If you’re wondering where so many Americans got the idea that government can and should micromanage the economy, your state or local economic development agency and its “sidewalk-level socialist” corporations Look no further than the benefits program.

The term “socialism” is used in many ways, but traditionally the government has a financial stake in factories and other “means of production” and uses that leverage to plan and manage the economy. means that Today, this is America’s economic development agency and how it pours millions and billions of tax dollars into select companies in their ongoing efforts to micromanage and shape the economy toward desired outcomes. is perfectly depicted.

It’s been called “sidewalk-level socialism” because of the way central planning permeates the hearts of communities across America. But unlike most economic policies, this is not a question of right or left. Rather, it is insiders versus us commoners, with Democratic and Republican politicians putting aside their differences and working together to keep money and votes flowing.

These programs are regularly exempt from FOIA and other transparency regulations because some insiders have no incentive to tell voters or taxpayers the truth. Politicians can treat economic development agencies as public-funded aids to reelection campaigns, bureaucrats can retain their jobs and develop high-paying careers as consultants in the future, and businesses can be subsidized. checks can continue to be cashed.

With every player in the game cheering for subsidies, the average American rarely hears dissent. As a result, voter confidence in the power of politicians and bureaucrats to run the economy has grown to the point where it is now difficult to find Americans who recognize the problems of building an economy based on corporate welfare. are rising, or even perceiving them to be sold. It has absolutely nothing to do with the central plans of the Socialist Wright.

A new poll by the State Policy Network found that more than 70 percent of American voters believed these subsidies would bring jobs to their communities, attract new businesses and boost growth. It turned out that there is In other words, almost three-quarters of American voters embrace the fundamentally socialist narrative that prosperity comes from central planning and government funding, not from free markets and entrepreneurship. .

Again, this is not a partisan issue. While Democrats are slightly more likely to believe these plans work (55% vs. Republicans 48%), the number of Republican voters who subscribed to this central plan narrative is more than double that of those who do not.

Even Republican elected officials who are considered conservative, although they personally oppose subsidies, “unilaterally disarm” as their neighbors compete on their own subsidy programs. We use the common excuse that we can’t afford to reinforce this story.

First of all, this is an American elected official, not Bernie Sanders, arguing that a free market economy is automatically worse than an economy run by a centrally planned government. . That would be like saying we will conquer North Korea over South Korea, East Germany over West Germany, and the People’s Republic of China over Taiwan or Hong Kong.

More importantly, yes, unilateral disarming is a great idea if you’re going to shoot yourself in the leg. Real-world evidence shows that “economic development” subsidies do not actually develop the economy. Economists across the political spectrum may disagree on many points, but most subsidies do little to change corporate decisions—they would have existed without them. I agree that they do not create more jobs or economic growth than deaf people. Worse, these agreements increase the burden on other taxpayers, adversely affect the state’s long-term financial stability, make it difficult for the government to fund basic public services, and reduce entrepreneurship. There is strong evidence that it suppresses and causes various other harms to communities.

It’s not just economists who say these subsidies don’t do much to change corporate decisions, but so do the people who are employed to make those decisions. 37 years, Community Development Magazine surveyed corporate siters about the factors that most influence their decisions about where to build factories, office buildings, warehouses and other facilities. Year after year, they argue that subsidies are far less important than basic business factors such as labor availability, costs, construction costs, and infrastructure quality.

of survey of the yearonly 13 were “state and local incentives.”^th The most important factor in the site selection decision. It’s not the kind of thing taxpayers spend billions of dollars trying to influence.

The American public is constantly being sold taxpayer-funded misinformation that central planning and corporate benefits outweigh real-world business factors and market forces that reward good decisions and punish bad decisions. It spreads the false narrative of being powerful. It’s long gone to criticize this sidewalk-level socialist narrative for what it really is and hold those making these deals accountable for the damage voters have done to our country in the process. That’s it.

John C. Mozena Economic Accountability Center.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.