that can be mustered is more of the same tired insults at those who would see a more efficient government that was intended by the Framers and has worked thus far, 239 years, tossed out in place of their Socialist Ideology that has already proven to create an impossible debt.

In the last century our once proudly limited Federal Government has grown out of limits, violating its original mandate. Scott Walker may have dropped out of College for a good paying job (which incidentally put him on a path to becoming Governor and presidential candidate), but I think he is a good choice to get the federal government back on track. One recent interview on the National Review site cites him discussing his ideas to return Medicaid to the States, legislative changes to the Tax code in regards to medical/health insurance, and sending control of Transportation, Education, Environmental Protection, Infrastructure, etc all to the States.  That is what needs to happen, get the Feds out of our State business, It is a massive waste of our tax dollars to continue this idiocy that prevents our ability to pay off our national Debt, which is approaching $19 Trillion.
Gutbomb is right about Trump, he is a sideshow that mocks the Presidential contest.

posted by: Greg | August 24, 2015  9:14am

@ PJ- Perhaps your definition of “libertarianism” is a bit off. Libertarians support things such as:

- Ending the single biggest driver of wealth inequality in the country: the Federal Reserve and its QE4Ever policies. Shocking in the various rants on here nobody wants to talk about that.
- Not bailing out the banks a la TARP, et al and letting failing institutions fail by NOT picking winners and losers and subsidizing them with taxpayer money
- Ending corporate subsidies in all forms: corn, ethanol, oil, you name it, etc.
- Ending the “war on drugs” and the mass incarceration of non-violent humans as a result
- Ending the arming of local police with military hardware thus perpetuating the us vs. them between law enforcement and the people they supposedly “serve and protect”
- Ending warrantless crypto-spying on US Citizens
- Ending the military adventures overseas along with closing established military bases all over the planet.
- Ending these absurd experiments in “regime change” and the arming of questionable folks
- Ending the Drone War

Shall I go on?

And yes, we do believe humans should keep their hard earned money away from prying government hands since said tax revenue inevitably works in symbiosis the laundry list above, perpetuating a cycle of horrible policy that needs to be funded so the horrible policy can grow, etc.

Taxes don’t drive inequality- monetary policy does, and I’ll be more than happy to explain exactly how that works if necessary, which is something neither modern day progressives nor conservatives bother to discuss.  Queen Yellen holds more cards for the economic future of this country than President Obama and while the tit-for-tat with corporatist conservatives around tax rates/fair share/etc go on with no end the real problem continues. 

After all, only the government can create and perpetuate an opaque, unaccountable, private institution owned by and for the benefit of the banking system.  And please, before dismissing this as some tin-foil hat gold bug conspiracy theory, please be prepared to outline how ZIRP and QE1-2-3-?? have benefited the working man and the middle class, because i certainly can’t figure it out.

posted by: Truth_To_Power | August 24, 2015  9:26am

politjoe is back to his tricks, playing the diversion game. “

“fair share” is not a number….. its the RATIO RELATIVE TO INCOME” he oft repeats without ever telling anyone what that ratio should be. A ratio IS a number, so in essence he continues bleating ‘fair share is not a number, it’s a number’. What nonsense

posted by: Truth_To_Power | August 24, 2015  9:40am

Ya gotta love the blatant contradictions and hypocrisy in Gutbombs’ statements. He states: “.....you keep spouting this garbage about the failure of the war on poverty as if it’s the same exact people who are still receiving food stamps for the last 40 years. What utter nonsense”, then follows it up with “Programs under the so-called “war on poverty” have moved tens of millions of people out of poverty into the middle class. That’s a fact.”

Would that be the same exact middle class, gut?

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 24, 2015  1:38pm

@gutbomb: You are a continual “proponent of flawed thinking.”

posted by: UpsideDown | August 24, 2015  3:56pm

The hypocrites are in full bloom. Might I suggest a mirror.

posted by: gutbomb86 | August 24, 2015  5:23pm

gutbomb86

@truth to power - Yawn. Seems like you’re not making any sense and I’m not sure I can write it any more clearly, so maybe slow down and take off the angry blinders. I didn’t contradict myself in any way. You may not have understood what I wrote, but that’s on you.

What I wrote was extremely clear. Tens of millions of people have moved out of poverty with the help of anti-poverty programs. Those people - the ones who I said had previously lived in poverty but had moved above that threshold - reached the middle class and have maintained gainful employment and productive lives as members of the middle class.

Yes, that middle class. What the heck is wrong with you?

And you can keep harping all you want about fair rate of taxation for the wealthiest but you’ve asked and have been answered repeatedly on that by PJ, myself, and others. You don’t like it, but that’s just another rotten ham sandwich for you. Eat it. The wealthiest Americans can afford to pay more than they’re paying. Even if it’s just 5-10% more - it will make a huge positive difference in everyone’s lives in the U.S. ... on one hand you’re screaming the financial sky is falling and on the other you’re poo-pooing a reasonable solution to the problem. At the end of the day, we all know the truth - America was prosperous when the rich paid higher taxes. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

You must be a billionaire yourself to want to protect the rest of the billionaires like that.

posted by: art vandelay | August 24, 2015  5:39pm

art vandelay

@Shiningstars122,
What you fail to comprehend is the fact that businesses and corporations are not established to be loyal or be moral.  They are established to produce a successful product, and generate money for its shareholders.  That’s it!  Nothing more and nothing less.  If it needs employees to manufacture its products at a profit, so be it.  It then hires employees.  A company is not obligated to be loyal to anybody or any thing. It’s certainly not obligated to be moral unless obligated by law.  What’s so hard to comprehend about that I ask?

If a corporation decides to pay its CEO 100 times the salary of its least paid employee so be it.  Who are you or any other person be forced to comply to your wishes. The market will dictate the results of the company’s action.  You have every right to boycott that product.  The government has no business dictating what the salary structure of a private corporation should be.

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 24, 2015  7:22pm

@artvandelay Didn’t you get a clue that Shinning Stars wants to fail to comprehend? He is earning your tag as “a hard-core-leftist.”

posted by: Fisherman | August 24, 2015  7:52pm

The State of Connecticut can’t offer GE and “money”... because IT DOESN’T HAVE ANY!

posted by: Politijoe | August 25, 2015  8:22am

Politijoe

@Greg, Art, TTP:

Greg I applaud your views on Libertarian policies-most of which are aligned with Liberal policies, however, I find that at a certain point Libertarian ideology falls right off a cliff and the thinking moves into uncompromising absolutes that are infused with an abundance of judgement, blame and oversimplifications that allow too little room to further the discussion….. And that’s where it loses many Americans including myself.
However, I would like whatever info you would like to share on monetary policy and how it effects middle class economics.

Truth to power: the ratio number would be to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans at least to Clinton area levels of 39% as a good place to start. Is that number specific enough?

Art: you may want to do your homework on the history of Anericsn corporate policy. The reality is American corporations were once highly regulated in many of the ways your describing. And the American people regulated them because they understood unrestricted corporations and the unfettered capitalism that becomes a natural consequence of this was not in the best of society. Corporations were therefore, through policies and regulation were required to work for the betterment of society.