Again, easily solved...no corporate welfare of any kind...no improprieties tolerated in the award of any government contracts...punishments severe, mandatory and immediate...
Who watches the watchmen?
Corporate welfare is a horrible term . There is a big difference between a tax break on money a corporation earned and handing that money to someone who didn't earn it. It presumes that money was the public and it was given back .. though of course we have all of the illegal real handout crap that occurred during the Lehman crash to consider.
But simply banning such handouts and tax breaks probably won't work. That is how you get $5000 toilet seats. They simply find another way to get the money pushed around.. but its largely symbiotic. Corporation scratches politician's back, politician uses his power to help corporation (or corporate sector) The power lies largely with the offical..and the company must find ways to reward the politician - political contributions, putting the work in his district, providing information mining on voters ( Google/Facebook) or influencing voters( MSM & social media) and the politician must have the power to benefit those corporations. Somewhere you have to interfere with that process and if possible, channel or disperse that energy into areas where damage is minimized. Preventing political contributions from any entity or individual in business with the government will help - Glenn Reynolds revolving door surtax would help, and requiring corporate taxes to fall on everyone under the same rules ( no carve outs /subsidy for an industry or company ) and steep penalties as you suggest will help. But I still feel they will find a way.
We do need regulation, and I think it will help if we limit that power by returning it to the individual states where it belongs - but the problem will persist at the state level, but now at least there are 50 governments to bribe..) SO EPA, etc are all State things, not federal.
But I think no matter what you do these jerks will barrel through your paper barrier and implement thier own systems. Its probably better to channel that flow than to try and dam it up. The founders knew there would be graft and corruption in their government because it was a government of men - so they sought to minimize the opportunities for and damage done by it.
I think Bill Whittle's ala carte government idea is a good one. We have welfare ,and social security, schooling , and even health care programs offered by the government. At age 18 you can pick which programs you will choose to participate in. You can STOP participating at any time. If you wish to participate again, you have to pay the real value (accounting for inflation) of the back taxes ( back to 18 if you never entered) before you can get benefits. Those programs can only use money they collect from participants via taxes, and they MAY NOT borrow. That way you make the liberals say out loud what they always leave unspoken..they have their program, their program can tax participants however it needs to. "WE NEED TO USE FORCE AGAINST THE UNWILLING!"
I saw that Young Turk guy debating Ben Shapiro on you tube.. and he claims that "of course the healthy subsidies the sick... that's insurance" and I was so disappointed Ben did not take him down on that . No 1) Insurance is a service you purchase voluntarily and with consent. If you don't like the plan one guy is offering you can find one that suits you. Single Payer is single decider. The government Constitutionally has no power to do this, so shouldn't Democrats be first pursuing an amendment to gain that consent instead of running roughshod over the people using improper processes, text that originated in the senate and judicial corruption to mangle words to achieve this? Is consent to this "insurance" important, or are you so sure that you know better that you are comfortable aiming guns at people's heads and telling them what decisions to make? And force him to answer the question.
I am fine doing even the military as voluntary pay way as well. Don't believe in War? Don't believe in having a strong military... then don't pay for it. Of course we will have a formal program where foreign powers can legally bid for and peacefully seize your household, people and all, as the spoils of war... wanna bet everyone pays?
Other benefits aren't so easy to deny.. wen they truely are in the general welfare. National road systems for instance. Even if you don't drive you are benefiting from goods delivered over a road.
There should be a National Standards and Regulatory body..who works on and comes up with standards and practices -- standardization in say - grades of gas will make gas cheaper as then refineries don't hove to retool to make gas for California, etc. This body would have NO legal Authority- Much like the IETF- if you produce crap it won't be used. .. It would simply publish standards which state or other entities could adopt, or adopt with amendments. - Again everyone benefits - a true general welfare service.
There should also be a statistical bureau that collects and publishes data - on crime, economics, census, etc. Their job would NOT be to analyze it, only to publish it. Others can crunch numbers if they have a question they want to answer..again everyone would eventually benefit from that information being available.
For things that are really general welfare - they actually benefit everyone, and where individuals can't be denied the benefits they provide, or charged directly for that benefit, I am not sure how to ensure they are funded - without opening a door to more graft and sinecure positions. What we need is a test that ensures a given function will in fact be to the entire public's benefit.
Overall a RIGHT to opt out of any government program (with the consequence you can't or will be prevented from getting any benefit from it) will help keep a lot of things in check