What does Carrier deal really mean?

President-elect Trumps is being hailed for successfully convincing Carrier to keep jobs in Indiana. But let's really examine this success.

While Carrier announced that 1,000 jobs would be left in Indiana, Trump also announced that Carrier will be given significant tax breaks and incentives even though Carrier has stated that 1,200 jobs will still be transferred from the U.S. to Mexico.

This agreement hardly meets the Trump criteria for keeping jobs in the U.S. and for penalizing companies that move factories from the U.S. in order to improve their bottom line. Carrier and its parent company had a net income in 2015 of over $7 billion.

Any other U.S. corporation thinking about relocating to another country will see the Carrier solution as a guide to obtain tax breaks by just threatening to move a factory offshore.

Rather than an award for not relocating, the government should impose an import duty for the goods now produced in another country equivalent to the money the corporation saved by moving its manufacturing. In addition, if the company has a federal contract (such as Carrier's parent company, which has a $6 billion federal contract), it should be cancelled as soon as possible.

Isn't it about time that U.S. corporations were held to account, or can we expect that every government decision will continue to favor the corporations instead of the people?

Robert Frankel

Schaumburg