Patriot Corporations

Simon’s title here is quite apt.  This is what Obama wants to do to our country:

I’ve talked to Barack a lot about his Patriot Corporation Act, which is not trade per se, but it’s certainly part of the economic package around globalization. The Patriot Corporation Act has not gotten the attention that I would hope it would. But, basically it says that if you play by the rules, if you pay decent wages, health benefits, pension; do your production here; don’t resist unionization on neutral card check, then you will be designated a “Patriot Corporation” and you will get tax advantages and some [preference] on government contracts.

He must be stopped.   Still think McCain is just as bad?

10 thoughts on “Patriot Corporations”

  1. Um, why is this really bad? It’s simply offering a choice. They get tax breaks if they do something…I’m certainly no fan of some unions, although I think unions in certain business areas are ok. However, your choices are:

    1) Continue operating as you are

    2) Decide that the tax breaks are enough that when combined with the Operating Cash Flow (OCF) and other issues that you realize a positive Net Present Value for so doing. And then you do it?

    Forced economic incentives are generally bad, but if you create a choice, and an incentive large enough to generate real business value, and the business heads decide it could actually work for you, then friggin go for it.

    Of course the term Patriot Corporation is pretty bad, it’s like the stupid PATRIOT act. But really, it seems like there’s just nothing to see here.


  2. Oh, I agree it’s better than being forced, but it’s got creepy overtones to it. I’m not in favor, generally, of using tax codes for social engineering.

  3. One reason why this is bad is because of the “neutral card check”, which is anything but neutral. I equate it to voting for sheriff with the incumbent’s largest deputy in the booth with you.

  4. Heck No! McCain over ANY of the Democrat contenders. There are better conservative contenders in the Republican primary (I voted for one of his contenders by the way), but NONE of them would be worse for us than ANY of the Democrats currently running for President. ‘Nuff said. :)

  5. Well, after reading this post I thought this was an OK idea. SWMBO, who actually has significant private sector experience, trashed it over lunch. Her view: this plan would affect 0.01 percent of companies. Besides Wal-Mart, what other company IS NoT already providing minimum wage, health care, and engaging in unoin busting? The services/white collar industry would just get a tax break without doing anything more than they already are. Wife’s words:”This is something that sounds like it’s doing something, but really isn’t.”

    I guess that’s why Obama’s support is greatest among college students and others without business/private sector experience.

  6. It’s bad because it’s blatant anti-competetitive protectionism, besides being a form of regulatory extortion, on the basis of size and scale.
    Little corporations without the wherewithal to compete in such a heavily regulated environment of “MUST Do This and Fill-Out FORM That” – essentially Sarbanes-Oxley on Favoritism Steroids – will be shut out.
    Big ones always love it when they get to control the market and monopolize their customers’ choices. Basically this is the corporate face of Fascism, companies doing the Government dance.

  7. Great idea Barack! Screwing with the free market hasn’t worked in the past, but maybe if we just try harder everything will work out….

    If you “play by the rules” the government designates you a “Patriot Corporation.” The only problem? The .Gov are the ones making the rules. I’ll bet the “rules” will be as convoluted and vague as possible.

  8. Yeah – we always do better when a public-private partnership exists… Wonder how many of the people who support this realize that a telco would have to “cooperate with the .gov” to get this designation

Comments are closed.