Once upon a time, a President or Congressional leader trying to get a bill passed would use earmarks\u2014also known as \u201cpork\u201d\u2014to buy votes from reluctant senators or representatives. In 2006, Congress passed a law ending earmarks. Hooray, we all thought: that\u2019s the end of that. But wait. Now, we have the fiscal cliff bill. It doesn\u2019t have specific earmarks for politicians\u2019 pet projects\u2014like bridges to nowhere or multi-million-dollar football stadiums for private universities\u2014but it certainly does include some bacon-like provisions. Only this time around, they\u2019re not called \u201cpork,\u201d they\u2019re corporate tax incentives that just smell like it.<\/p>\n

Another difference between these corporate tax giveaways and old-fashioned pork is that the new handouts aren\u2019t all new. Many of them\u2014technically known as \u201ctax extenders\u201d\u2014are \u201ctemporary\u201d tax breaks and incentives that are being extended yet again as a way of placating senators and congressional reps into saying yes to the fiscal cliff bill. [Some observers, noting that the bill passed the Senate with a vote of 89 to 8, question whether these provisions were actually needed to get the bill approved.]<\/p>\n

A recent article in the Washington Post offers a top-10 list of the ham sandwiched into the fiscal cliff bill<\/a>. Some of them make sense, but most of them are patently obvious giveaways to corporations with big lobbying and political-contribution budgets. The bill includes 50+ such gifts, which will save their beneficiaries an estimated $76 billion. And, by the way, under the fiscal cliff bill, the breaks are retroactive to 2012, so corporations and individuals can claim them on their 2012 and 2013 tax returns. The Washington Post\u2019s top ten list includes:<\/p>\n

A $9 billion \u201csop for Wall Street banks and major multinationals.<\/p>\n

A rum tax for Puerto Rico<\/p>\n

Cheaper office space for Goldman Sachs<\/p>\n

Help NASCAR build racetracks<\/p>\n

Treat coal from Indian lands as an alternative energy source<\/p>\n

Promote plug-in electric scooters.<\/p>\n

Repair the railroads<\/p>\n

Subsidize Hollywood films<\/p>\n

Crack down on tax cheats\u2026 in prison<\/p>\n

Provide incentives for commuters to take the bus or trains<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Not included in that top 10 list is the already infamous \u201casparagus bailout,\u201d<\/a> a pre-existing, and now extended, tax break for farmers\u2014mostly in Washington state, it seems. Senators pushing this provision say it\u2019s needed because American asparagus farmers have been “devastated” by cheap imported Peruvian asparagus.<\/p>\n

Also not spelled out in the Washington Post summary is a section extending \u201ctax credits for foreign subsidiaries.\u201d Observers who know how to interpret the obtuse language of this provision<\/a> explain that it allows US multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned by companies they own abroad, and that it cost $1.5 billion from 2010 and 2011. The US Chamber [previously known as the US Chamber of Commerce] loves it.<\/p>\n

So, exactly which government officials wrote in which corporate and individual tax extenders? It would be enlightening to to see a chart with those match-ups. For now, we know that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is claiming credit for the plug-in electric scooter incentive and that Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is proud of the asparagus provision. And it\u2019s clear that, during the run-up to passage of the bill, corporate lobbyists put a lot of pressure on the White House. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbyists representing more than 100 companies and organizations, such as General Motors, Time Warner and Coca-Cola went to the White House to push for specific boondoggle extensions. According to the Washington Post<\/a>, the $9 billion corporate, off-shore financing loophole had its very own trade association, whose members include GE, Caterpillar and JP Morgan, and a super-lobbyist\u2014Steve Elmendorf\u2014who was paid $80,000 in 2012 to push for it.<\/p>\n

You can read more about the specifics of these corporate subsidies at Naked Capitalism.<\/a><\/p>\n

Bottom line: In the good old days of pork-barrel politics, some earmarks [certainly not all of them] had real, common-good benefits for ordinary people, and you could, at the very least, see who voted for what. The fiscal cliff deal was far less transparent and more like a secret-Santa gift exchange. Maybe earmarks were better?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Once upon a time, a President or Congressional leader trying to get a bill passed would use earmarks\u2014also known as \u201cpork\u201d\u2014to buy votes from<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":21198,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[998,1136,29,869,93,195,16,1675,946],"tags":[1862,1860,1861],"yoast_head":"\n