tax credits

It's Mischief Night tonight, and I hear the "Wild RINO". Linda McMahon has picked out her Halloween costume for tomorrow evening.

(Try not to scare Rahm Emanuel!, Linda)

One thing that Ms. McMahon is eager to portray is being the self-reliant hardscrabble businesswoman who rose to billions solely through single minded hard work and perseverance.

And just like the sport: Wrestling's fake. And so is the WWE's true committment to free enterprise.

That is, unless your definition of "free enterprise" includes sinking one's snout deep, deep into the public trough guzzling corporate welfare.

From the Journal-Inquirer.

A top aide to Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Linda E. McMahon today defended her company’s acceptance of millions of dollars in state tax credits, as both Republican and Democratic opponents pilloried her for what they called McMahon’s “stimulus package” and “taxpayer-funded bailout.”The attacks by former 2nd District Congressman Robert R. Simmons, the leading Republican seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, and by a Dodd surrogate, state Democratic Party spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan, came after the state subsidies to World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. were reported Thursday by the Journal Inquirer. 

The newspaper cited state records that show WWE has collected nearly $3 million in digital and media tax credits, most of which were issued just eight weeks before McMahon resigned her position as its chief executive officer to run for office.

Yep, Linda McMahon's immensely profitable wrestling empire gets subsidized by the Connecticut taxpayer, who are watching the income tax raised on the top bracket, public services reduced, and the state try and borrow its way through the recession. Indeed, unionized state employees even agreed to concessions, which is more than can be said about the state's would-be entertainment titans.

The apologists for the state's highly subsidized entertainment industry accuse McMahon critics of "jumping the shark" .  You see, it was other politicians who wrote these lucrative credits into the law.

Sorry, none of them are spending millions denouncing bailouts when they run a profitable corporation that takes them themselves.  It's "Happy Days" alright for the McMahon family, but the average CT taxpayers feels like they are in remake of "Jaws" 

So the news media has concluded that Ms. McMahon, whose family controls the vast percentage of the WWE's stock, converted tax credits from the state into funds available for her campaign. Maybe this is a form of "public campaign finance"

But it gets worse.

Despite the fact that the WWE was very profitable notwithstanding the recession, shortly before she left her CEO post  at the WWE Linda McMahon went on a frenzy of layoffs and cost-cutting intended to raise profit margins.

Jan. 9, 2009, 9:38 a.m. ESTMcMahon & Co. has announced that it is cutting 10% of its staff, which should result in annual cost savings of approximately $8 million. In exchange for that, the company will take a one-time charge of $3 million. WWE also noted that the company has completed an evaluation of its operating and capital expenditures and has identified "additional efficiencies." In short, more cost cuts are on the way. The company's ultimate goal is to trim $20 million from its expense structure in 2009. 

I'm the last person to lambaste a business that cuts costs to stave off competition, or to stockpile cash, or to pay off lenders and creditors.  And we are going to see a lot of very necessary cuts like that in Corporate America. But the WWE is essentially a monopoly in pro wrestling, they have consistently earned a profit and have $200 million in cash with virtually no long term debt..     So why the urgency to cut costs?  Well, as I noted the McMahon family owns 70% of the WWE  Let's apply 70% of the $20 million in cut costs; well that means $14 million inures to the McMahon family..

So,does the Wild RINO gets to finance most of her U.S. Senate campaign with "new money" without having to dip into the family fortune? Sure looks it.

McMahon's campaign has run a TV ad telling folks how tough it was for her and Vince starting out, even having to declare bankruptcy and losing their house starting their business.

Hey Linda, like that's special. Please.

What really sickens me is it appears she is paying for this ad using the extra profits she earned after firing over 60 Connecticut employees.  

How many of those 60 WWE's employees are going to lose their house so their old boss can finance her U.S. Senate bid without dipping into the accumulated family fortune?  In 2006 Joe Lieberman eviscerated the campaign of Ned Lamont after running this ad.    

It's tough wearing a costume as a free market Republican and expecting people to believe you; Linda.

Especially when you destroy jobs, not create them . And collect subsidies. Not cut them.

We're onto the trick, Linda. You already got the treat.

The Right is floundering in the healthcare “reform” debate. It’s complicated, but it need not be. How do you make the water cooler case? Tell ‘em “before we let them do anything stupid, we could fix healthcare in 5 easy steps”:

1. Let people buy health insurance across state lines. I live in North Carolina. If folks in my state could buy insurance in Idaho, we would cut our premium almost in half. New Yorkers could reduce premiums by about 2/3 buying in other states. Everyone would have access to the lowest rates in the country. Competition would bring costs way down. Why won’t the government let us?

2. Give poor and working class people tax credits (vouchers) to buy insurance. It’s not hard. Help the poor. Keep the competitive market, too. But for goodness sake, don’t make us pay for rich people’s healthcare and bankrupt private insurance all at once. (A high-risk pool can help people with pre-existing conditions, btw.)

3. De-couple health insurance from our jobs. (Change the tax code.) This coupling is an artifact of WWII wage controls. When your company chooses your insurance, it limits competition and choices. It's very costly, but you don't see the cost. And under the current system, you lose your insurance if you lose your job. Wealthier, employed people get subsidized to get insurance. Unemployed or independent contractors get nothing. 

4. Give greater access to health savings accounts for use on the small stuff. They can save money for old age, or purchase out-of-pocket healthcare. They’ll be more careful with their spending. We’ll eliminate much of the “split-the-check” effect where people over-consume and cost-shift. (For example: Prilosec OTC costs $15 at the store. Prescription Nexium costs a $15 copay (but $150 in reality). These drugs are almost identical. Yet people choose Nexium without a second thought. Why shouldn’t they? Still, $135 unseen gets dinged to the risk pool, so premiums go up.)

5. Stop driving up costs with regs and mandates. In some states, the government forces insurance companies to charge everyone the same rate whether they’re young and healthy, or sick and old. This is terribly costly. High rates mean young people go uninsured. Also, forcing companies to insure people after the fact is not “insurance” and drive up costs even more. Again, carrots for consumers to get insurance are far better than sticks against insurance companies and employers. Of course, consumers pay for those sticks, anyway.

On No 5, the Left has consciously been using these kinds of regulations to drive up costs. This limits people’s “access.” They don’t care. They want medical socialism no matter the cost. The plan is, and always has been, either to hasten the destruction of the insurance market and/or to drive up costs so we’ll cry uncle. Once we cry uncle, they’ll usher in the age of bureaucare. Functionaries will make our healthcare decisions. Bureaucrats will decide if and when you need a drug. You will wait in medical bread-lines for care. Innovation will dry up. Just go to a Cleveland hospital. Find Canadians getting MRIs because Canada has made them wait.