Time: Mon Jul 21 10:16:24 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA16395 for [address in tool bar]; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:09:37 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02739; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:07:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:07:11 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "Killing Corporate Welfare" (fwd) <snip> > >KILLING CORPORATE WELFARE > >By John F.McManus > > >Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ) recently introduced H.R. 387, the >Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) Termination Act,Begun in >1971, OPIC is a government agency formed to provide project financing, >investment insurance, and other services for American businesses so >that they can operate risk free in developing nations where investment >environments may be perilous. >The very name of this agency cleverly misleads. OPIC is not "private," >but government: it is not a "corporation" in the real sense, but a >non-taxpaying federal bureacracy feeding at the public trough; and its >greatest beneficiaries aren't "overseas," but right here in corporate >America. It ought to be renamed the Government Agency for Subsidizing >Big Annual Givers (GASBAG) inasmuch as the corporations receiving OPIC >subsidies are among the largest donors to federal re-election campaigns. >Last September, Representative John Kasich (R-OH), a leader of the move >to abolish OPIC,listed some of the projects that received OPIC funding: >"We developed a soft drink bottling company in Poland and in Ghanha,a >travel agency in Armenia. We have magazine publishing in Russia, a >lumber mill in Lithuania, a shrimp farm in Ecuador, pension management >in Columbia, a hotel in Ukranie, and 16 restaurants in Argentina." >To that list Rob Andrews added a luxury hotel in Jamaica, a banana >plantation in Costa Rica, and an art gallery in Hati. He pointed to the >impact on American jobs from OPIC's proponets claim it stimulates >exports and Andrews agrees, but Andrews insists that jobs are the major >exports -- out of the United States. He told the House colleagues: "In >1994, Kimberly-Clark obtained $9.27 million from OPIC; the same year the >Labor Department certified that 600 of Kimberly-Clark's U.S. employees >were adversely affected. Similarly, levi-Strauss obtained $41.8 million >in OPIC insurance, while the government stated that 100 Levi-Strauss >workers in the United States were hurt." >Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting House Delegate from Washington, D.C, >pointed out that "OPIC pays no taxes, pays no dividends, and two-thirds >of its income comes from Treasury securities...." Concerning OPIC's >negative impact on American jobs she cited the following figures: "let >me take four of the large OPIC users: Ford, minus 160,000 jobs here; >Exxon, minus 83,000 jobs here; AT&T, minus 127,000 jobs here." Certainly >not all of these job losses can be attributed entirely to OPIC programs, >but some surely can. >Other corporate fat cats benefiting from OPIC's loans and loan >guarantees include DuPont, Ford, McDonald's,US West, PepsiCo, and >Citicorp. In 1995, while piling up a net income of $3.5 billion and >making a major donation to the Council on Foreign Relations (a practice >followed by numerous other OPIC beneficiaries), CITICORP tapped OPIC's >for $342 million for investment insurance. >Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) correctly noted that OPIC'S >corporate recipients earn a private profit while any default involving >OPIC-insured activity becomes a public obligation: "A private profit and >a public loss -- that's socialism for the rich." >OPIC frees large corporations to invest -- at no risk to themselves -- >in countries carrying D minus or worse credit ratings. OPIC proponets >insist that virtually all of its loans have been repaid and that there >have been almost no insurance claims to honor. But Representative >ED-Royce (R-CA) countered that OPIC operates exactly like the federal >agency that stood behind the savings and loan industry in that that both >"sold the full faith and credit of the United States Government." he >reminded colleagues that no one worried about having to make good on >huge savings and loan losses. A failed OPIC,Royce stated, would cost US >taxpayers $25 Billion. >Unfortunately, many of the congressmen criticizing OPIC and calling for >its demise still believe that direct foreign aid is acceptable. Few >seem to realize that nearly all of the money the federal government >spends is on unconstitutional ventures. In fact, then representative Jan >Meyers (R-KS) ludicrously maintained of OPIC: "It is ...the government >performing its legitimate of assisting American Citizens in their >dealings with foreign countries."Legitimate function? Similarly, >Representative Bereuter (R-NE) declared that because "Japan supports >over 36 percent of its total exports with some form of export credit," >OPIC must do likewise and even be expanded. And Representative Lee >hamilton (D-IN) claimed that "OPIC supports US Foreign policy interests >... in countries whose economic success is in our national interests." >All such political posturing is pure Balderdash! >The bottom line is that OPIC is a federal welfare program enabling huge >U.S. corporations to pursue projects in in foreign countries they >wouldn't dare touch if they were forced to use their own money. In >addition, none of OPIC's congressional opponets questioned OPIC's >possible links to corporate campaign giving. Is it possible that OPIC's >corporate beneficiaries have been funneling some of the federal funds >back into various re-election efforts? >H.R 387 should be supported as a primary step toward re-inforcing >long-dormant constitutional limitations on the federal government. > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: William Bacon <wbacon@voicenet.com> > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail