Do we negotiate with terrorists (even if they are US Corporations)

Do we negotiate with terrorists?  If the terrorist is Muslim, then the answer is no. But, if the terrorist is a big U.S. corporation, then the answer is usually.

Take the case of Caterpillar Incorporated.

Caterpillar Incorporated forecasts earnings of $41 Billion this year and had earnings in the last three months of $792 Million. So, clearly they anticipate that their “razor” thin margins are in jeopardy if the corporate income tax in Illinois would increase. I am not sure which happened first. It could have been the states near Illinois (Indiana/Nebraska) approached CAT about relocating first (and if that is the case, I might take back my premise) to bring jobs to their citizens. Or, possibly CAT saw the Illinois legislature was going to try to lower its debt by taxing its corporate citizens at a higher rate so they were trying to avoid the increased taxes. The end result of both of these actions is that Caterpillar is trying to negotiate a long-term sweetheart deal in which they pay very little in taxes. The CEO of Caterpillar sent a letter to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn stating, "because of concerns that the direction the state is heading isn't favorable to business," CAT was going to look at moving its headquarters.

So, terrorist is a strong word to call a company that has done nothing remotely as sinister as Al Qaeda, but what would happen to Peoria, Illinois if they left. The town would most likely be destroyed (at least economically). If everyone had to move to keep their jobs, families would be uprooted from their community and the community would lose out too. In the midst of a housing crisis, a glut of houses would hit the Peoria market with no hope for a strong rebound because the largest employer is gone. Also, think of all of the organizations and businesses that would suffer without the largest employer in the area present. The banks, grocery stores, and churches which depend on those people would suffer just to name a few. So, the picture is bleak.

CAT has no problem making money on Illinois Interstate projects, moving their products on the highways, or using the other infrastructure of Illinois. What would happen if CAT happened to catch on fire, the fire department would be there. What if they had a contract that was reneged upon? The Courts would enforce the contract. In other words, CAT has no problem using the government services, but just does not want to pay for them. Another question might be, “Why does the right complain when poor people do this, but have no problems when people who can easily afford to pay, don’t.”

CAT wants it both ways and wants Illinois to negotiate their tax bill down or it will take its toys and go. This corporate temper tantrum, which is not solely displayed by CAT, is one of the reasons why state and national governments cannot pay down their debt. The companies will not hire anyone nor will they pay for the government that needs to provide services. (Just because someone is out of work does not mean they do not need to eat, have shelter, provide for their family, etc.). By the way, do you think the department of revenue could keep a straight face if I would threaten to leave the state if they did not re-negotiate my tax bill? And yet, I thought the 14^th Amendment said I would get equal protection under the law. That does not seem equal to me.

This must be an isolated event.

Try again. This happens whenever professional sports teams threaten to live when they are not given sweetheart deals. That they have a monopoly once inside their stadium is not enough ways to screw the fans, they want you to pay their taxes so they can bless you with the presence of a sports team. For fans that truly bleed their teams’ colors, this too is the act of a terrorist. Baltimore Colts leave for Indy so Baltimore steals the Cleveland Browns. Did the fans of Cleveland deserve to lose their Browns? No, even if they are from Cleveland. The football Cardinals did it to St. Louis too, but St. Louis showed Bill Bidwell by stealing the LA Rams and winning a Superbowl (not just finishing as runner-up). I cannot list all of the teams that have extorted the public, but the list is long and distinguished.

So government does not seem to have a problem negotiating with corporate terrorists because the corporations realize that the politician who lets the employer or sports team leave town will not be re-elected so the politicians will do what it takes to make them happy (these same organizations also gave the politician who agrees with them a huge campaign contribution – you know, quid pro quo). This kind of sounds like the pro-athlete that wants to renegotiate his contract because he knows the team needs him and has no other options but to pay him. And again, most people seem to find this deplorable.

What does everyone get out of this in the long run

The billionaire owners do not need to go without caviar and champagne one night if they would have had to pay those taxes. Thank goodness they do not have to suffer the way Cub fans have to year after year. And, regular Joes can expect to pay more taxes. After all, government does not become cheaper just because a corporation or sports team stays in town due to a huge tax incentive.