PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Some call it shabby “corporate welfare.”

Others call it solid “economic development.”

Never the twain shall meet. And that is too bad for a country that, despite rising far left socialist leaders like Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, still depends on smart capitalism that creates jobs.

In the Wall Street Journal today, deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger wrote this:

“Whatever their tensions with industrial capitalism, American union leaders like George Meany, Lane Kirkland and Leonard Woodcock knew their success depended on the private sector’s success. With the private unions’ decline and the rise of public-sector unions, whose lifeblood is tax revenue, a significant brake on the party’s roll toward socialism disappeared.”

Thus, the rise of socialism.

Both corporate welfare and economic development labels came to the fore last week as Amazon, one of the country’s largest corporations, pulled its plans for a major, new “second headquarters” near New York City.

The company acted after various New York officials raised questions about what they called “corporate welfare.” Which were incentives, including tax abatements, offered to Amazon to entice the company to locate an estimated 25,000 jobs near New York, along with billions of dollars in new investment

The far left cheered the decision to move. Of course, the new jobs and investment went away, too.

As an old economic development manager in Oregon, I thought the incentives would pay off for New York in the form of the new jobs, plus the taxes the new job-holders would pay.

“Are New Yorkers better off after Amazon’s decision to cancel its planned headquarters in the Queens neighborhood of Long Island City?” the Wall Street Journal asked. “It’s a complicated question, weighing the benefits of new high-earning residents against the added strain on local services.”

For me, the “jobs issue” would prevail.

From the day Amazon announced the new headquarters last November, city and state officials drew widespread criticism for offering Amazon $3 billion in tax breaks. The then-newly elected Ocasio-Cortez, the wacko of the far left, lamented the huge giveaway “at a time when our subway is crumbling.”

Ask me if I care what Ocasio-Cortez says or does. I don’t.

She is so far left that what she says is nuts, not to mention based on both inadequate study and naivete, even as she advocates socialism for this country.

Yet, progressive candidates – I hate that word “progressive” because it connotes that those who go by or are given that label somehow have progress in mind, often far from the truth — talking tough about the harms of corporate tax incentives could be setting themselves up for disappointment once elected.

Democrat-run states like Connecticut and New Jersey watch businesses flee punishing corporate and property tax rates.

What these Democrats are finding and will find is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot tarnish the reputation of corporations that provide jobs while lamenting the fact that jobs do not exist – if, in fact, those on the far left ever remember that jobs hang in the balance.

If was still managing economic development programs in Oregon, I would:

• Be willing to consider granting various incentives to companies which are trying to save or expand the number of jobs they provide.
• Part of the consideration would not just revolve around the tired slogan – corporate welfare – it would be a sharp, cogent analysis of the pros and cons of the helping the private sector save or create jobs. And, by pros, I mean estimating the effect of the new taxes the new job-holders would pay – a fact, and an important one, often overlooked by those on the far left.
• And, if incentives made sense, I would expect companies to sign a contract committing to provide the jobs they promise, or, if they cannot make good on the job-creating pledge, to give up the tax or other incentives they might have received at the front end.

Back to the deal involving Amazon. Too bad, I say, for New York as the far left prevailed over reason.

Amazon has options. It will take its jobs and investment elsewhere.

I know it won’t happen, but why not consider Oregon? Such a “second headquarters” location would mean employees could easily travel between “headquarters one” in Seattle and “headquarters two” in the Portland area.

Bring on the new jobs.