I cannot believe anyone could actually celebrate driving an employer and 25,000 jobs from your community. Every one of those 25,000 workers will buy food, go to movies, and patronize restaurants and bars. The ancillary benefits to a community are remarkable. Sure, the cost to woo Amazon to Gotham were high: deferred taxes and incentives that did not take actual money from public coffers; it just kept some from going in.
For the leftists, that is the real crime. As hard as it is to fathom, there are people who believe that wealth belongs to the state and that they, those in charge, let you keep a portion. Their position is clear when they utter phrases like "they have more than they need" and "you did not build that". I saw this phenomenon described recently as neofeudalism and that characterization fits rather neatly.
Levellers claim it wrong that someone is hungry while another is wealthy beyond comprehension. I say by what moral right is the State entitled to 70% of anyone's income? I am confounded why anyone would oppose a flat tax? 10 or 15% of anyone's income hurts the same. Under that scenario the wealthy still pay more. You may owe $150. Your neighbor might owe $15,000 in taxes. In the same way I contribute more in road funding through gasoline taxes when I drive 40,000 miles a year than my neighbor who commutes a few miles each day.
Should Jeff Bezos pay more for a loaf of bread? Forget I suggested that, AOC will think that a good idea.
None of this was supposed to work this way. The Founders insistence that taxes were to be proportioned equally was on purpose.
By the same token, Trump's so-called emergency funding for The Wall is equally egregious. Whether needed or not, funding in this manner is not how it is supposed to work. Congress, specifically the House, controls the purse. Period.
It was wrong when Indiana Governor Oliver Morton used emergency powers to garner war funding over the objections of a Democrat Statehouse during the Civil War, and it is wrong for the President to pay for pet projects in the same fashion. Both executives may be correct in principle, but wrong in the method.