While I agree tax dollars are the price we pay for certain things..this shows our tax dollars are actually being used for something other than the things you actually mentioned..so which is it???
Should they actually be going to roads and bridges and schools, or should it be going for what basically amounts to just the opposite??? a private club
you seem to have skipped over the descriptions of the proposals that are in this article:
"A coalition of environmental groups, called Floridians for Solar Choice, has secured more than 250,000 signatures of Florida residents toward proposing a ballot initiative to end this anti-solar law. If passed, their constitutional amendment would end the utilities' oligopoly on energy generation in Florida and give homeowners the flexibility to enter into contracts with solar companies, also known as Solar Power Purchase Agreements (SPPA)."
And this regarding Consumers for Smart Solar (CSS): "CSS is pushing Floridians to support a rival amendment that would actually prevent homeowners or businesses from contracting with solar companies that can install solar for no upfront cost."
These states are all getting something in exchange for their "subsidies", usually JOBS being the most important, from which they get income tax revenue and money injected into their local economies. If you want the corporations to give back the subsidies, then the states need to give back the tax revenue they received as a result, otherwise the only gain is to the states because the people are still paying taxes.... I'm all for a fair playing field, but go after campaign reform and quit whipping this dead horse. This is no different than major league teams battling with dollars over the top players, its free market, the highest bidder wins. NY state (Democratic mecca) is offering 10 years of tax free operation to draw businesses into it's state and that's cheered on. But that is corporate welfare according to your definition, but wise management according to others. As long as it's above board, full disclosure and no back room secret deals, I don't see the problem with it. It's free enterprise.
Any particular reason this article has no focus on what the amendments do and why they are good or bad? Just citing the Koch brothers, as has been abused so often in the modern political climate, is likely to make reasonable people disagree with you already.
So because he's been a good businessman and formed relationships with powerful people and institutions this makes him bad in some way? If he were a white liberal and had done everything described in this piece most here would call him a "smart" guy. I'm sensing some racism about but that's usually present where one finds progressivism since it is the philosophical home of white supremacy. I'm just saying....Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, etc etc.
Pages