<<  <  >  >>

Page 19

Armey (R-Tex.)--to appoint an independent panel to bundle military cuts in a single bill for

a yes or no vote without amendments--turned out to be a winner. It got the job done, and

even in California where we were hit very hard by military downsizing, most of us believe

that we are all better off. We should follow the same procedure with corporate welfare.

As the letter in the Appendix indicates, as a general rule, Silicon Valley CEOs like

smaller government and lower taxes and are willing to forgo subsidies to achieve those

goals. The popular impression that CEOs cling strongly to their corporate welfare is

completely inaccurate and stems from two sources: (1) a few CEOs whose companies

receive massive subsidies and who do fight for them and (2) industry lobbyists who are out

of touch with the companies they allegedly represent.

In 1995 I testified before a House subcommittee;16 my opponent was a lobbyist

from the American Electronics Association. His testimony started with, "We represent

10,000 corporations. . . ." What struck me was that my company was a member of AEA

and that we were paying this man to argue against me! The AEA was out of touch with

the Silicon Valley CEOs I know and absolutely misrepresented my position. Furthermore,

the AEA had never polled me to determine whether or not our company wanted them to

lobby for maintaining Commerce Department subsidies. The AEA started as a Silicon

Valley-based electronics organization. Now, like many other lobbying organizations, it

has moved to Washington and been co-opted by the pork-barrel process. One unspoken

assumption behind the AEA seems to be, "Our job is to bring home the pork for

electronics companies." Although many of us agree with tactical positions taken by the

AEA on workplace or technical issues, I know that there is no consensus support for

pork-barrel politics among high-tech CEOs. When I returned home I fired the AEA; we

are no longer a member.

We were also a member of the National Association of Manufacturers. As I noted

earlier, I do not believe the American taxpayer should be compelled to subsidize the sale

of American products overseas. A recent cover story of the NAM newsletter was titled,

"NAM Report Proves Export Financing Is Critical to Job Creation." NAM favors taxing

people to subsidize exports. They argue that the Japanese, French, and Spanish do it, and

we must also in order to be competitive. In other words, they are using every tired

argument I debunked in my testimony to justify their favored form of corporate welfare. I

fired NAM after I saw that article.

Conclusion

Our government did best for its people when it stayed near its founding principles of

free markets, limited government, and enlightened self-interest. It did better economically,

and it did better morally.

The rationales for government's now taking more than one-third of what