• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • America Doesn't Need a Federal Department of Subsidies

    Politicians too often confuse “free money” with “free markets”—that is, they consider themselves pro-business when they work deals that make some businesses happy, even though it usually comes at the expense of the overall economy. So it should be no surprise that President Obama claimed in a Morning Joe interview that he would appoint a Secretary of Business in a second term.

    If he truly understood what has been keeping businesses from creating more new jobs, he would task this new Secretary with eliminating red tape, cutting the most burdensome and useless regulations, opening access to the resources we already have, and stopping his own President from pushing for higher taxes.

    Instead, the only problem the President came up with was that with nine departments, the process for distributing small business loans and export subsidies was too complex.

    Got it? It’s too hard for the government to give money away with all these different departments. Why not just have one for doling out the cash to businesses?

    Was it too hard for Solyndra to get the half-billion dollars it took from taxpayers—a half-billion the taxpayers will never get back? Was it too hard for A123 to qualify for a $250 million loan from the government—$130 million of which it used up before declaring bankruptcy? Was it too hard for Goldman Sachs to figure out Wall Street? Should there have been an easier way to get it the $90 million guaranteed loan for its subsidiary Cogentrix of Alamosa?

    For those who believe that it is already too easy for crony capitalists to get their hands on hard-earned taxpayer dollars, creating a Secretary of Subsidies is the wrong way to go.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to America Doesn't Need a Federal Department of Subsidies

    1. @undefined says:

      Who owned Solyndra? I'm pretty sure it was Wall-Street right? Who has a large majority of lobbyist in Washington? Pharmaceutical companies. Who owns the Pharmaceuticals? Wall-Street..

    2. Jsmith says:

      I can't imagine Congress going along with this.

    3. pete says:

      I would be good if they pared down the 9 departments into 1 department and had 1/9 the staff. That would be a reduction in government that you could measure. Since the nine departments already fall under a cabinet member, why don't they do their executive duty and pare it down without having a new department created. Look at the nine groups and see if one is the most successfull at implementation and then just get rid of the other 8. This is not that hard to do if you have run a business and the money spend it the money that comes out of your own pocket.

    4. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Consolidation sounds good, but I just do not accept the premise of a Department of Business even if the others were completely eliminated. Where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to disburse funds to help businesses start or grow? The best way government can help business is to simply get out of the way…reduce or eliminate taxes and regs. I think that is the "hope and change" Romney is peddling.

    5. mommylinda says:

      i am retired now, but I was in the private business community for 45 years. I would run like hell if the "Secretary of Business" paid any attention to me or my business. I just sounds like the old saw "I am from the government, and I am here to help you."

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×