At this stage of my life -- to borrow Brown's euphemism for his being in God's waiting room -- I've come to expect heavily slanted partisan coverage from the Los Angeles Times. But I have not expected it to be, well, stupid.
Today's paper includes a story which I gather is supposed to show that Fiorina -- of whom I am no fan -- is either lying, mistaken and/or hypocritical about the effect of California's taxes, laws and regulations on employers. The headline is "HP benefited from state tax breaks while Fiorina was CEO." Here are the first three paragraphs of this "shocking" story:
Carly Fiorina, who is staking her U.S. Senate campaign on her corporate record, contends that California's tax structure is hostile to business — one reason, she has said, that she was forced to outsource thousands of jobs when she ran Hewlett-Packard Co.
But while Fiorina was chief executive of the computer giant, the state was hospitable enough to grant the company a controversial $13-million tax refund even though, state officials said, it had already used credits to offset some income tax bills.
One of 21 firms that collectively received more than $80 million in sales tax refunds, HP was awarded $13 million in 2005, when the company posted net earnings of $2.5 billion. That year, California faced a $6-billion budget gap and slashed funding for public health programs, education and law enforcement.Excuse me, but is the Los Angeles Times -- a literally bankrupt company, by the way -- seriously trying to suggest that California's tax structure is NOT hostile to business? Do they really want to take and defend that position? Because if they do, they're going to get about a "0" on the credibility-ometer.
Or maybe they're claiming that the CEO of a company should refrain from claiming tax deductions and refunds to which the company is entitled. In my line of work, however, we would call that "breach of fiduciary duty."
And I absolutely love that the reporter points out that, while HP grossed $2.5 billion, the State of California "faced a $6-billion budget gap" and supposedly "slashed funding" for programs. Wouldn't that be an indictment of the idiot Governor, Assembly and State Senate, rather than of a random CEO? Or are CEO's simply supposed to transfer all profits to whatever states have overspent their tax revenues.
This story is just plain idiotic. Stories like this make independents like me think of voting for candidates like Fiorina just out of spite -- like Nickygate and Whitman.
That is exactly the point, though. In the mind of a Leftist, yes, HP should just give California the money because California needs it. Nevermind why. Calling this stupid, though, almost gives this point of view too much credit; it, Leftism, is worse. It is a pro-failure philosophy that advocates being or becoming a victim.
ReplyDeleteThe Left asserts, as shown by this LA Times article, that if Person B has money and Person A does not have money, then Person A is entitled to the money that Person B has for no other reason than Person A simply exists. Therefore, if Person B does not give Person A that money, Person B is morally broken. Pure and simple.
This is how you get doublespeak phrases like "social responsibility." Real social responsibility is just doing things in such a way that the rights of others are not violated on your way to earning whatever it is you're trying to get out of life. However, when the Left uses that phrase, it is usually combined with "giving back," as if, in the act of working hard and earning positive results from the mental and physical labor expended, the producer has somehow taken something from someone else.
Their position ignores the fact that people enter into voluntary relationships where both parties agree to exchange one thing of value for another. Money for time, time for money. Nobody is taking anything such that you must give back, else, you are not being "socially irresponsible." We already have laws against theft and fraud. And if you don't like a company because they aren't green enough, or they don't donate enough to your favorite charity, guess what? Capitalism is a beautiful thing and it gives the people the choice of voting with their dollars. There is more than one game in town. We don't need socialists mandating what organizations must do in order to be "responsible" to the community. However, if you're a communist, that is exactly what you believe.