The Barilla Company of Italy will soon be opening a new pasta factory in Ames. The 350,000 square- foot facility will be the company’s first venture in the United States and will employ about 150 people.

Some people, however, aren’t happy to see the new factory. Many say a $5 million tax incentive package given to the company amounts to corporate welfare.

Cries of corporate welfare are increasing as taxpayers demand that their tax dollars be spent wisely. These complaints are, for the most part, unfounded for many reasons. Let’s start with the term “corporate welfare,” since it really is an incorrect description.

What exactly is the definition of welfare? Webster’s states welfare is “the organized efforts of government agencies granting aid to the poor, the unemployed, etc.”

Welfare is intended for those people below the poverty line. They are not required to pay back the government, nor is any contribution to society required or expected.

Businesses are clearly not poor or impoverished, so I really don’t see how they can be construed as getting a handout. Businesses that receive tax credits, low interest loans and the like are expected to return the taxpayers’ investment.

They return the investment by hiring local citizens, paying a substantially higher tax expense and by making their community a better place to live.

That doesn’t really follow the definition of a handout, does it?

Should governments be forced to lower the playing field to attract businesses to a community? No. Government subsidies to groups like the sugar and peanut industries zap our country’s income annually. Support and stimulation of local business do not amount to subsidies or other “corporate welfare” assistance.

Ideally, the taxpayers shouldn’t be involved with the process of attracting commerce.

Unfortunately, though, we don’t live in an ideal world. Other communities will make the monetary commitment to keep old businesses or draw new ones to their locality. For a city, state or county to turn their eyes and ignore the reality could mean missing out on some very lucrative businesses.

A good example of a public missing out now resides in South Dakota.

Gateway 2000 is now one of the top computer manufacturer/retailers in America. Its profits are expanding at an almost exponential rate and recently went public on the New York Stock Exchange.

What you may not know is that the founder of the company has Iowa roots, and he wanted his business to exist in Sioux City. Unfortunately Iowa has one of the highest business tax rates in the Midwest. The company decided to locate themselves in North Sioux City, which just happens to be across the border in South Dakota. Gateway is just the tip of the iceberg.

Few know that General Motors had Des Moines as one of the finalists for the construction of an entire automobile plant that would produce low-cost, high quality cars called Saturns. Does that name ring a bell?

General Motors picked Spring Hill, Tenn., partly because our local governments weren’t very receptive to the needs of the company. Residents of Iowa missed out on yet another boost to their economy.

What do you call it when companies choose locations outside of Iowa to do business? Certainly not corporate welfare. Politicians against government support of commerce are its biggest supporters when election season draws near. Though they might say “government welfare” is wrong, they always let the voters know they support economic development.

How many more profitable star businesses can we afford to lose? It seems as if our state is only interested in keeping casinos and department stores. With the past taxpayer-sponsored bailouts of Prairie Meadows and Younkers, it’s apparent lawmakers have their priorities skewed.

In the ideal, invisible-hand views of Adam Smith and other classical economists, the government should not be involved with the stimulation of business.

Today, though, we live in a Keynesian world of tax incentives and local bond issues. Claiming that stoking the fires of commerce wastes taxpayers money is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand.

Those who detract from that assistance are part of the reason Iowa has the stagnating economy it does today. Yes, we have low unemployment, but how many of those people are employed in high-paying production jobs like at Gateway and Saturn? Not too many, I’m sure.

There are states and communities that have accepted reality and are profiting from it. In Iowa, however, we seem to be stuck in neutral, wondering why businesses aren’t impressed with our foolish economic virtues.

---

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.