Our Next Happy Hour

  • No dates present

Event Calendar

« Jan iCalendar Mar »
February 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829EC

Of corporate jets & corporate welfare: The Gaylord Hotel in Aurora

David K. Williams, Jr.

I need a little help understanding something. This, as those of you that know me personally can attest, is not unusual. Let me lay it out:

  1. President Barack Obama decries tax breaks on corporate jets because companies that can afford corporate jets need to pay MORE taxes and not get tax breaks.

  2. The City of Aurora is going to give Gaylord Hotels hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks because they need to pay FEWER taxes.

  3. Gaylord Hotels owns a corporate jet.

In fact, Gaylord Hotels CEO Colin V. Reed, just two years ago, was criticized by a major shareholder “for excessive corporate waste” involving use of the jet.

According to the New York Times, Texas billionaire and 15% owner of Gaylord Hotels, Robert Rowling, wrote a letter to all Gaylord shareholders complaining of

Mr. Reed’s use of the company’s $15 million Gulfsteam G150 private jet, which has been used 36 times to fly back and forth between Florida and Mississippi over the last two years, according to flight logs provided by the company.

(See “2 Tycoons in a Tiff Over Flights on a Corporate Jet.”)


This begs the question of why anyone would think giving millions of public dollars to a company when its private investors complain of excessive corporate waste is a good idea, but I shall leave that for another time.


I need some help on the larger policy question: If giving tax breaks to Gaylord for its corporate jet is bad government policy, how is handing Gaylord $300 million in tax breaks good government policy?


I do not have a Ph.D. in anything (not even an honorary one, and even Mike Tyson has one of those), so I am clearly not smart or educated enough to understand how the government letting a company keep money is bad but the government giving them money is good.


I know this is crazy talk, but how about this?


  • Have one set of rules for all companies. None of them get tax breaks that the rest do not also get. None of them get any subsidy that all the rest do not get.


Of course, this would stop politicians from being able to give out favors to certain corporations and industries at the expense of others.


Perhaps I understand it after all.

BlueCarp

July 9th, 2011 | Category: Aurora, Barack Obama, Colin V. Reed, Corporate Welfare, Gaylord Hotels, PPC, Robert Rowling, corporate jets, corporate tax breaks | Comments are closed

No public money to subsidize the ski industry.

Because of all the weekend skiers heading home, it can take 3 to 4 hours or more to travel east from Summit County back to the front range on a Sunday afternoon in the winter.

This Sunday afternoon congestion headed east on I-70 has been the source of much discussion – and consternation – lately. See “Experts suggest ‘preferred option’ to ease Twin Tunnels bottleneck on I-70” from the Denver Post and “Fix I-70 Day” on the Huffington Post.

Some of the suggestions to fix the problem are highlighted in these two articles.
All of them cost millions and millions (and millions) of dollars. Let us cut right to the chase… the ski chase, that is. Here is a crazy idea: make those that profit off the use of the public highways pay for their expansion.
If the Summit County resorts, and those farther west like Vail and Beaver Creek, want better access to their services, they should pay for that improved access. There is no good reason that the taxpayers of Colorado pay to improve the bottom line of private business.
Why should a family in Pueblo that does not ski pay to help the ski industry? Why should anyone in Sterling that has never even been to the mountains pay to help the ski industry?
They should not.
Let the ski resorts come up with a plan. Let them pay for it. If it is not worth it to them, why should it be worth it to anyone else?
It should not.
Any government money to expand I-70 is nothing but corporate welfare and a subsidy to private business. “Progressives” should be against corporate welfare. “Conservatives” should be against subsidies.

BlueCarp

February 26th, 2011 | Category: Corporate Welfare, Interstate 70, PPC, Ski Resorts, Summit County, private subsidies | Comments are closed

An example of corporatism

This Colorado statute is a perfect example of corporatism.

How much do you want to bet that who ever lobbied for this program had a fleet of old trucks ready to be retired; and was planning on buying a new fleet that qualifies for this government subsidy… er, I mean “qualifies to take this money out of your bank account.”

———————————————————–
C.R.S. 42-1-304. Green truck grant program – created.

(1) There is hereby created in the governor’s energy office the green truck grant program to provide grants to qualified recipients for reductions in truck emissions and energy usage by:

(a)

(I) Reimbursements of twenty-five percent, not to exceed fifty thousand dollars to a qualified recipient, of the overall cost incurred by a qualified recipient in purchasing or installing fuel-efficient technologies and emission-control devices approved by the United States environmental protection agency’s smartway transport partnership program, or any successor program, to reduce fuel consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants from trucks.
(II) The total of all reimbursements issued by the office to qualified recipients pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (a) shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars in a fiscal year.

(b)

(I) Providing grants of up to five thousand dollars per qualified recipient for the retirement and scrapping of a 1989 or older model year truck that is:

(A) Documented to have been in use for at least ten thousand miles during the calendar year preceding the qualified recipient’s application for the grant; and
(B) Donated to an established auto parts recycler, as defined in section 42-4-2201 (1), or a scrap metal recycler, that operates pursuant to all laws, rules, and regulations of the state and the United States environmental protection agency regarding recycling.

(II) The total of all grants issued by the office to qualified recipients pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars in a fiscal year.

(2)

(a) The office shall administer the grant program and shall award reimbursements and grants as provided in this part 3. Reimbursements and grants shall be paid out of the green truck grant program fund created in section 42-1-305.
(b) The office shall adopt policies for the implementation of the green truck grant program. At a minimum, the policies shall specify the procedures for applying for a reimbursement or grant, the form of the reimbursement or grant application, and the information to be provided by the applicant.
(c) The office shall review each reimbursement or grant application received from a qualified recipient and shall make a determination as to whether the reimbursement or grant should be awarded and, subject to the limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the amount of the reimbursement or grant. If the office determines an application is missing any information required to be included with the application, the office may contact the applicant to obtain the missing information.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the ability of an auto parts recycler, as defined in section 42-4-2201 (1), from recycling any part of a scrapped vehicle for use as a replacement part.

Source: L. 2009: Entire part added, (HB 09-1298), ch. 417, p. 2315, § 3, effective June 4.

BlueCarp

October 30th, 2009 | Category: Corporate Welfare, PPC, corporatism | Comments are closed